thebees
I would say that her reasoning even if showing premeditation (would depend on when she said it) also shows abnormal thinking. Most of us if we were faced with losing our jobs might panic a bit, we might look into benefits, ask our family or in this case our child's father for financial help etc. You might even consider more extreme options like theft or prostitution as a solution. I'm not sure many of us would consider murdering our children as an option,
FWIW her sentence is at the heavy end of the scale for Manslaughter. The CPS sentencing guidelines state in relation to diminished responsibility:-
"There will however be cases in which there is no proper basis for a hospital order, that in which the accused's degree of responsibility is not minimal. In such cases the judge should pass a determinate sentence of imprisonment, the length of which will depend on two factors: his assessment of the degree of the accused's responsibility his view as to the period of time, if any, which the accused will continue to be danger to the public.
Suppose a substantial element of responsibility remains with the defendant? See R v Wood [2010] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 2
The court could see no logical reason why, subject to the specific element of reduced culpability inherent in the defence, assessment of seriousness should ignore the guidance in Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 regarding starting points for the minimum terms for murder. "
www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/manslaughter_diminished_responsibility/
Sentences for murder under CJA 2003 are based on a starting point for the term and then adjusted for aggrevating or mitigating factors. Had this been classed as a murder the starting point would have been a minimum of 15 years. It is possible that the age of the child and the fact it was her parent might well have been seen as aggrevating factors to increase the term.
However, the sentence of 12 years is, in all probability not a great deal shorter than the sentence she would have got for murder.