Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

by Syl Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:48 pm

Words fail....what the hell is the matter with these judges?

"A mother who shook her baby so violently she left him with brain injuries, has today avoided a jail sentence and been allowed to keep the child.
The woman, from Newport, dialled 999 when her son became 'ashen-faced and listless'.
The 36-year-old, who was battling with depression, claimed her baby had been unwell for days before finding him not breathing in his cot.
But medical experts diagnosed the child had suffered an abusive head trauma caused by shaking."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6963251/Mother-36-shook-baby-causing-brain-injuries-avoids-jail-keeps-child.html

by Syl Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:51 pm

Post natal depression, if that's what it was, is a terrible thing. But surely every mother should seek help before it gets so bad she is in danger of permanently harming or killing her baby.

Or is blaming mental health a good get out clause instead of admitting you lost your temper because you are in fact a bad parent who simply lost it with a crying baby?

by Syl Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:25 pm

I'm surprised this story didn't provoke a reaction on here.
I have had conversations in real life about this case and it's caused a lot of outrage at the simple mindedness of some of our judges.

by Original Quill Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:16 pm

Syl wrote:I'm surprised this story didn't provoke a reaction on here.
I have had conversations in real life about this case and it's caused a lot of outrage at the simple mindedness of some of our judges.

We've been numbed. Trump puts babies in cages as a government program, and mothers can never find them. This is a story about shaking a baby...meh. Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage. 2190311264

Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage. 2190311264

by Syl Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:39 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:I'm surprised this story didn't provoke a reaction on here.
I have had conversations in real life about this case and it's caused a lot of outrage at the simple mindedness of some of our judges.

We've been numbed. Trump puts babies in cages as a government program, and mothers can never find them. This is a story about shaking a baby...meh.

If people lose empathy for the small horrors in life because the big bad government is making a balls up of everything they touch....then they have won really, dont you think?

by Original Quill Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:46 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

We've been numbed. Trump puts babies in cages as a government program, and mothers can never find them. This is a story about shaking a baby...meh.
If people lose empathy for the small horrors in life because the big bad government is making a balls up of everything they touch....then they have won really, dont you think?

Absolutely. It's just that the US government is legitimizing this kind of treatment of babies, so we can expect some value adjustment among the people.

by Syl Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:16 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:
If people lose empathy for the small horrors in life because the big bad government is making a balls up of everything they touch....then they have won really, dont you think?

Absolutely. It's just that the US government is legitimizing this kind of treatment of babies, so we can expect some value adjustment among the people.

What proof is there that the US government puts babies in cages Quill?

by Original Quill Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:43 pm

by Syl Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:02 pm

Is that an emergency shelter for unacompanied migrant children? Where are the parents?
Presumably it's temporary till checks can be made. The middle pic looks like adults and children are being transported somewhere.

Anyway it's a totally different scenario to handing a brain damaged child back to the mother who deliberately damaged him.

by Original Quill Mon Apr 29, 2019 12:23 am

Syl wrote:Is that an emergency shelter for unacompanied migrant children? Where are the parents?

They took the children away from them, and deported them (parents). Presumably they are back in their home countries.

Syl wrote:Presumably it's temporary till checks can be made. The middle pic looks like adults and children are being transported somewhere.

Some of then have been in custody for years.

Syl wrote:Anyway it's a totally different scenario to handing a brain damaged child back to the mother who deliberately damaged him.

Yes, let them have no parents. Cool

by nicko Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:16 am

As far as I know, the Chidren had been separated from the Parents by accident, and had been put into cages to keep them safe !

by Original Quill Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:40 pm

nicko wrote:As far as I know, the Chidren had been separated from the Parents by accident, and had been put into cages to keep them safe !

Not true. The White House has come up with a variety of excuses when they saw how unpopular the program was, but issue is in Court now and you can't lie to a federal District Judge.

Former DHS staffers have admitted that it was a form of detention, and shockingly, a part of an deliberate program to discourage asylum seekers from Central America.

Makes a mockery of the poem etched on the Statute of Liberty:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

― Emma Lazarus

by Syl Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:35 pm

Original Quill wrote:

Some of then have been in custody for years.

So this started when Obama was president?

by Original Quill Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:54 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Some of then have been in custody for years.

So this started when Obama was president?

No, it started two years ago. The policy that was in place when Obama took office was that people who commit crimes, and are accompanied by children, would be separated. This is in keeping with American law, which calls Child Protective Services whenever parents, domestic or foreign, are taken into custody under any law.

What the Trump administration did was twofold: 1) to criminalize the mere entering of this country to seek asylum; and 2) they backed-up/closed the people admitted lawfully at Ports of Entry, so that the homeless, unsheltered and desperate people would enter elsewhere to declare asylum. They literally forced those people to break the law, as slight as the breach is. That meant that all children would be separated, indiscriminately.

The administration intentionally did not keep records of who was whose child, so now they don't even know where these children are.

by Syl Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:58 pm

Well I dont know if that's strictly true or not, no doubt others would argue differently, but if children are being separated from their parents when the parents have not commited any crime, (other than seeking asylum) it's totally wrong obviously.

by Original Quill Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:43 pm

Syl wrote:Well I dont know if that's strictly true or not, no doubt others would argue differently, but if children are being separated from their parents when the parents have not commited any crime, (other than seeking asylum) it's totally wrong obviously.

I agree. Research it...it's been documented by numerous articles, from last year.
As the conservative National Review states it:

National Review wrote:The latest furor over Trump immigration policy involves the separation of children from parents at the border.

As usual, the outrage obscures more than it illuminates, so it’s worth walking through what’s happening here.

For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. This poses challenges we haven’t confronted before and has made what once were relatively minor wrinkles in the law loom very large.

The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.

It’s the last that is operative here. The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)

The National Review fails to ask why separation is necessary for misdemeanors? Why, in fact, is it necessary at all for passive acts? While the National Review may soft-peddle it as Trump being "serious about our laws", the hard line is that it punishes all brown-skinned foreigners (no such program is in force on the Canadian border, despite thousands of illegal crossing every day).

by Cass Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:45 pm

Syl wrote:I'm surprised this story didn't provoke a reaction on here.
I have had conversations in real life about this case and it's caused a lot of outrage at the simple mindedness of some of our judges.

It horrified me. I’m just super sensitive to reading too much about harming others, especially children and animals. It just makes me queasy.

In cases like this, the lifting of the stigma of mental health issues is absolutely crucial.

by Cass Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:Well I dont know if that's strictly true or not, no doubt others would argue differently, but if children are being separated from their parents when the parents have not commited any crime, (other than seeking asylum) it's totally wrong obviously.

I agree. Research it...it's been documented by numerous articles, from last year.
As the conservative National Review states it:

National Review wrote:The latest furor over Trump immigration policy involves the separation of children from parents at the border.

As usual, the outrage obscures more than it illuminates, so it’s worth walking through what’s happening here.

For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. This poses challenges we haven’t confronted before and has made what once were relatively minor wrinkles in the law loom very large.

The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.

It’s the last that is operative here. The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)

The National Review fails to ask why separation is necessary for misdemeanors? Why, in fact, is it necessary at all for passive acts? While the National Review may soft-peddle it as Trump being "serious about our laws", the hard line is that it punishes all brown-skinned foreigners (no such program is in force on the Canadian border, despite thousands of illegal crossing every day).

+1

by Syl Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:56 pm

The problem is Quill, as in our own government and the press that support whichever party, you read one report and thats directly contradicted by another.....what is that term your president is fond of using...'Fake news'.

Putting babies in cages for years....is different to other reports that children are being held for a maximum of 59 days whilst checks are being carried out.

Obviously separating any child from their parent in this way, even for a day, is totally wrong, but it's difficult to know what or who to believe tbh.

by Original Quill Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:21 pm

Syl wrote:The problem is Quill, as in our own government and the press that support whichever party, you read one report and thats directly contradicted by another.....what is that term your president is fond of using...'Fake news'.

Putting babies in cages for years....is different to other reports that children are being held for a maximum of 59 days whilst checks are being carried out.

Obviously separating any child from their parent in this way, even for a day, is totally wrong, but it's difficult to know what or who to believe tbh.

Well, they are both saying the same thing...only with different framing. The National Review draws your attention away from the issue by calling it "send[ing] a signal that we are serious about our laws..."

That's nothing but an antiseptic way of saying 'we don't care about asylum, or how terrifying your plight is, keep away!" It's a small distance away from sussing out that they are using the pain of separation, and lost children, on purpose to dissuade asylum seekers. That's indeed, what they are doing.

by Syl Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:32 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:The problem is Quill, as in our own government and the press that support whichever party, you read one report and thats directly contradicted by another.....what is that term your president is fond of using...'Fake news'.

Putting babies in cages for years....is different to other reports that children are being held for a maximum of 59 days whilst checks are being carried out.

Obviously separating any child from their parent in this way, even for a day, is totally wrong, but it's difficult to know what or who to believe tbh.

Well, they are both saying the same thing...only with different framing. The National Review draws your attention away from the issue by calling it "send[ing] a signal that we are serious about our laws..."

That's nothing but an antiseptic way of saying 'we don't care about asylum, or how terrifying your plight is, keep away!" It's a small distance away from sussing out that they are using the pain of separation, and lost children, on purpose to dissuade asylum seekers. That's indeed, what they are doing.

Obviously it's a horrible situation, but even this report, which doesn't take a sympathetic view to the way these children are being treated says...

"Children who are deemed “unaccompanied minors,” either because they were separated from their parents or crossed the border alone, are held in federal custody until they can be matched with sponsors, usually relatives or family friends, who agree to house them while their immigration cases play out in the courts."

Which if true is different to your earlier posts that said the children were being kept in cages for years. Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage. 2190311264

https://www.tampabay.com/news/nationworld/hundreds-of-migrant-children-quietly-moved-to-a-tent-camp-on-the-texas-border-20180930/

by Original Quill Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:32 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Well, they are both saying the same thing...only with different framing. The National Review draws your attention away from the issue by calling it "send[ing] a signal that we are serious about our laws..."

That's nothing but an antiseptic way of saying 'we don't care about asylum, or how terrifying your plight is, keep away!" It's a small distance away from sussing out that they are using the pain of separation, and lost children, on purpose to dissuade asylum seekers. That's indeed, what they are doing.

Obviously it's a horrible situation, but even this report, which doesn't take a sympathetic view to the way these children are being treated says...

"Children who are deemed “unaccompanied minors,” either because they were separated from their parents or crossed the border alone, are held in federal custody until they can be matched with sponsors, usually relatives or family friends, who agree to house them while their immigration cases play out in the courts."

Which if true is different to your earlier posts that said the children were being kept in cages for years.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/nationworld/hundreds-of-migrant-children-quietly-moved-to-a-tent-camp-on-the-texas-border-20180930/

Wannabe's are not actualities. These children are from Central America, and probably do not have any sponsors or relatives. The one exception is that one sweet little girl, who's mother made her memorize her aunt's telephone number. But that's a rare case. There is no hope of ever reuniting with their parents, who likely have been deported. The children are either deported, or fed into foster care.

But you need to be asking the real question: why is this necessary? It's vindictiveness...hate for the children who are from--as Trump describes it--shithole nations. It's not happening on the Canadian border.

by Sponsored content

Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.

Re: Mother allowed to keep the baby she shook so hard she caused brain damage.