PDA

View Full Version : Prosecuting Dad when Mommy kills



Winehole23
04-05-2010, 09:58 AM
Prosecuting Dad when Mommy kills (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2010/04/prosecuting-dad-when-mommy-kills.html)


I couldn't disagree more with columnist Jacquielynn Floyd at the Dallas News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/localnews/columnists/jfloyd/stories/DN-floyd_02met.ART.State.Edition1.4c859fe.html), who finds praiseworthy a 10-year sentence for a father whose wife killed her child in an episode of postpartum psychosis. She thinks:

there's a moral equilibrium, a sort of righting of the ship, that comes with judicial recognition that a father who leaves his child with a psychotically sick wife is guilty of more than just bad luck.

The sad case of baby Alex marks what may be the first-ever successful prosecution of a dad after a mentally ill mother kills her child. Maxon's wife, Valeria, drowned the 1-year-old in a backyard hot tub at the family's Mansfield house in 2006. Maxon had left to run household errands.

"You left a defenseless child alone with your wife," state District Judge Wayne Salvant told the defendant, who was clearly stunned by the 10-year sentence.

"You express no regret for the offense, and you do not fully understand what your actions had to do with the death of your son."

Nobody at that precise moment said "Rusty Yates." Nobody had to.

But defense lawyer Jack Strickland (no down-and-out public defender, by the way, but one of the most able attorneys in the state) suggested that the case against his client was unfair payback for public animus against Mr. Yates.

You know, of course, that he's the Houston man whose desperately, wretchedly crazy wife, Andrea Yates, drowned their five kids in the bathtub while he was at work.

Andrea, as you'll recall, remains in a mental hospital. Rusty got a divorce and a new wife and went on with his life.

"There was a great outcry after Yates," Strickland said, in trying to persuade the judge to give Mr. Maxon probation. "Maybe to a degree those chickens have come home to roost."

If they have, they're overdue.
Analogizing the situation to "leaving a toddler alone with a loaded gun," Floyd says that "Profound derangement made Valeria Maxon as dangerous to her child as a loaded gun. Doctors had told her husband so in plain English."

So essentially Mr. Maxon is going to prison because tragedy befell when he failed to strictly follow a doctor's orders. That seems wrongheaded. Will we apply the same standard when antibiotic resistant infections arise because people don't finish taking their prescription?

It also sets a bad precedent IMO to prosecute the families of the mentally ill for the actions of their relatives. That could have the unintended consequence of causing family members to refuse to help the mentally ill for fear if something goes wrong they'll suffer criminal liability.

But most of all, I think Floyd's stance and the prosecution's case ignore the realities of postpartum psychosis. I don't think the husbands should be prosecuted in these tragedies, and we're better served by getting the women mental health treatment, preferably up front, than locking them up the rest of their lives (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/when-infanticide-isnt-mur_b_279703.html). Criminal prosecution won't prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future. There is no deterrent value for women in the throes of psychosis, and past the short-term, there's zero value from "incapacitation," since in most cases the psychosis will ultimately go away whether or not someone's incarcerated.

Honestly the money to incarcerate this guy would be better spent on medical research aimed at understanding the problem and developing medical treatments and coping strategies. We're talking about a particularly poorly understood phenomenon.
Only one or two women out of 1,000 develop postpartum psychosis, and in most cases they don't kill their children; they're more likely to kill themselves. It's just not true that the threat of mothers killing their children is something common that every parent has to deal with. The argument that a child's mother should be feared like a loaded gun can only ever be made with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and only from a distance. (OTOH, not every mother who kill her child suffers from postpartum psychosis; I don't mean by these arguments to excuse intentional criminal behavior.)

In reality, Maxon suffered from a serious mental illness that most people (quite thankfully) know little about and find bizarre and shocking when they encounter it. Her doctor told the father not to leave her alone with the child, Floyd reports, but Katherine Stone at Postpartum Progress wonders why she wasn't hospitalized (http://www.postpartumprogress.com/weblog/2010/04/husband-held-criminally-responsible-in-postpartum-psychosis-infanticide-case.html)?
In any event, the doctor's advice flies in the face of all our assumptions about motherhood, much less a husband's assumptions about the wife he loves and trusts. Most folks are ignorant and naive about mental illness unless they have personal experience with a family member, and in cases of postpartum psychosis there's not that familial history of dealing with the situation because the mother was sane and rational just months before. Katherine Stone describes (http://www.postpartumprogress.com/weblog/2010/03/how-does-a-postpartum-depression-survivor-forgive-an-unsupportive-spouse-father-husband.html) her own husband's (much more constructive) reaction to her experience with postpartum depression:


I imagine he resented how hard he had to work to take care of me and my son while at the same time holding down a full-time job. In the end, though, we both learned a lot about what was happening with me and he supported my treatment and encouraged my recovery. I believe his initial confusion and frustration came out of a complete lack of knowledge about what was happening. That emotional mix to me sums up what likely motivated Mr. Maxon's ill-fated decision that day: Confusion, frustration and ignorance, but not malice. The father's role was tragic, but IMO not criminal. His ten-year sentence, and Floyd's column, confuse vengeance with justice.

TeyshaBlue
04-05-2010, 10:09 AM
The father's role was tragic, but IMO not criminal. His ten-year sentence, and Floyd's column, confuse vengeance with justice.

Not to mention the case law gates have now been opened for lawsuits from injured parties against relatives of a mentally ill person. Thus, when another Harris/Klebold pairing goes off, the families get sued into oblivion?

Blake
04-05-2010, 10:48 AM
Analogizing the situation to "leaving a toddler alone with a loaded gun," Floyd says that "Profound derangement made Valeria Maxon as dangerous to her child as a loaded gun. Doctors had told her husband so in plain English."

So essentially Mr. Maxon is going to prison because tragedy befell when he failed to strictly follow a doctor's orders. That seems wrongheaded. Will we apply the same standard when antibiotic resistant infections arise because people don't finish taking their prescription?

Although I could probably come up with a outlandish scenario where a parent might be found guilty for failing to have the kid finish off a prescription, there are too many unknown variables with the antibiotic resistant infections analogy in general.

The doctor directly told him not to leave the toddler alone with her. I see little difference with that and leaving a toddler alone with a dangerous animal.


It also sets a bad precedent IMO to prosecute the families of the mentally ill for the actions of their relatives. That could have the unintended consequence of causing family members to refuse to help the mentally ill for fear if something goes wrong they'll suffer criminal liability.

Maybe, but imo I see it setting a good precedent to possibly prevent childrens' deaths in the future.


That emotional mix to me sums up what likely motivated Mr. Maxon's ill-fated decision that day: Confusion, frustration and ignorance, but not malice. The father's role was tragic, but IMO not criminal. His ten-year sentence, and Floyd's column, confuse vengeance with justice.

Drunk drivers are not (in general) full of malice when they inadvertantly kill others on the road.

I would tend to agree the 10 year sentence is a bit harsh, but the doctor clearly told him that the mother was mentally sick and leaving kids with her is like leaving them with a loaded gun. Other than tragically losing his kid, I'm finding it hard to dig up some sympathy for the guy.

Winehole23
04-05-2010, 10:53 AM
If the mother was a known danger to her own child, shouldn't she have been committed?

Blake
04-05-2010, 11:00 AM
If the mother was a known danger to her own child, shouldn't she have been committed?

I don't really know. That sounds like a reasonable question and there might be a lawsuit against the doctor that made the determination that she was a danger to the child but failed to commit her.

Be that as it may, the father left his child with a known danger.

LnGrrrR
04-05-2010, 11:08 AM
The doctor directly told him not to leave the toddler alone with her. I see little difference with that and leaving a toddler alone with a dangerous animal.


I would agree that this is the key part right here. I'd say he's probably at least partially guilty of negligence.

10 years is pretty ridiculous though... I mean, he just lost his son... who was killed by his wife. I'm pretty sure he's suffering already.

ElNono
04-05-2010, 11:18 AM
To me, the doctor is as negligent. If she's a real danger to others, she should have been committed. There's no other way to look at it.

mrsmaalox
04-05-2010, 11:47 AM
"In 1975, the United States Supreme Court ruled that involuntary hospitalization and/or treatment violates an individual's civil rights in O'Connor v. Donaldson. This ruling forced individual states to change their statutes. For example, the individual must be exhibiting behavior that is a danger to himself or others in order to be held, the hold must be for evaluation only and a court order must be received for more than very short term treatment or hospitalization (typically no longer than 72 hours). This ruling has severely limited involuntary treatment and hospitalization in the United States. "

This is what I believe is responsible for the incredible numbers of homeless persons in our country and for cases such as this one. But there is clearly negligence on the part of the state also. This is how it works in Texas:

http://www.sg-llp.com/mentalhealth-involuntarycommitment.php

Involuntary Commitment

Individuals suffering from mental disorders are sometimes unable to understand the severity of their illness, may refuse to take their prescribed medications, or are unable to recognize their need for medical assistance.

Even the love and support from family members may not be adequate to keep a person with severe mental illness safe and functioning.

Sometimes, the most caring option is to seek an involuntary commitment for someone in order to stabilize their mental health and get their psychological functioning to a place where they can manage their illness.

Involuntary commitment is a process in which a judge decides whether a person who is not managing his/her mental illness should be required to go to a psychiatric hospital or accept other mental health treatment. This choice to follow through with this civil procedure is certainly a difficult one, but it may also be the ultimate life-saving choice.

A civil commitment is not a criminal conviction and will not go on a criminal record.

In the mental health community, involuntary commitment is considered a “last resort” option. When a civil commitment petition has been filed, an investigator will investigate the need for the commitment. Depending on the investigator’s decision, the case may be dismissed without a hearing, the person may go into a diversion program or a hearing may be held. If a hearing is held, the person has a lawyer and witnesses testify. The judge then makes a decision whether the person should be committed.

A person can be committed if after hearing from witnesses a judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person has a mental disorder and, because of that mental disorder, is:

•Dangerous to self or others

•Unable to provide for basic personal needs such as health and safety


Or, the judge can find that a person is:

•Diagnosed as having a major mental illness such as schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder AND

•Has been committed and hospitalized twice in the last three years and is showing symptoms or behavior which is similar to those that led to a prior hospitalization AND

•Unless treated, will continue, to a reasonable medical probability, to deteriorate and become a danger to self or others or unable to provide for basic needs

If the person is committed, the person may be hospitalized or may be required to undergo treatment in some other setting.


Involuntary Commitment in an Emergency Situation


Often, a person’s mental illness will manifest itself as harmful behavior to ones self or others. In this situation, 911 should be called. Some police departments have special units that are trained to deal specifically with mentally ill individuals. For example, Austin Police Department has the Crisis Intervention Team which is assigned this task. The police officers and/or the special unit will need to assess whether the person is an adult (over 18) and whether there is a substantial risk of imminent harm to themselves or others.

If “yes” can be answered for both of these factors, the person can be taken into custody and immediately transported to a mental health facility for observation, whether the person volunteers or not. Once the officer transports the individual to a mental health facility the involuntary commitment process discussed above begins.

Texas Young Lawyers Association. Committed to Healing: Involuntary Commitment Procedures

SAGambler
04-05-2010, 03:11 PM
Drunk drivers are not (in general) full of malice when they inadvertantly kill others on the road.

I would tend to agree the 10 year sentence is a bit harsh, but the doctor clearly told him that the mother was mentally sick and leaving kids with her is like leaving them with a loaded gun. Other than tragically losing his kid, I'm finding it hard to dig up some sympathy for the guy.

Ah, but drunk drivers KNOW they are breaking the law. Last I knew, unless it was put into law with the Obamacare, it wasn't against the law to not follow a doctors ADVICE. Pretty sure this will be overturned on appeal. And at that point if I was him, I would sue every sob including the judge, the police, the city, the prosecuting attorney, and anyone else I could think of that had a hand in trying to put him in prison.

If the doctor was so goddamn worried about her, he should have put her in Bellview or whatever the local whacko hospital is called.

Sec24Row7
04-05-2010, 03:24 PM
That's stupid... no jail time... No reason for jail time... what does giving him jail time do for the community?

Blake
04-05-2010, 03:55 PM
Ah, but drunk drivers KNOW they are breaking the law. Last I knew, unless it was put into law with the Obamacare, it wasn't against the law to not follow a doctors ADVICE. Pretty sure this will be overturned on appeal. And at that point if I was him, I would sue every sob including the judge, the police, the city, the prosecuting attorney, and anyone else I could think of that had a hand in trying to put him in prison.

If the doctor was so goddamn worried about her, he should have put her in Bellview or whatever the local whacko hospital is called.

Whacko hospital?

I doubt this gets overturned on appeal, but it wouldn't surprise me either way.

A parent SHOULD KNOW about the laws regarding child abandonment which is the charge he was convicted on and in this case is a 2nd degree felony. He could have received as few as 2 or a max of 20 years.

Blake
04-05-2010, 03:56 PM
FORT WORTH -- A Mansfield man was convicted Friday of leaving his 1-year-old son alone with his psychotic wife, who drowned the boy because she believed that she was possessed by Satan and her son was the anti-Christ who would be tortured before bringing about the Apocalypse.

A Tarrant County jury deliberated just 32 minutes before convicting Michael Maxon of intentionally abandoning his son on June 30, 2006, placing him in imminent danger of death or injury by leaving him with his wife, Valeria.

The jury will resume Friday afternoon with the punishment phase of the 4-day trial in Criminal District Court No. 2. Maxon, 56, could receive from two to 20 years in prison for the second degree felony. He also is eligible for probation.

According to Maxon’s own testimony Thursday, his wife’s mental problems began in March 2006 when a pediatrician told them that their 9-month-old son, Alex, was developmentally delayed because he could not sit up, hold his head up or crawl. At the doctor’s recommendation, the Maxons took the boy to another pediatrician and a neurologist.

They sought help from a Florida child therapy center, Maxon said. That’s when Valeria began exhibiting signs of mental illness, saying that the baby was dying and that it was her fault, he said.

Valeria continued to cite those beliefs as her husband took her to several doctors and mental hospitals, Maxon said. But her delusions expanded to include her beliefs that her son was the anti-Christ and her husband, sister and herself were possessed, he said.

Despite warnings from relatives and doctors that Valeria should not be left alone with Alex, Maxon said he left to run some errands on June 30. When he returned an hour and a half later, he was met by his wife who told him she had drowned her baby, he said.

Valeria Maxon, then 33, was arrested and charged with capital murder. However, she was acquitted by reason of insanity in 2008 by Judge Wayne Salvant, who ordered her sent to a state mental hospital.

About the same time Michael Maxon was charged with abandoning his son.

Defense attorney Jack Strickland argued that Michael Maxon was tried because prosecutors could not convict the woman who actually drowned the baby. He agreed that Maxon made a poor decision by leaving his son with his wife that day. But he said the hospitals who discharged Valeria Maxon after a few days bear some of of the responsibility for the baby’s death.

“This man has suffered enough,” Strickland said. “He’s lost his child, his wife and everything he has.”

But prosecutors Alana Minton and Alan Levy argued that any reasonable person should have known not to leave the baby with Valeria Maxon, especially someone who had been repeatedly warned not to do so by doctors and relatives.

“His decision not to take Alex with him that day cost him his life,” Minton said.

Martha Deller, 817-390-7857


Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/01/29/1932810/man-guilty-of-leaving-son-with.html#ixzz0kGGqUyC7

The Franchise
04-05-2010, 11:23 PM
^Your highlighted part tells me that the doctors should have locked her in an institution. If doctors knew she was delusional and dangerous, why was she allowed to go home?

Blake
04-05-2010, 11:36 PM
^Your highlighted part tells me that the doctors should have locked her in an institution. If doctors knew she was delusional and dangerous, why was she allowed to go home?

post #8 helped clarify it some for me