Woman gets suspended sentence for assaulting child

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

Her reaction was way over the top. Unless she had displayed behaviour that would have led him to believe she might act in that way he has no responsibility.

Say if he knew she was blind drunk and she did something else, lit a cigarette with the gas on, fallen asleep with the door open, do you think he would bear no responsibility even though he left his child with a person in that state?

I appreciate he may not have known she would do that specific act.

eviltwin

Deleted User wrote: »

Say if he knew she was blind drunk and she did something else, lit a cigarette with the gas on, fallen asleep with the door open, do you think he would bear no responsibility even though he left his child with a person in that state?

I appreciate he may not have known she would do that specific act.

Did he know she was pissed when he left the child with her?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not suggesting he knew.

But again, I think parental responsibility is bigger than addressing something you know will happen, it's also about considering anything that may happen.

We know that he left his child with a woman who had moved in very shortly after meeting him, that had suffered a miscarriage and was drinking heavily. Now none of this amounts to criminal liability, as I said we don't know enough to blame him for anything...or to absolve him from everything.

We do know enough not to blame him for anything. He did not beat his own child. He was not there when this woman chose to beat his child. This completely absolves him of any responsibility for this woman's actions. The woman herself, in case you need to read it again, took full responsibility for her actions, and the father was in no way held accountable for her actions.

The child was taken into foster care because the father refused to believe the woman was capable of such cruelty, but the child was then returned to the father. It's unheard of for a child to be taken into foster care and then returned to the parent if there are any concerns for the child's safety, and the father has since broken up with this woman.

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

Did he know she was pissed when he left the child with her?

As I said a few posts back, we don't know enough to analyse his role.

That's why I don't absolve him from all responsibility, or blame him for anything.

eviltwin

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said a few posts back, we don't know enough to analyse his role.

That's why I don't absolve him from all responsibility, or blame him for anything.

If he knew he is responsible but as you say we don't know so why mention it

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Say if he knew she was blind drunk and she did something else, lit a cigarette with the gas on, fallen asleep with the door open, do you think he would bear no responsibility even though he left his child with a person in that state?

I appreciate he may not have known she would do that specific act.

Now you're just making stuff up, you can't possibly expect anyone here to be a fortune teller of some sort. You're chomping at the bit to hold the father responsible in some way, when the facts of the case directly contradict your assertions.

pablo128

zeffabelli wrote: »

He is responsible for not believing the child though.

zeffabelli wrote: »

No of course not.

But it is fluke that it was discovered.

The father's disbelief was the cause for the child being taken into foster care, so clearly that disbelief put the child in danger until they could get a conviction.

We don't know enough to judge his level of responsibility here at all, but we do know he was prepared to keep the child under the same roof as her because he did not believe it thereby continuing to put him in danger.

This woman must have denied it down to the ground when confronted, though. It's only obvious because I doubt it was only the father who asked her for her account, if child protection services were involved. He undoubtably will carry the guilt of that decision for a long time.

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

If he knew he is responsible but as you say we don't know so why mention it

Because a few posters have suggested he has no responsibility at all.

Which is wrong IMO. Very simply, we don't know enough to form a judgement either way. A very simple issue would be whether he knew his partner was drinking when she was babysitting.

zeffabelli

pablo128 wrote: »

This woman must have denied it down to the ground when confronted, though. It's only obvious because I doubt it was only the father who asked her for her account, if child protection services were involved. He undoubtably will carry the guilt of that decision for a long time.

She initially claimed she didn't remember any of it. I guess that's possible with all that wine in you????

And then she was able to take responsibility so I guess she remembered? ???

There was a lot of bruising and he thought it was spider bites, adn then the doctors and the police clarified it and he still didn't put two and two together, how else could it have happenned?

I'm utterly confused by this story.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now you're just making stuff up, you can't possibly expect anyone here to be a fortune teller of some sort. You're chomping at the bit to hold the father responsible in some way, when the facts of the case directly contradict your assertions.

Could you point to one thing I have made up or asserted that happened in this case?

Maybe link the post. Thanks.

eviltwin

Deleted User wrote: »

Because a few posters have suggested he has no responsibility at all.

Which is wrong IMO. Very simply, we don't know enough to form a judgement either way. A very simple issue would be whether he knew his partner was drinking when she was babysitting.

Exactly, we don't know so it's unfair to cast aspersions on the father.

jobbridge4life

I'm normally a loony lefty liberal set them all free type but this is a complete joke. That woman should be in prison for years and never let near children again.

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

Exactly, we don't know so it's unfair to cast aspersions on the father.

Yes.

Which is precisely why I didn't. I simply pointed out the flaw in asserting that he is blameless. As I will say for the 3rd or 4th time, we don't know enough either way, we can say he did not commit any crime. He may well be completely blameless, she may for example have bought the drink after he left for work.

DoYouEvenLift

Anyone who hurts kids or the elderly should receive the absolute maximum and harshest sentences possible. Judges like this are fuking stupid.

pablo128

zeffabelli wrote: »

She initially claimed she didn't remember any of it. I guess that's possible with all that wine in you????

And then she was able to take responsibility so I guess she remembered? ???

I'm utterly confused by this story.

Well put yourself in that situation. You come home from work and find your little child badly hurt. He tells you he took a beating off the girlfriend. You ask her if it's true, and she replies "I can't remember. I was buckled drunk last night."

Who would you believe? I would believe the child.

What she said in court and what she said on the morning and days after the attack could well be different things.

eviltwin

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes.

Which is precisely why I didn't. I simply pointed out the flaw in asserting that he is blameless. As I will say for the 3rd or 4th time, we don't know enough either way, we can say he did not commit any crime. He may well be completely blameless, she may for example have bought the drink after he left for work.

Based on what we know he's blameless. There is no point in speculation.

jobbridge4life

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Anyone who hurts kids or the elderly should receive the absolute maximum and harshest sentences possible. Judges like this are fuking stupid.

Just look at some of his other decisions... lunatic.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/11/18/who-is-judge-nolan-jailing/

mikemac1

Deleted User wrote: »

As I will say for the 3rd or 4th time, we don't know enough either way, we can say he did not commit any crime. He may well be completely blameless, she may for example have bought the drink after he left for work.

Even if there was drink in the house what does it matter? He was away working at the time and he didn't believe she could do such a thing even when informed what happened.

Call him a bad judge of character if you want but yes, he is blameless

One eyed Jack

zeffabelli wrote: »

No of course not.

But it is fluke that it was discovered.

The father's disbelief was the cause for the child being taken into foster care, so clearly that disbelief put the child in danger until they could get a conviction.

We don't know enough to judge his level of responsibility here at all, but we do know he was prepared to keep the child under the same roof as her because he did not believe it thereby continuing to put him in danger.

It wasn't a fluke it was discovered at all. The medical staff at the hospital were doing their jobs properly and were able to spot the signs that the child had been beaten.

That still doesn't make the father in any way responsible for what this woman did.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It wasn't a fluke it was discovered at all. The medical staff at the hospital were doing their jobs properly and were able to spot the signs that the child had been beaten.

That still doesn't make the father in any way responsible for what this woman did.

The father thought it was spider bites after the child told him that this woman had hit him.

That is WHY he took him to the hospital, because the rash and the bruising. Pure fluke.

Had he not gone to the hospital, none of this would have been discovered.

There are a couple of ways to think about responsibility, no he is not criminal responsible, but he is responsible parentally, psychologically, for choosing not to believe his son, even after presented with evidence from the doctors and the police.

worded

There should be a licence for having children.

There would be a 10 year ban imposed on hers for what she did, dirty tramp.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Could you point to one thing I have made up or asserted that happened in this case?

Maybe link the post. Thanks.

You posited scenarios that never happened, I never said you made up or asserted that anything actually happened in this case. You're doing quite the opposite in fact to try and hold the father in some way responsible.

Carry on being a pedant though. You've yet to actually give any substantive or valid reason for why you think the father is responsible for this woman beating a child.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes.

Which is precisely why I didn't. I simply pointed out the flaw in asserting that he is blameless. As I will say for the 3rd or 4th time, we don't know enough either way, we can say he did not commit any crime. He may well be completely blameless, she may for example have bought the drink after he left for work.

You think the medical staff, the Gardaí, social workers, and anyone involved in this case, didn't already explore all the possibilities? You're damn right they did, and that's why the child was returned to his father, because they found the child's father completely blameless for his child being put in danger.

One eyed Jack

zeffabelli wrote: »

The father thought it was spider bites after the child told him that this woman had hit him.

That is WHY he took him to the hospital, because the rash and the bruising. Pure fluke.

Had he not gone to the hospital, none of this would have been discovered.

There are a couple of ways to think about responsibility, no he is not criminal responsible, but he is responsible parentally, psychologically, for choosing not to believe his son, even after presented with evidence from the doctors and the police.

There are indeed a couple of ways to think about responsibility, but none of those are ways are relevant in determining that the father was in any way responsible for this woman's actions. She took full responsibility for her own actions herself.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never said you made up or asserted that anything actually happened in this case...

Actually, you did...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now you're just making stuff up...

But I am happy that you corrected yourself and conceded that I posited scenarios. The difference between asserting a fact and presenting a hypothesis.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Actually, you did...



But I am happy that you corrected yourself and conceded that I posited scenarios. The difference between asserting a fact and presenting a hypothesis.

I said you were making stuff up, and now you're just talking nonsense.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I said you were making stuff up, and now you're just talking nonsense.

The difference between asserting a fact, which I did not do despite your initial claim, and positing a hypothesis is very real and not a "nonsense".

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The difference between asserting a fact, which I did not do despite your initial claim, and positing a hypothesis is very real and not a "nonsense".

I did not say you were asserting a fact. I specifically stated that you were making stuff up, and you were, here -

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Say if he knew she was blind drunk and she did something else, lit a cigarette with the gas on, fallen asleep with the door open, do you think he would bear no responsibility even though he left his child with a person in that state?

I appreciate he may not have known she would do that specific act.

None of that actually happened so there is no way anyone could make any possible determination, unless they had psychic powers, so your making stuff up had nothing to do with the case, which is why I never accused you of making up anything to do with the case.

You posited scenarios that never happened, instead of addressing the facts of what actually happened, and in regarding the facts of what actually happened, the father was found in no way responsible for the actions of this woman when she chose to viciously beat the child.

TallGlass

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I read a thread where a woman didn't get €38k for falling when drunk and a woman didn't get €60k for falling on an escalator. So thought your post interesting.

Fair play to you. Glad you found it interesting.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I did not say you were asserting a fact. I specifically stated that you were making stuff up, and you were...

You know very well that I was referring to hypothetical scenarios and not asserting that either happened.

Because you know what the word "if" means. Plus you also know that there was no gas explosion or child running on to the street.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...the father was found in no way responsible for the actions of this woman when she chose to viciously beat the child.

Again, I never asserted this at all.

For perhaps the 5th time, I will say that we cannot evaluate his role at all, we can only say that he bore no responsibility at criminal law for her actions. But to say he was not responsible for her beating the child is, obviously, not to assert the opposite, that he did nothing wrong at all as a parent. If he knew she was drunk, or even just drinking, many parents would find leaving a child with her an unacceptable call, even if he had no idea that she would do what she did.

TallGlass

TallGlass wrote: »

Fair play to you. Glad you found it interesting.

Interesting in the sense of how wrong a post could be.

You said some woman got €38k from a fall when drunk. She didn't. You said another got 60k from a fall on an escalator. She didn't, she received 40k as there was contributory negligence.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You know very well that I was referring to hypothetical scenarios and not asserting that either happened.

Because you know what the word "if" means. Plus you also know that there was no gas explosion or child running on to the street.

Yes? I said you were just making stuff up. You were.

Again, I never asserted this at all.

For perhaps the 5th time, I will say that we cannot evaluate his role at all, we can only say that he bore no responsibility at criminal law for her actions. But to say he was not responsible for her beating the child is, obviously, not to assert the opposite, that he did nothing wrong at all as a parent. If he knew she was drunk, or even just drinking, many parents would find leaving a child with her an unacceptable call, even if he had no idea that she would do what she did.

You can say it 500 times if you like, and it still won't be any more relevant.

liquoriceall

He may have no legal responsibilty but morally he has. He left his child who already had unheaval in his short life with some woman he barely knew. He moved some woman he barely knew in with him and his child. Those are not the actions of a responsible parent.

Mod

First off, stop the bickering.

Secondly, the father did not get convicted of any crime. He was not responsible for his child being beaten and we won't allow further posts that imply he was.

Riverireland

obriendj wrote: »

He said "on balance" a suspended sentence was appropriate

Another brilliant decision by an incompetent judge. (obviously without knowing all the facts but doing in to a kids room with intention of smacking him around seems quite stonewall.)

if it was a man who did this i wonder would a suspended sentence be sufficient?

This judge has form with worse than this. Google him. If it were a man who did it he probably would have left him off too. This woman should be locked up for at least a year or two.

mushu

I am a second mother to my nephew. I helped my sister when he was a baby while I was sleep deprived and recovering from depression.
I babysat on a very regular basis while she was in work and he was going through the terrible twos & threes.
I was kicked and hit by him when he was adjusting to his epilepsy medication which had severe bad behaviour as a side effect.
I have had 3 miscarriages, 2 before my first child was born.
I went through period of thinking I could never have kids of my own while my nephew (who was not planned by my then 19 year old sister) was being an absolute nightmare. I never once lifted a finger against that child. The pain of miscarriage is no excuse for hurting a child.
A suspended sentence is a disgrace.

Micky Dolenz

This case has really stuck in my head the last few days and my dismay hasn't subsided.

I will contact the minister for justice, the reply will be that they don't comment on individual cases. I will contact my local TD to see if they will raise the matter in the Dail.

I've a friend in the department of justice, hopefully thy can direct me to the right line of inquiry.

It probably won't come to anything, but it's important to air my disappointment in our ability to punish those who abuse out children with appropriate sentences.

zeffabelli

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

This case has really stuck in my head the last few days and my dismay hasn't subsided.

I will contact the minister for justice, the reply will be that they don't comment on individual cases. I will contact my local TD to see if they will raise the matter in the Dail.

I've a friend in the department of justice, hopefully thy can direct me to the right line of inquiry.

It probably won't come to anything, but it's important to air my disappointment in our ability to punish those who abuse out children with appropriate sentences.

Thing is as abhorrent as it is, if you look at it in a legal context it's not a surprise.

If you look at other suspended sentences, this is no different to the other ones.

First offence by other wise upstanding member of the community.

Young- she is 25 with no history of abuse.

Remorseful.

Pled guilty and took full responsibility.

Micky Dolenz

zeffabelli wrote: »

Thing is as abhorrent as it is, if you look at it in a legal context it's not a surprise.

If you look at other suspended sentences, this is no different to the other ones.

First offence by other wise upstanding member of the community.

Young- she is 25 with no history of abuse.

Remorseful.

Pled guilty and took full responsibility.

Yeep and judges are judges cos they can look at cases without emotion. Still though, it will cost me nothing as an Irish citizen to voice my opinion. As seen in the recent past, judges get things wrong.

JupiterKid

Disgusting - and I don't know which is more disgusting - the battering of that innocent small child by that evil woman or the incredibly lenient sentence handed down to her.

The woman should have got a minimum of 2 years in prison for what she did. Having a miscarriage and consuming three bottles of wine are no excuse.

tritium

zeffabelli wrote: »

Thing is as abhorrent as it is, if you look at it in a legal context it's not a surprise.

If you look at other suspended sentences, this is no different to the other ones.

First offence by other wise upstanding member of the community.

Young- she is 25 with no history of abuse.

Remorseful.

Pled guilty and took full responsibility.

Unfortunately thus seems to weigh a little too heavily in a judges mind regardless of the crime. Anthony Lyons seems to have had a similar list of mitigation - upstanding member of the community, no history of offending etc., with I think, the same judge.

Thankfully in that case the judges view was overruled and hopefully the same will happen here.

I'd suspect they'd only be some pressure to appeal if the father of the child expressed outrage at the verdict and called for it.

zeffabelli

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd suspect they'd only be some pressure to appeal if the father of the child expressed outrage at the verdict and called for it.

And ultimately, how is a prison sentence going to help?

There is something going on underneath.....

Yeah I know...I sound like a liberal wish wash...which I am not by any stretch...but the punitive system doesn't work and yes Id say that about a man too before anyone asks.

zeffabelli

zeffabelli wrote: »

Pled guilty and took full responsibility.

After she initially denied it and allowed the father to believe the child was lying.

Into The Blue

Sustained assault on a six year old.. That's a new low even for this country.

Wonder if I'd get a suspended sentence if i punched a garda/judge, threw him against a wall, hitting his head off the wall, then taking the time to drag him too another area so i could use a mop to further beat him.

It would be a first offence, and i would plead guilty of course.

Letree

The fathers attitude is very worrying.

zeffabelli

Deleted User wrote: »

After she initially denied it and allowed the father to believe the child was lying.

THis is a part I am very confused about.

Did she genuinely not remember due to the alcohol consumption and then later the memory was recovered? If she genuinly blacked out or dissociated then how could she have done otherwise.

tritium

zeffabelli wrote: »

THis is a part I am very confused about.

Did she genuinely not remember due to the alcohol consumption and then later the memory was recovered? If she genuinly blacked out or dissociated then how could she have done otherwise.

Given it doesn't appear to have been offered in mitigation (and everything bar the kitchen sink seems to have been offered) I wouldn't be assuming that to be the case.

At any rate, remorse etc aren't in themselves sufficient to avoid a custodial sentence if the crime is severe enough, which I'd suggest is the case here.

Bubolor

zeffabelli wrote: »

Thing is as abhorrent as it is, if you look at it in a legal context it's not a surprise.

If you look at other suspended sentences, this is no different to the other ones.

First offence by other wise upstanding member of the community.

Young- she is 25 with no history of abuse.

Remorseful.

Pled guilty and took full responsibility.

She should be in prison, simple as that.

hatrickpatrick

zeffabelli wrote: »

Thing is as abhorrent as it is, if you look at it in a legal context it's not a surprise.

If you look at other suspended sentences, this is no different to the other ones.

First offence by other wise upstanding member of the community.

Young- she is 25 with no history of abuse.

Remorseful.

Pled guilty and took full responsibility.

But because this is the precedent, it essentially means it can never change. Unless some brave judge calls it out for the bullsh!t that it is and sets a new precedent - or unless the government change the law and introduce mandatory minimum sentencing for certain crimes.

osarusan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But because this is the precedent, it essentially means it can never change. Unless some brave judge calls it out for the bullsh!t that it is and sets a new precedent - or unless the government change the law and introduce mandatory minimum sentencing for certain crimes.

Is it a precedent? Has there never been a similar case before?