Does anyone else think this man really ought to have received a custodial sentence.

[BAFE]

here

quite graphic, sorry

just can't believe the man wasn't punished in any way.

I was surprised that there was very little medical evidence presented (or perhaps just not mentioned) in terms of how the doctors thought that the injuries had been inflicted, level of force etc. The account from the man seemed just most unlikely unless this was one very relaxed baby. Babywipes are quite large and a little finger too in comparison to a three month old, after all grown ups use lubricants as a reflection that it is not easy to "place" anything through the anus.

How can the doctors even determine whether it was sexual abuse or not? All they can report is the state of that poor baby's anus which clearly had a foreign object inside which isn't in dispute.

Really really disturbing situation.

I assumed that the other factor in removing the children was the mother's apparent (from the report) mental health problems, which seemed to be used as the main defense (which might be credible for the initial defense I suppose, but most of us would realise that we'd made a monumental cock up and sought help immediately, not risked our child's life repeatedly through further assault followed by inaction and lies).

D'you know I suspect the fact that he had a sick wife, influenced the judge's decision.

The "poor man" attitude again. Like he's such a martyr, not having a proper functioning wife, we have to cut him more slack than normal.

vile brutalising bastard.

he must have some sort of LD because what other possible reason is behind him getting away scot free??

sicko..

Nothing to do with LD.
Judge felt sorry for the poor bloke, what else was he meant to do with two kids needing attention at the same time, while his useless wife had cried off sick?

In fact I can almost see this as an episode in some lads-left-holding-the-baby comedy.

no LD whatsoever.deemed a low risk of re-offending and judge considered other social/familial circumstances.

Judge said"I am satisfied as best as one can be that the accused is a law abiding man who is very unlikely ever to offend again"

decision on sentence document here.

be aware it is uncomfortable reading.cant say i concur at all

It makes shocking reading. The infant, the violence the actuality of what he did just doesn't seem to figure in it at all

It somehow implied the judge thought he did it almost absent-mindedly, like it was a normal thing to do to a baby whilst changing their nappy to physically block them from soiling because their sibling woke up. To then forget about it completely and not link it to the reason the baby is mortally ill FOUR DAYS later. He bought this crap?

It honestly beggars belief.

But he probably won't reoffend; the kids are in care, and social services are trying to make it permanent.

His story doesn't make sense. he says that he left part of the baby wipe hanging out, but when he came back, he couldn't find it. Baby wipes don't move like worms.

as if someone could accidentally slip a babywipe up a baby's backside...You would have to go to great lengths to squeeze a whole babywipe up there, it's not just something someone would absent-mindedly do. There has to be more to this story than what has been reported.

I expect the judge has never changed a nappy so hasn't an effing clue

Sorry to be graphic but it is the equivalent of putting a tea-towel inside an adult rectum. His story is utter nonsense.

injuries sustained and restorative surgery as a result are really horrific.

This story is really horrific isn't it, I cannot imagine how much pain the baby was in and I agree that there was probably a sexual element to it and the baby wipe was a cover story. How difficult would it have been to leave the baby with a dirty nappy for 45 minutes while he saw to the daughter. Slap on a bit of sudocrem and sort out later. Or even multi-task and change baby while telling daughter a made up story!

Read that other document and it said that wipe ended up inside the abdomen and caused widespread infection, he must have used some force , I remember when DD was constipated around this age, poo was about the size of my finger and she was purple and screaming on and off for an hour until she managed to push it out, it really upsets to think how much pain this baby was in and that no-one in the house dealt with it until her parents mentioned it!

It is difficult to imagine anyone possibly thinking this act was a good idea.

You have to have an incredibly low IQ, so low that you wouldn't be capable of leading a normal life, to think that a 'stopper' in an anus makes sense. A baby wipe is not in any way a colostomy bag.

It does make sense that object inserted into the anus would work itself further inside through normal mechanisms of that organ.

Assuming that you put it there in the first place, at the point you couldn't get it out you should be in a blind panic and heading straight to the hospital.

If the first act can be accepted as an act of incredible stupidity, the subsequent failure to act and additional failure to explain at the point the baby's life was in danger in the hospital, is criminal its callousness.

As for the subsequent events, it seems that the mother is unwell and she regards the support of her husband as more important than continuing to have a relationship with her children.

The children may have been removed because the burden of proof over abuse in a civil court is far less than in a criminal court. So though he wasn't found culpable criminally the civil courts may have enough evidence to place the children elsewhere due to the risk he poses.

Also it's easy to blame social workers - yet again. Please remember that the social workers here are criminal justice social workers, the ones writing the report and they are using the risk assessment methods they are told to use by the Scottish Executive. As I stated elsewhere, none of these methods are infallible but they are used to make help make assessments as objective as possible. Criminal justice social workers are very experienced and skilled in making these judgements, hence the social worker in this case talking her about her professional opinion. Which the judge rejected.

I have worked in the English criminal justice system for 20 years and have often come across bizare judicial decisions. The judges comments I think are a bit baffling but he has done what he has the power to do -listened to evidence and made a judgement.

Doesn't mean it's right and I am still concerned at the way he dismissed the social worker's professional opinion. What was the offender's motivation? Seemingly the judge just thinks it was misguided. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Furthermore - I think there may have been a different outcome in an English Court.

The judge would not have had the leeway to be so dismissive of the report authors methods and would have to accept the validity of the assessment tools. That may have led to a different judgement.

Just a guess though.

I don't blame the social workers fifitot. I blame the sadistic freak who did this.

This judge needs to be sacked. This individual should have received the maximum punishment allowable for the offence he was convicted of.

I agree with other posters who have said society's attitude towards men has to change. He's 39 years old and it's his own f*ing child, there is NO excuse, none whatsoever, and it's sickening to think that his employment status could have had any influence on the sentencing.

What does it say when a middle aged man is "allowed" to brutalise a baby in this way? If he'd done it to a puppy I'm sure he would have been punished more harshly.

This is just so horrible. Poor baby, and if this case was tried by a jury, poor jurors. Awful.

Will you write some letters DDDixon... don'T want to push, it's just that I think if enough people write the mountain might move a little. I have written an example letter earlier in the thread and you can copy any bits of it that you like and send to the addresses further up the thread.