Anybody discussing the single mum who was jailed for 5 months for biting her 5 year old?

[Twiglett]

she said because he hurt the baby

kids taken into foster care

so?

I don't know that you have to bite that hard to leave a mark. DS1 is covered in marks from biting himself, but he doesn't show any sign that it hurts. He just does it in the bath, in bed, when he has a bit of time to spare They look bad, but I presume don't hurt that much. I've just checked his knees because he's walked in next to the computer- both have teeth marks all over them.

She does sound as if she needed parenting help and support. And she does sound daft getting a 5 year old to fetch her baby. But the sentence seems very steep.

Why was the 5yo being made responsible for carrying his 8mo sister to the mother inthe bathroom??

That seems irresponsible to me.

Message withdrawn

Wannabe

'The fact that charges were brought and it went as far as the crown court does suggest that there must be something far more serious to this case that potentially cannot be reported for legal reasons.'

No - the only details left out would be those that could potentially ID her children. All the rest is in the public domain and could be reported as such.

The original court copy was probably much more detailed than what appeared in the newspapers.

But I do think it's a harsh sentence and therefore maybe more to it...or the judge was having a bad day.

lou031205 -"the course they talk of her attending indicates that she has wider anger issues."

I don't think someone going on a parenting course means they have anger issues. It usually means they need help with being a parent.

"It isn't that her single mother status somehow leaves her with protection against punishment, but that this particular punishment leaves the children parent-less, wrenched from their Mum and taken to a foster home. It arguably punishes the innocent children more than it does her."

but i'd argue two things against this.
it is the mothers actions that have tied the hands of the courts.they are not intentionally setting out to punish the children, but they have a duty to treat the mother like any other criminal and the children being put into foster care is an unfortunate by-product of their mothers illegal actions.as you say "this particualr punishment" leaves her children parentless.but what are the alternatives when a court has decided that a custodial sentence is the appropriate measure for a crime (i'm talking in more broad sentences than this particular case as i still feel a bit bereft of information)

i'd imagine that in cynical terms the removal of children from a mother who is being jailed for physical violence against her own children would not be viewed as a strictly negative thing for the children. although i personally would agree with you,that it will probably be very damaging to them.

Sorry ImnotMammaG, I wasn't very clear. I didn't mean that the course hinted at wider issues, but the mail article quoted:

"She has started a 12-week course with regards to improving her parenting skills, dealing with anger management issues, not flying off the handle, not seeking revenge and not biting her five-year-old child."

This, to me, indicated that she had wider issues, because otherwise I would have thought they would have said something along the lines of "She has started a 12-week course to improve her parenting skills" or some such bland statement, rather than improving her parenting skills and 4 very specific goals, which are quite serious.