• You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.

Marv

Trusted Member
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...k-free-court-judge-blames-SOCIAL-WORKERS.html


The parents of a newborn baby left with horrific injuries and fractures all over her body walked free from court today, despite admitting child cruelty charges.

The unnamed infant was just 23 days old when doctors discovered she had suffered multiple breaks to her legs, knees, ribs, right wrist and right hip.

MRI scans showed the baby girl had also sustained a skull haemorrhage and trauma to her brain tissue.

But her parents were spared jail at Bristol Crown Court today, despite pleading guilty to child cruelty on the basis of neglect - because a judge blamed social services for the ordeal.

The court heard that a social worker had warned her bosses that the couple were incapable of caring for their child, but her fears were ignored.

Judge David Ticehurst sentenced the youngster’s father and mother to two-year community orders each, last December.

The child's father is in his twenties and her mother is in her thirties, but their names were not released to protect the baby.

Judge Ticehurst told the father: 'You clearly were far too young and not able to look after your child.

'That child suffered considerable neglect due to your inability to care for her. But in my view you and your partner were let down by the social services, who have a duty to provide for you.

'In my judgement it would be quite wrong to impose anything other than a community order, for you to get the help and support you need.'

Bristol Crown Court had previously heard that social worker Sara Matty had seen the baby's mother at her home in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, and noted she had learning difficulties.

The father also had learning difficulties, and it was noted that he appeared to be 'a bit clumsy' with the baby and 'inappropriate and childlike' in his handling of her.

Ms Matty recommended that the baby be cared for in a mother and baby unit to ensure her welfare - but this was not followed up by North Somerset Council.

The baby remained at home with her parents, who received support from health care providers during the week, and help from the father’s parents at weekends.
[...]

The council said in a statement: 'This family received extensive support and guidance from North Somerset Council as we attempted to keep them all together.

'Unfortunately this high level of support did not prevent these events from happening, and we are deeply sorry for that.'



bgco61.jpg

Judge David Ticehurst




I agree with the judge that the parents shouldn't have been jailed. They should have been beaten to a pulp instead.


I swear, the UK get their judges from 'Tards R Us'.
 
The child's father is in his twenties and her mother is in her thirties, but their names were not released to protect the baby.

Judge Ticehurst told the father: 'You clearly were far too young and not able to look after your child.

Are you fucking kidding me?! So as a mother in her thirties if I decided to procreate with someone in his twenties we would get essentially a free pass to bash & batter our child?!

Fuck that noise. Animals who are the equivalent of a 15 year old human (ie dogs) know not to hurt their fucking young. This judge should be disbarred.
 
Are you fucking kidding me?! So as a mother in her thirties if I decided to procreate with someone in his twenties we would get essentially a free pass to bash & batter our child?!

Fuck that noise. Animals who are the equivalent of a 15 year old human (ie dogs) know not to hurt their fucking young. This judge should be disbarred.


You neglected to read the part about her having learning difficulties. I am pretty certain he had some too. The judge is referring to mental rather than actual age.


Not that even quite young children don't know better than to harm babies; but having responsibility for the babies well-being is a different matter, and I think that will be why the judge decided they were not criminally responsible in this case......
 
You neglected to read the part about her having learning difficulties. I am pretty certain he had some too. The judge is referring to mental rather than actual age.

Unless they were significantly mentally retarded there is no excuse. Two of my kids have "learning difficulties" - at 11 and 4 years old they still know you have to be gentle with babies. Plus the fucking monsters admitted child cruelty. I call BS that they didn't know what they were doing was wrong...
 
And I repeat:

Not that even quite young children don't know better than to harm babies; but having responsibility for the babies' well-being is a different matter
 
You neglected to read the part about her having learning difficulties. I am pretty certain he had some too. The judge is referring to mental rather than actual age.


If their 'learning difficulties' were that severe, then the baby should have been removed at birth. Remember this?:

http://www.dreamindemon.com/forums/...to-get-married&highlight=kerry+stupid+married

The SS were prepared to remove Kerry's baby, despite her only having mild learning difficulties. But these two get to keep theirs and go on to break her? That is the only blame I would lay at the feet of the SS involved in this incident: That they were too PC and put the parents 'rights' before the baby's safety. She should have been removed.
 
And I repeat:

Not that even quite young children don't know better than to harm babies; but having responsibility for the babies' well-being is a different matter

The fact that they admitted child cruelty pretty much negates any "learning difficulties" they might have.
 
The fact that they admitted child cruelty pretty much negates any "learning difficulties" they might have.

Back in the 1980s I worked in a psych hospital and we had a couple who had two children. The first child was horrifically abused by the father, as an infant and taken away. They promptly had a second. The couple, to a casual observer, would have seemed "slow" or "off" but while they had no name for their disorder, there were simply huge mental gaps in their cognitive abilities and understanding, which meant they just "didn't get it." I mean simple morality, right from wrong, and the ability to understand they have to control their impulses. They weren't evil (I don't think they meant harm, they just didn't understand that it mattered), just badly damaged.

The real issue was there was nothing anyone could do to stop them from having more babies to abuse. When they weren't parents they could live in society fairly well, with a bit of help.
 
Back in the 1980s I worked in a psych hospital and we had a couple who had two children. The first child was horrifically abused by the father, as an infant and taken away. They promptly had a second......The real issue was there was nothing anyone could do to stop them from having more babies to abuse.


So the second child was left with them?

They should offer people like that a deal - spend the rest of your days locked up and doped up the the eye-balls, or get sterilised and released. If they are incapable of understanding that breaking babies is wrong, then they should not be having them. Christ, even so-called 'dumb' animals have the instinct to keep their offspring safe and nurture them.
 
They admitted to the charges because they did cause the injuries but that doesn't mean it was intentional. The article states that they both have learning disabilities and that that injuries came from being clumsy and inappropriate and childlike in his handling of her. They didn't maliciously hurt her, they just weren't mentally prepared to care for a baby.

The baby should have been removed by social workers, just like the judge said. I agree with his ruling.
 
Back
Top