Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

To be concerned at this judge's comments?

56 replies

WifeofDarth · 09/10/2015 21:01

Just read report of a terrible case of a toddler drowning in pond while mother was in the house checking FB on her phone.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-34491753
Absolutely tragic.
But AIBU to think that the judge was being too harsh in saying that any future children she may have will be removed from her as she is a negligent and appalling parent?
Of course she shouldn't have allowed herself to get sidetracked by FB (especially with a pond in the garden). But isn't it almost impossible to survey all of your children 100% of the time? I think that no matter how hard we try sometimes accidents will happen because we are bound to slip up at one time or another.

Does this create a precedent for any parent who is unfortunate enough to lose a child through a one-off accident to be criminalised? How does that help anyone?
(am assuming btw that this was a first incident, and that the mother hadn't previously had reason to be warned about inattention)

OP posts:

SanityClause · 10/10/2015 08:51

DS once fell in a pond in the woods, when he was about 3.

The difference was that I was there behind him, to fish him out.

Garden ponds can be really dangerous, because parents may easily become distracted (by an important phone call, or cleaning up another child's poonami, for example) for the very short time it may take a child to drown. Which is why they often have a grill placed over them.

TitusGibbonicus · 10/10/2015 09:05

"Punished enough" a phrase only applied to women who kill their kids through negligence.

Iliveinalighthousewiththeghost · 10/10/2015 11:27

But she has been punished enough though, Titus. Suffering the loss of her child, being completely guilt ridden and torn apart, and also knowing she will have any subsequent children taken from her, waking up terrified in a prison cell. How much more is she expected to suffer and for an accident, yes granted an accident that would have been prevented had she kept her eye on the ball, but it was none the less a tragic accident. Which she will live with forever.
Five years for a grieving mother seems very harsh to me, especially when a certain disgusting rapist served less than people can have their benefits sanctioned for.!!!!!., or in other words a lot less than this poor women will serve. !
Why though would you risk having a pond in your garden with children I don't understand.. Children are naturally attracted to and fascinated by water. I'm not going to have a dig at the women. Like I say she's being punished enough with out bloody strangers on the internet putting their oar in, but good God children can drown in 3 inches of water. And you only have to turn your back for a second, let alone a few minutes and anything can happen, as this tragedy has proven. If anything positive could possibly come out of such an enormous tragedy let it be that further deaths are prevented and that those with young children get their ponds filled in with immediate effect.

Epilepsyhelp · 10/10/2015 11:36

The child has been punished a hell of a lot more ilive because she just did not give a shit. Wait til the judgement is published then you won't feel so sorry for this woman, there is a hell of a lot not yet in the public arena.

noeffingidea · 10/10/2015 11:38

Iliveinalighthouse why are you assuming this woman is 'guilt ridden and torn apart'? Not everyone thinks in exactly the same way,or has what we consider 'normal' feelings towards their children.
This woman was in her livingroom posting photos on facebook while her child was playing in the garden with an uncovered pool. That is following other episodes of neglect.
She has proved that she isn't capable of looking after young children, and leaving any future babies in her care would be negligent.

Spartans · 10/10/2015 11:44

ilive she didn't take her eye off the ball. She was neglecting her children consistently which led o one of them dying.

She is responsible for the child's death. She committed a crime. Your assumption that she feels guilt could be entirely wrong. Maybe if she had felt guilty when her kids were found playing in the road with no shoes on, this wouldn't have happened.

PolishRemoverOfNail · 10/10/2015 11:52

The boy was playing in the main road at 2 years old - and not being supervised.

That shows how neglectful she is. It also sounds like she was advised by family to cover the pond to make it safe - which she failed to do.

This wasn't a parenting mishap resulting in accidental death but serious neglect resulting in the boy's death. The two are very different and she deserves to be imprisoned for that.

Her son has paid the ultimate price because she couldn't be bothered to put adequate safety measures in place.

Alisvolatpropiis · 10/10/2015 12:01

Yes, YABU.

hackmum · 10/10/2015 12:05

Senpai: "Anytime my toddler is near water she has my undivided attention."

Quite right. I think an awful lot of people, though, have no idea how dangerous water is. (I'm not talking about this particular case where clearly the mother had a record of negligent behaviour.) We had a discussion on here a little while ago about a dad leaving his children unsupervised in the bath, and a surprising number of posters said they often left their toddlers unsupervised in the bath, which is quite shocking. Children do drown in very shallow water - it happens all the time, sadly.

Inkanta · 10/10/2015 12:12

Yes I also thought the Judge was harsh. The woman is punished enough.

Booyaka · 10/10/2015 12:48

I'm really concerned about this verdict. We're saying 'Oh, there must be more to it that can't be reported'. But we're supposed to have an open justice system. So if she has been sentenced for something completely outside what's being reported that is wrong anyway. You shouldn't be sentenced for a crime which is secret. Even the court cases recently about witholding part of terror trials have said you can't do that unless there is a really serious reason like state security, which probably wouldn't apply to a case like this.

As far as I read the only evidence is that she wasn't supervising them on two occasions. The evidence in this case was that she had posted a picture on facebook and might have been posting a second. Not that she was on there for hours, just that she posted a picture. There appears to have been no evidence of actual abuse or deliberately trying to cause them harm. 5 years seems incredibly harsh. One article I've seen says that she was a drinker at some point, but there doesn't seem to have been any suggestion she was drunk during this incident.

To put this into perspective, Tracey Connelly was only sentenced to 5 years for knowingly allowing her child to be tortured to death and another to be raped. The teenager who was inciting another terrorist to behead someone at the Anzac day parade was sentenced to five years. Is a mother who has problems and is an inadequate parent really at the same level as those two?

stoppingbywoods · 10/10/2015 12:51

I thought it was harsh, especially when that driving mother who crashed didn't seem to get into trouble. Anyone can make a mistake through inattention, it's impossible to always be alert.

SaucyJack · 10/10/2015 12:52

No evidence of actual abuse?

I'd say a child that was neglected to death was pretty strong evidence meself.

I also think TC's sentence was unduly lenient- not this one unduly harsh.

Alisvolatpropiis · 10/10/2015 13:05

It is only ever women who are punished enough, why is that?

scarlets · 10/10/2015 13:11

I'm sure there's more to this particular story, but in general I think it was the kind of bad luck that could happen to anyone. It's impossible to be vigilant 100% of the time. I know very few parents who haven't been in that awful position of losing sight of a toddler for a minute or so, but invariably the child turned up safely - it comes down to luck.

MustBeLoopy390 · 10/10/2015 13:13

Scarlets that would be true, but when the 'mother' failed to be vigilant numerous times and also failed to minimise risk numerous times the line is crossed into negligence and unfortunately it's the little boy who has paid the price

noeffingidea · 10/10/2015 14:07

Being a bad parent isn't a matter of 'bad luck'.
Sure, some people come from awful backgrounds themselves and struggle.They need help and support.
That doesn't seem to be the case here, judging on that report. She just basically couldn't be arsed to look after her kids properly, with fatal results.

Spartans · 10/10/2015 14:13

Tracey Connellys sentence was a joke. It doesn't however mean that everyone else should get ridiculous sentences.

Boo it is open. However the media reporting isn't and is cherry picking which bits they share. The first article linked did not have the information at these time.

She is a parent who has been systematically neglecting her children and one paid the highest price. I don't know how anyone can say she has already been punished enough.

Booyaka · 10/10/2015 15:26

The thing is, that when cases like this happen the media don't hold back. Look at the Amanda Hutton case. If she had been neglecting her children in the sense of not feeding them, washing them or clothing them or hurting them deliberately then that would have been reported. The media don't play things down, they are not going to report a case of severe neglect as someone who let her children play unsupervised and leave everything else out. I think to say there is 'more to this story' when there doesn't appear to be seems naive at best.

I think she should probably have been jailed. Possibly for a year or two. Five years just seems crazy and I would think that whether it was the mother or father who had done this.

When you compare it to, for example, the McCann's leaving their child unattended in a locked apartment yards and yards away for an entire evening of eating and drinking with their friends and a swimming pool close by to boot, you really do have to wonder. Why is going out for an entire evening okay for some people, for another posting a picture to facebook apparently is not.

Iliveinalighthousewiththeghost · 10/10/2015 17:44

Fully agree about the Mcanns, Boo. I was certainly thinking it as I suppose others were but only you have been brave enough to say it.
Why are the rules different for them.

MustBeLoopy390 · 10/10/2015 19:28

Regarding the McCanns I suspect money and influence factored, you can't imagine for example Shaz and Kev from the local estate leaving little Chantelle, Chardonay and Crystelle alone, one being abducted and then getting away with it can you?

AuntieStella · 10/10/2015 19:33

"So if she has been sentenced for something completely outside what's being reported..."

That's a statement about the quality if reporting. She should be sentenced according to what has been heard in Court. And although there's always a bit of a wait between conclusion of trial and posting the court report (summing up, sentencing remarks) there's been nothing to suggest that account if this trial won't be published in the normal way (or have I missed something?)

Alisvolatpropiis · 10/10/2015 20:29

Must

I've always thought that too.

Iliveinalighthousewiththeghost · 10/10/2015 20:45

Or indeed if it were a single parent , Loopy or "worse still" unemployed single parent.
I could just imagine the head lines next morning.
Child goes missing whilst scrounging unemployed single mother, gets drunk with friends. She would have been arrested and her other children taken into care. There's no doubt about it. !

GruntledOne · 10/10/2015 21:01

I agree with AuntieStella. The courts can't control what the papers report: the sentence is based on all the evidence before the judge, which may not find its way into the papers for all sorts of reasons including how conscientious or otherwise the reporter is, how busy a news day it is, and the editors' and proprietors' biases. It's idle to say the papers usually report everything, it's been demonstrated time and time again that they just don't.

Flip

1 2 3