Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Charging a mom (or dad) when a co-sleeping death occurs

Posted by   + Show Post

I'm in WI.  Milwaukee has about 10 baby deaths EVERY YEAR  due to co-sleeping. 10 deaths in one city in one year!  Really it's due to drunken or drugged co-sleeping, not co-sleeping.

The DA has yet to charge any of these moms or care-givers.  They've said that co-sleeping is part of the black culture so it'd be wrong to charge them. 

The last one the "mom" had been drinking since noon, mixed with pain-killers.  The dad woke up with baby at 2am, handed baby to drunk/drugged mom who fell asleep on the couch with the baby.  She then killed the child by smothering the baby and had no knowledge b/c she was asleep/drunk and drugged.  She has no memory of the dad handing her the baby in the middle of the night.

To me if drugs and alcohol are involved they should be charged and convicted of the death and neglect.  If the parent was sober then charge them and investigate even if the charges would be droppped.

EDITED:  If sober parent then investigate, and maybe press charges.  It should for sure be documented - in case it happens again, the police would know it wasn't the first time.  (One of the MIlwaukee cases a few years ago was a drunk mom co-sleeping, killed her baby - and she had done the same thing a few years before.  She killed 2 kids by drunk co-sleeping - Unbelievable!)

Your thoughts?


CafeMom Tickers

by on Jan. 25, 2013 at 2:46 PM
Replies (131-140):
LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Jan. 30, 2013 at 7:24 PM

You did notice that this conversation started because you claimed that asphyxiation leaves tell-tale marks, right?

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Oh my goodness.

The charging option would not be for SIDS, as I already clearly discussed, it would be for the acute and clearly proven deaths by suffocation. I am not sure how much more direct I can be on this subject. However, WE, here on CM are not going to be drafting any laws so I am not interested in discussing any of this any further. You are just gonna have to take your "witch hunt" argument up with someone else.

Later.


Quoting LindaClement:

SIDS is now, and has always been, strongly associated with parents smoking --not just in the house, at all-- and no one is suggesting that smoking parents of SIDS babies be arrested for anything.

The witchhunt over co-sleeping deaths is ridiculous --not the least because the number of them is a fraction of crib deaths.

Since there is, as you say, no clear and consistent direct cause of SIDS, suggesting ANYONE be arrested is ridiculous.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

What is your point?



The first two portions made sense and then the last portion was a stretch. If you spend any time studying statute you will find that a very common the term "reasonable" used often while spelling out the criteria for a criminal elements to be met. Smoking is an unwise choice and certainly can negatively impact the health of the smoker and those in the vicinity of the smoke. However, that alone is not enough to charge anyone with anything. There are far too many variables left out of the equation to, in good faith, convict of murder. It is not even a remotely reasonable argument. What is next then? Heavy body weight of the mother can impact the health of an infant. Different health issues of the mother can impact the health of an infant. The level of air pollution in Salt Lake city right now is off the charts, directly impacting the occupants of that city and their ability to breathe. No doubt that will impact the health of the children and infants of that city! Who will be charged with murder in these circumstances!? No one. Because while all of these issues certainly influence and impact, even directly, they do not account for all of the variables to meet the criteria of even "reasonable expectation".



Co-sleeping however, can to an extent. The evidence very closely relates to each other. When you place an infant into a bed UNSUPERVISED (because s/he is NOT supervised by unconscious parents) among heavy, unconscious adult bodies and blankets and pillows, and even the edge of the bed against the wall, there is a reasonable expectation of suffocation. Not that it matters at this point because those parents are necessarily at risk of being charged, except in the cases where drugs and/or alcohol is involved, but the point is that the chain of events is easily and readily identified. The variables are all easily tracked. A child was placed into a situation where the reasonable expectations have changed from those present if the child were placed into a crib. And then, all too often, the death is easily linked to suffocation. Suffocation is a very acute cause of death, unlike SIDS which is yet to be clearly defined as a cause of death. We can point all day long to the THEORIES thought to he associated but they are truly nothing more than that... theory. We simply do not have clear and consistent answers when it comes to SIDS yet.





Quoting LindaClement:

The blood vessels burst in the stress of trying to breathe while asphyxiating. It is speculated that (some) babies who die of crib-death do so because they fall into so deep a sleep that they stop breathing at all --no struggle, no petechial herrorrhage visible.

One of the top correlations to all crib-deaths is parents who smoke. 

Don't see a lot of people being convicted of murder for smoking, even when their infants die.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Yes, they can. Suffocation leaves very specific trademarks during autopsy. t is not 100% but for example, most often people who suffocate will have burst blood vessels in the eye ball. Genuine cases of SIDS lack any signs of any other reason for passing.








Quoting survivorinohio:

They can tell on autopsy I believe. 

Quoting JCB911:

And to clarify - no SIDS doesn't require a charge, or even an investigation. I'm of the opinion they can tell wether the death is caused by SIDS, or smothering.

I'm not a fan of charging for accidents - BUT we do it with most everything else.  Sober driver causes a death, they'll probably get charged.  Sober grandparent backs over grandchild, they get charged.  Horrible accidents, just like a sober co-sleeping death (altough I don't hear of many where the parent was sober). So why charge one accident and not the other.

There was a daycare van driver who forgot a 7 year old (7 years not months!) in the back of the daycare van for 4 hours.  He's being charged and could face 9 months in jail - for an accident, that didn't even harm the child.  The 7 year old fell asleep, and was perfectly fine when found.













PhoenixMomof3
by Member on Jan. 30, 2013 at 10:23 PM
Yes, and I made my point.

I notice you make many comments, to myself and others, which seem intended to be cocky and condescending. Backing those comments up with an argument of substance would make for a more compelling discussion.

Take care. Goodbye.


Quoting LindaClement:

You did notice that this conversation started because you claimed that asphyxiation leaves tell-tale marks, right?

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Oh my goodness.



The charging option would not be for SIDS, as I already clearly discussed, it would be for the acute and clearly proven deaths by suffocation. I am not sure how much more direct I can be on this subject. However, WE, here on CM are not going to be drafting any laws so I am not interested in discussing any of this any further. You are just gonna have to take your "witch hunt" argument up with someone else.



Later.





Quoting LindaClement:

SIDS is now, and has always been, strongly associated with parents smoking --not just in the house, at all-- and no one is suggesting that smoking parents of SIDS babies be arrested for anything.

The witchhunt over co-sleeping deaths is ridiculous --not the least because the number of them is a fraction of crib deaths.

Since there is, as you say, no clear and consistent direct cause of SIDS, suggesting ANYONE be arrested is ridiculous.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

What is your point?





The first two portions made sense and then the last portion was a stretch. If you spend any time studying statute you will find that a very common the term "reasonable" used often while spelling out the criteria for a criminal elements to be met. Smoking is an unwise choice and certainly can negatively impact the health of the smoker and those in the vicinity of the smoke. However, that alone is not enough to charge anyone with anything. There are far too many variables left out of the equation to, in good faith, convict of murder. It is not even a remotely reasonable argument. What is next then? Heavy body weight of the mother can impact the health of an infant. Different health issues of the mother can impact the health of an infant. The level of air pollution in Salt Lake city right now is off the charts, directly impacting the occupants of that city and their ability to breathe. No doubt that will impact the health of the children and infants of that city! Who will be charged with murder in these circumstances!? No one. Because while all of these issues certainly influence and impact, even directly, they do not account for all of the variables to meet the criteria of even "reasonable expectation".





Co-sleeping however, can to an extent. The evidence very closely relates to each other. When you place an infant into a bed UNSUPERVISED (because s/he is NOT supervised by unconscious parents) among heavy, unconscious adult bodies and blankets and pillows, and even the edge of the bed against the wall, there is a reasonable expectation of suffocation. Not that it matters at this point because those parents are necessarily at risk of being charged, except in the cases where drugs and/or alcohol is involved, but the point is that the chain of events is easily and readily identified. The variables are all easily tracked. A child was placed into a situation where the reasonable expectations have changed from those present if the child were placed into a crib. And then, all too often, the death is easily linked to suffocation. Suffocation is a very acute cause of death, unlike SIDS which is yet to be clearly defined as a cause of death. We can point all day long to the THEORIES thought to he associated but they are truly nothing more than that... theory. We simply do not have clear and consistent answers when it comes to SIDS yet.








Quoting LindaClement:

The blood vessels burst in the stress of trying to breathe while asphyxiating. It is speculated that (some) babies who die of crib-death do so because they fall into so deep a sleep that they stop breathing at all --no struggle, no petechial herrorrhage visible.

One of the top correlations to all crib-deaths is parents who smoke. 

Don't see a lot of people being convicted of murder for smoking, even when their infants die.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Yes, they can. Suffocation leaves very specific trademarks during autopsy. t is not 100% but for example, most often people who suffocate will have burst blood vessels in the eye ball. Genuine cases of SIDS lack any signs of any other reason for passing.











Quoting survivorinohio:

They can tell on autopsy I believe. 

Quoting JCB911:

And to clarify - no SIDS doesn't require a charge, or even an investigation. I'm of the opinion they can tell wether the death is caused by SIDS, or smothering.

I'm not a fan of charging for accidents - BUT we do it with most everything else.  Sober driver causes a death, they'll probably get charged.  Sober grandparent backs over grandchild, they get charged.  Horrible accidents, just like a sober co-sleeping death (altough I don't hear of many where the parent was sober). So why charge one accident and not the other.

There was a daycare van driver who forgot a 7 year old (7 years not months!) in the back of the daycare van for 4 hours.  He's being charged and could face 9 months in jail - for an accident, that didn't even harm the child.  The 7 year old fell asleep, and was perfectly fine when found.

















Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Jan. 31, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Your point was refuted.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Yes, and I made my point.

I notice you make many comments, to myself and others, which seem intended to be cocky and condescending. Backing those comments up with an argument of substance would make for a more compelling discussion.

Take care. Goodbye.


Quoting LindaClement:

You did notice that this conversation started because you claimed that asphyxiation leaves tell-tale marks, right?

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Oh my goodness.



The charging option would not be for SIDS, as I already clearly discussed, it would be for the acute and clearly proven deaths by suffocation. I am not sure how much more direct I can be on this subject. However, WE, here on CM are not going to be drafting any laws so I am not interested in discussing any of this any further. You are just gonna have to take your "witch hunt" argument up with someone else.



Later.





Quoting LindaClement:

SIDS is now, and has always been, strongly associated with parents smoking --not just in the house, at all-- and no one is suggesting that smoking parents of SIDS babies be arrested for anything.

The witchhunt over co-sleeping deaths is ridiculous --not the least because the number of them is a fraction of crib deaths.

Since there is, as you say, no clear and consistent direct cause of SIDS, suggesting ANYONE be arrested is ridiculous.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

What is your point?





The first two portions made sense and then the last portion was a stretch. If you spend any time studying statute you will find that a very common the term "reasonable" used often while spelling out the criteria for a criminal elements to be met. Smoking is an unwise choice and certainly can negatively impact the health of the smoker and those in the vicinity of the smoke. However, that alone is not enough to charge anyone with anything. There are far too many variables left out of the equation to, in good faith, convict of murder. It is not even a remotely reasonable argument. What is next then? Heavy body weight of the mother can impact the health of an infant. Different health issues of the mother can impact the health of an infant. The level of air pollution in Salt Lake city right now is off the charts, directly impacting the occupants of that city and their ability to breathe. No doubt that will impact the health of the children and infants of that city! Who will be charged with murder in these circumstances!? No one. Because while all of these issues certainly influence and impact, even directly, they do not account for all of the variables to meet the criteria of even "reasonable expectation".





Co-sleeping however, can to an extent. The evidence very closely relates to each other. When you place an infant into a bed UNSUPERVISED (because s/he is NOT supervised by unconscious parents) among heavy, unconscious adult bodies and blankets and pillows, and even the edge of the bed against the wall, there is a reasonable expectation of suffocation. Not that it matters at this point because those parents are necessarily at risk of being charged, except in the cases where drugs and/or alcohol is involved, but the point is that the chain of events is easily and readily identified. The variables are all easily tracked. A child was placed into a situation where the reasonable expectations have changed from those present if the child were placed into a crib. And then, all too often, the death is easily linked to suffocation. Suffocation is a very acute cause of death, unlike SIDS which is yet to be clearly defined as a cause of death. We can point all day long to the THEORIES thought to he associated but they are truly nothing more than that... theory. We simply do not have clear and consistent answers when it comes to SIDS yet.








Quoting LindaClement:

The blood vessels burst in the stress of trying to breathe while asphyxiating. It is speculated that (some) babies who die of crib-death do so because they fall into so deep a sleep that they stop breathing at all --no struggle, no petechial herrorrhage visible.

One of the top correlations to all crib-deaths is parents who smoke. 

Don't see a lot of people being convicted of murder for smoking, even when their infants die.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Yes, they can. Suffocation leaves very specific trademarks during autopsy. t is not 100% but for example, most often people who suffocate will have burst blood vessels in the eye ball. Genuine cases of SIDS lack any signs of any other reason for passing.











Quoting survivorinohio:

They can tell on autopsy I believe. 

Quoting JCB911:

And to clarify - no SIDS doesn't require a charge, or even an investigation. I'm of the opinion they can tell wether the death is caused by SIDS, or smothering.

I'm not a fan of charging for accidents - BUT we do it with most everything else.  Sober driver causes a death, they'll probably get charged.  Sober grandparent backs over grandchild, they get charged.  Horrible accidents, just like a sober co-sleeping death (altough I don't hear of many where the parent was sober). So why charge one accident and not the other.

There was a daycare van driver who forgot a 7 year old (7 years not months!) in the back of the daycare van for 4 hours.  He's being charged and could face 9 months in jail - for an accident, that didn't even harm the child.  The 7 year old fell asleep, and was perfectly fine when found.


















PhoenixMomof3
by Member on Jan. 31, 2013 at 5:30 PM
Hahaa! Yeah, ok.


Quoting LindaClement:

Your point was refuted.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Yes, and I made my point.



I notice you make many comments, to myself and others, which seem intended to be cocky and condescending. Backing those comments up with an argument of substance would make for a more compelling discussion.



Take care. Goodbye.





Quoting LindaClement:

You did notice that this conversation started because you claimed that asphyxiation leaves tell-tale marks, right?

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Oh my goodness.





The charging option would not be for SIDS, as I already clearly discussed, it would be for the acute and clearly proven deaths by suffocation. I am not sure how much more direct I can be on this subject. However, WE, here on CM are not going to be drafting any laws so I am not interested in discussing any of this any further. You are just gonna have to take your "witch hunt" argument up with someone else.





Later.








Quoting LindaClement:

SIDS is now, and has always been, strongly associated with parents smoking --not just in the house, at all-- and no one is suggesting that smoking parents of SIDS babies be arrested for anything.

The witchhunt over co-sleeping deaths is ridiculous --not the least because the number of them is a fraction of crib deaths.

Since there is, as you say, no clear and consistent direct cause of SIDS, suggesting ANYONE be arrested is ridiculous.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

What is your point?







The first two portions made sense and then the last portion was a stretch. If you spend any time studying statute you will find that a very common the term "reasonable" used often while spelling out the criteria for a criminal elements to be met. Smoking is an unwise choice and certainly can negatively impact the health of the smoker and those in the vicinity of the smoke. However, that alone is not enough to charge anyone with anything. There are far too many variables left out of the equation to, in good faith, convict of murder. It is not even a remotely reasonable argument. What is next then? Heavy body weight of the mother can impact the health of an infant. Different health issues of the mother can impact the health of an infant. The level of air pollution in Salt Lake city right now is off the charts, directly impacting the occupants of that city and their ability to breathe. No doubt that will impact the health of the children and infants of that city! Who will be charged with murder in these circumstances!? No one. Because while all of these issues certainly influence and impact, even directly, they do not account for all of the variables to meet the criteria of even "reasonable expectation".







Co-sleeping however, can to an extent. The evidence very closely relates to each other. When you place an infant into a bed UNSUPERVISED (because s/he is NOT supervised by unconscious parents) among heavy, unconscious adult bodies and blankets and pillows, and even the edge of the bed against the wall, there is a reasonable expectation of suffocation. Not that it matters at this point because those parents are necessarily at risk of being charged, except in the cases where drugs and/or alcohol is involved, but the point is that the chain of events is easily and readily identified. The variables are all easily tracked. A child was placed into a situation where the reasonable expectations have changed from those present if the child were placed into a crib. And then, all too often, the death is easily linked to suffocation. Suffocation is a very acute cause of death, unlike SIDS which is yet to be clearly defined as a cause of death. We can point all day long to the THEORIES thought to he associated but they are truly nothing more than that... theory. We simply do not have clear and consistent answers when it comes to SIDS yet.











Quoting LindaClement:

The blood vessels burst in the stress of trying to breathe while asphyxiating. It is speculated that (some) babies who die of crib-death do so because they fall into so deep a sleep that they stop breathing at all --no struggle, no petechial herrorrhage visible.

One of the top correlations to all crib-deaths is parents who smoke. 

Don't see a lot of people being convicted of murder for smoking, even when their infants die.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Yes, they can. Suffocation leaves very specific trademarks during autopsy. t is not 100% but for example, most often people who suffocate will have burst blood vessels in the eye ball. Genuine cases of SIDS lack any signs of any other reason for passing.














Quoting survivorinohio:

They can tell on autopsy I believe. 

Quoting JCB911:

And to clarify - no SIDS doesn't require a charge, or even an investigation. I'm of the opinion they can tell wether the death is caused by SIDS, or smothering.

I'm not a fan of charging for accidents - BUT we do it with most everything else.  Sober driver causes a death, they'll probably get charged.  Sober grandparent backs over grandchild, they get charged.  Horrible accidents, just like a sober co-sleeping death (altough I don't hear of many where the parent was sober). So why charge one accident and not the other.

There was a daycare van driver who forgot a 7 year old (7 years not months!) in the back of the daycare van for 4 hours.  He's being charged and could face 9 months in jail - for an accident, that didn't even harm the child.  The 7 year old fell asleep, and was perfectly fine when found.























Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Feb. 1, 2013 at 9:57 PM

"The blood vessels burst in the stress of trying to breathe while asphyxiating. It is speculated that (some) babies who die of crib-death do so because they fall into so deep a sleep that they stop breathing at all --no struggle, no petechial herrorrhage visible."

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Hahaa! Yeah, ok.


Quoting LindaClement:

Your point was refuted.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Yes, and I made my point.



I notice you make many comments, to myself and others, which seem intended to be cocky and condescending. Backing those comments up with an argument of substance would make for a more compelling discussion.



Take care. Goodbye.





Quoting LindaClement:

You did notice that this conversation started because you claimed that asphyxiation leaves tell-tale marks, right?

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Oh my goodness.





The charging option would not be for SIDS, as I already clearly discussed, it would be for the acute and clearly proven deaths by suffocation. I am not sure how much more direct I can be on this subject. However, WE, here on CM are not going to be drafting any laws so I am not interested in discussing any of this any further. You are just gonna have to take your "witch hunt" argument up with someone else.





Later.








Quoting LindaClement:

SIDS is now, and has always been, strongly associated with parents smoking --not just in the house, at all-- and no one is suggesting that smoking parents of SIDS babies be arrested for anything.

The witchhunt over co-sleeping deaths is ridiculous --not the least because the number of them is a fraction of crib deaths.

Since there is, as you say, no clear and consistent direct cause of SIDS, suggesting ANYONE be arrested is ridiculous.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

What is your point?







The first two portions made sense and then the last portion was a stretch. If you spend any time studying statute you will find that a very common the term "reasonable" used often while spelling out the criteria for a criminal elements to be met. Smoking is an unwise choice and certainly can negatively impact the health of the smoker and those in the vicinity of the smoke. However, that alone is not enough to charge anyone with anything. There are far too many variables left out of the equation to, in good faith, convict of murder. It is not even a remotely reasonable argument. What is next then? Heavy body weight of the mother can impact the health of an infant. Different health issues of the mother can impact the health of an infant. The level of air pollution in Salt Lake city right now is off the charts, directly impacting the occupants of that city and their ability to breathe. No doubt that will impact the health of the children and infants of that city! Who will be charged with murder in these circumstances!? No one. Because while all of these issues certainly influence and impact, even directly, they do not account for all of the variables to meet the criteria of even "reasonable expectation".







Co-sleeping however, can to an extent. The evidence very closely relates to each other. When you place an infant into a bed UNSUPERVISED (because s/he is NOT supervised by unconscious parents) among heavy, unconscious adult bodies and blankets and pillows, and even the edge of the bed against the wall, there is a reasonable expectation of suffocation. Not that it matters at this point because those parents are necessarily at risk of being charged, except in the cases where drugs and/or alcohol is involved, but the point is that the chain of events is easily and readily identified. The variables are all easily tracked. A child was placed into a situation where the reasonable expectations have changed from those present if the child were placed into a crib. And then, all too often, the death is easily linked to suffocation. Suffocation is a very acute cause of death, unlike SIDS which is yet to be clearly defined as a cause of death. We can point all day long to the THEORIES thought to he associated but they are truly nothing more than that... theory. We simply do not have clear and consistent answers when it comes to SIDS yet.











Quoting LindaClement:

The blood vessels burst in the stress of trying to breathe while asphyxiating. It is speculated that (some) babies who die of crib-death do so because they fall into so deep a sleep that they stop breathing at all --no struggle, no petechial herrorrhage visible.

One of the top correlations to all crib-deaths is parents who smoke. 

Don't see a lot of people being convicted of murder for smoking, even when their infants die.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Yes, they can. Suffocation leaves very specific trademarks during autopsy. t is not 100% but for example, most often people who suffocate will have burst blood vessels in the eye ball. Genuine cases of SIDS lack any signs of any other reason for passing.














Quoting survivorinohio:

They can tell on autopsy I believe. 

Quoting JCB911:

And to clarify - no SIDS doesn't require a charge, or even an investigation. I'm of the opinion they can tell wether the death is caused by SIDS, or smothering.

I'm not a fan of charging for accidents - BUT we do it with most everything else.  Sober driver causes a death, they'll probably get charged.  Sober grandparent backs over grandchild, they get charged.  Horrible accidents, just like a sober co-sleeping death (altough I don't hear of many where the parent was sober). So why charge one accident and not the other.

There was a daycare van driver who forgot a 7 year old (7 years not months!) in the back of the daycare van for 4 hours.  He's being charged and could face 9 months in jail - for an accident, that didn't even harm the child.  The 7 year old fell asleep, and was perfectly fine when found.
























PhoenixMomof3
by Member on Feb. 1, 2013 at 10:40 PM
"babies who die of crib-death... no struggle, no petechial herrorrhage visible."

You are successfully adding to my argument. Thank you.

I would, of course, have added the source as these are obviously not your own words, so that one may examine the information more closely... but, you did not. So we can only review what bit you have cut and paste, regardless of actual context or credibility of source. Not the best of resources. None the less, it still adds to my point. Actually, it lends to a few of them but, whatever. :)


Quoting LindaClement:

"The blood vessels burst in the stress of trying to breathe while asphyxiating. It is speculated that (some) babies who die of crib-death do so because they fall into so deep a sleep that they stop breathing at all --no struggle, no petechial herrorrhage visible."

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Hahaa! Yeah, ok.





Quoting LindaClement:

Your point was refuted.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Yes, and I made my point.





I notice you make many comments, to myself and others, which seem intended to be cocky and condescending. Backing those comments up with an argument of substance would make for a more compelling discussion.





Take care. Goodbye.








Quoting LindaClement:

You did notice that this conversation started because you claimed that asphyxiation leaves tell-tale marks, right?

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Oh my goodness.







The charging option would not be for SIDS, as I already clearly discussed, it would be for the acute and clearly proven deaths by suffocation. I am not sure how much more direct I can be on this subject. However, WE, here on CM are not going to be drafting any laws so I am not interested in discussing any of this any further. You are just gonna have to take your "witch hunt" argument up with someone else.







Later.











Quoting LindaClement:

SIDS is now, and has always been, strongly associated with parents smoking --not just in the house, at all-- and no one is suggesting that smoking parents of SIDS babies be arrested for anything.

The witchhunt over co-sleeping deaths is ridiculous --not the least because the number of them is a fraction of crib deaths.

Since there is, as you say, no clear and consistent direct cause of SIDS, suggesting ANYONE be arrested is ridiculous.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

What is your point?









The first two portions made sense and then the last portion was a stretch. If you spend any time studying statute you will find that a very common the term "reasonable" used often while spelling out the criteria for a criminal elements to be met. Smoking is an unwise choice and certainly can negatively impact the health of the smoker and those in the vicinity of the smoke. However, that alone is not enough to charge anyone with anything. There are far too many variables left out of the equation to, in good faith, convict of murder. It is not even a remotely reasonable argument. What is next then? Heavy body weight of the mother can impact the health of an infant. Different health issues of the mother can impact the health of an infant. The level of air pollution in Salt Lake city right now is off the charts, directly impacting the occupants of that city and their ability to breathe. No doubt that will impact the health of the children and infants of that city! Who will be charged with murder in these circumstances!? No one. Because while all of these issues certainly influence and impact, even directly, they do not account for all of the variables to meet the criteria of even "reasonable expectation".









Co-sleeping however, can to an extent. The evidence very closely relates to each other. When you place an infant into a bed UNSUPERVISED (because s/he is NOT supervised by unconscious parents) among heavy, unconscious adult bodies and blankets and pillows, and even the edge of the bed against the wall, there is a reasonable expectation of suffocation. Not that it matters at this point because those parents are necessarily at risk of being charged, except in the cases where drugs and/or alcohol is involved, but the point is that the chain of events is easily and readily identified. The variables are all easily tracked. A child was placed into a situation where the reasonable expectations have changed from those present if the child were placed into a crib. And then, all too often, the death is easily linked to suffocation. Suffocation is a very acute cause of death, unlike SIDS which is yet to be clearly defined as a cause of death. We can point all day long to the THEORIES thought to he associated but they are truly nothing more than that... theory. We simply do not have clear and consistent answers when it comes to SIDS yet.














Quoting LindaClement:

The blood vessels burst in the stress of trying to breathe while asphyxiating. It is speculated that (some) babies who die of crib-death do so because they fall into so deep a sleep that they stop breathing at all --no struggle, no petechial herrorrhage visible.

One of the top correlations to all crib-deaths is parents who smoke. 

Don't see a lot of people being convicted of murder for smoking, even when their infants die.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Yes, they can. Suffocation leaves very specific trademarks during autopsy. t is not 100% but for example, most often people who suffocate will have burst blood vessels in the eye ball. Genuine cases of SIDS lack any signs of any other reason for passing.

















Quoting survivorinohio:

They can tell on autopsy I believe. 

Quoting JCB911:

And to clarify - no SIDS doesn't require a charge, or even an investigation. I'm of the opinion they can tell wether the death is caused by SIDS, or smothering.

I'm not a fan of charging for accidents - BUT we do it with most everything else.  Sober driver causes a death, they'll probably get charged.  Sober grandparent backs over grandchild, they get charged.  Horrible accidents, just like a sober co-sleeping death (altough I don't hear of many where the parent was sober). So why charge one accident and not the other.

There was a daycare van driver who forgot a 7 year old (7 years not months!) in the back of the daycare van for 4 hours.  He's being charged and could face 9 months in jail - for an accident, that didn't even harm the child.  The 7 year old fell asleep, and was perfectly fine when found.






























Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
BaronSamedi
by Bronze Member on Feb. 2, 2013 at 4:14 PM

  There is a difference between death by accident and death by intent.  If the cause of death is smothering while sleeping then how does one prove intent?   Too much speculation. 

PinkParadox
by Bronze Member on Feb. 2, 2013 at 4:17 PM


Quoting Liz132:

 If someone is doing drugs or drinking while they were caring for their child and the child dies because of their impairment they need to be charged. This isn't a co-sleeping issue.

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
la_bella_vita
by Bella on Feb. 2, 2013 at 6:53 PM

 No, not all co-sleeping cases. I only agree in cases of alcohol and drugs.

LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Feb. 2, 2013 at 8:42 PM

You are mistaken. I did not cut and paste that from anywhere. I wrote it.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

"babies who die of crib-death... no struggle, no petechial herrorrhage visible."

You are successfully adding to my argument. Thank you.

I would, of course, have added the source as these are obviously not your own words, so that one may examine the information more closely... but, you did not. So we can only review what bit you have cut and paste, regardless of actual context or credibility of source. Not the best of resources. None the less, it still adds to my point. Actually, it lends to a few of them but, whatever. :)


Quoting LindaClement:

"The blood vessels burst in the stress of trying to breathe while asphyxiating. It is speculated that (some) babies who die of crib-death do so because they fall into so deep a sleep that they stop breathing at all --no struggle, no petechial herrorrhage visible."

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Hahaa! Yeah, ok.





Quoting LindaClement:

Your point was refuted.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Yes, and I made my point.





I notice you make many comments, to myself and others, which seem intended to be cocky and condescending. Backing those comments up with an argument of substance would make for a more compelling discussion.





Take care. Goodbye.








Quoting LindaClement:

You did notice that this conversation started because you claimed that asphyxiation leaves tell-tale marks, right?

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Oh my goodness.







The charging option would not be for SIDS, as I already clearly discussed, it would be for the acute and clearly proven deaths by suffocation. I am not sure how much more direct I can be on this subject. However, WE, here on CM are not going to be drafting any laws so I am not interested in discussing any of this any further. You are just gonna have to take your "witch hunt" argument up with someone else.







Later.











Quoting LindaClement:

SIDS is now, and has always been, strongly associated with parents smoking --not just in the house, at all-- and no one is suggesting that smoking parents of SIDS babies be arrested for anything.

The witchhunt over co-sleeping deaths is ridiculous --not the least because the number of them is a fraction of crib deaths.

Since there is, as you say, no clear and consistent direct cause of SIDS, suggesting ANYONE be arrested is ridiculous.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

What is your point?









The first two portions made sense and then the last portion was a stretch. If you spend any time studying statute you will find that a very common the term "reasonable" used often while spelling out the criteria for a criminal elements to be met. Smoking is an unwise choice and certainly can negatively impact the health of the smoker and those in the vicinity of the smoke. However, that alone is not enough to charge anyone with anything. There are far too many variables left out of the equation to, in good faith, convict of murder. It is not even a remotely reasonable argument. What is next then? Heavy body weight of the mother can impact the health of an infant. Different health issues of the mother can impact the health of an infant. The level of air pollution in Salt Lake city right now is off the charts, directly impacting the occupants of that city and their ability to breathe. No doubt that will impact the health of the children and infants of that city! Who will be charged with murder in these circumstances!? No one. Because while all of these issues certainly influence and impact, even directly, they do not account for all of the variables to meet the criteria of even "reasonable expectation".









Co-sleeping however, can to an extent. The evidence very closely relates to each other. When you place an infant into a bed UNSUPERVISED (because s/he is NOT supervised by unconscious parents) among heavy, unconscious adult bodies and blankets and pillows, and even the edge of the bed against the wall, there is a reasonable expectation of suffocation. Not that it matters at this point because those parents are necessarily at risk of being charged, except in the cases where drugs and/or alcohol is involved, but the point is that the chain of events is easily and readily identified. The variables are all easily tracked. A child was placed into a situation where the reasonable expectations have changed from those present if the child were placed into a crib. And then, all too often, the death is easily linked to suffocation. Suffocation is a very acute cause of death, unlike SIDS which is yet to be clearly defined as a cause of death. We can point all day long to the THEORIES thought to he associated but they are truly nothing more than that... theory. We simply do not have clear and consistent answers when it comes to SIDS yet.














Quoting LindaClement:

The blood vessels burst in the stress of trying to breathe while asphyxiating. It is speculated that (some) babies who die of crib-death do so because they fall into so deep a sleep that they stop breathing at all --no struggle, no petechial herrorrhage visible.

One of the top correlations to all crib-deaths is parents who smoke. 

Don't see a lot of people being convicted of murder for smoking, even when their infants die.

Quoting PhoenixMomof3:

Yes, they can. Suffocation leaves very specific trademarks during autopsy. t is not 100% but for example, most often people who suffocate will have burst blood vessels in the eye ball. Genuine cases of SIDS lack any signs of any other reason for passing.

















Quoting survivorinohio:

They can tell on autopsy I believe. 

Quoting JCB911:

And to clarify - no SIDS doesn't require a charge, or even an investigation. I'm of the opinion they can tell wether the death is caused by SIDS, or smothering.

I'm not a fan of charging for accidents - BUT we do it with most everything else.  Sober driver causes a death, they'll probably get charged.  Sober grandparent backs over grandchild, they get charged.  Horrible accidents, just like a sober co-sleeping death (altough I don't hear of many where the parent was sober). So why charge one accident and not the other.

There was a daycare van driver who forgot a 7 year old (7 years not months!) in the back of the daycare van for 4 hours.  He's being charged and could face 9 months in jail - for an accident, that didn't even harm the child.  The 7 year old fell asleep, and was perfectly fine when found.































Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN