Really? Really?

[thegrey1]

[h=1]Ohio woman had been ordered to stay away from baby daughter she's accused of decapitating[/h]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/18/ohio-woman-had-been-ordered-to-stay-away-from-baby-daughter-accused/?intcmp=ob_article_footer_text&intcmp=obinsite

This story says that the aunt who had been given custody of this baby allowed the mother to move in with her a week before the baby was killed!!! Why the hell is this worthless aunt not being prosecuted?

 

[JoanMcWench]

I don't think the aunt could have saw this coming. No sane person could have saw this coming. In her defense (which I hate to do but must) she likely felt the mother changed her ways & wanted to form a relationship with her baby.

 

[Rainman]

Why would she allow the baby's mother to move in with her? While she [the aunt] can't be charged with a crime, I'm sure the guilt that she's directly responsible for the baby's death will rob her of peace for as long as she lives. As for the mother, mentally ill or not, she should be jailed.

 

[Gabe]

It sounds like she tricked her aunt into letting her move in. They should have put the mother in mental health care because they knew she was dangerous. We don't know if the aunt knew how dangerous she was, but a very tragic incident and I hope now the mother will get locked up and the hep she needs.

 

[hellonamesdan]

Wait, the aunt isn't being prosecuted at all?! SERIOUSLY?! Both of them should be up on the stand facing jail time for the murder of an innocent child.

 

[thegrey1]

Wait, the aunt isn't being prosecuted at all?! SERIOUSLY?! Both of them should be up on the stand facing jail time for the murder of an innocent child.

Exactly! The aunt is culpable because she at least knew that the mother had been ordered to stay away from the baby! If I had a loony niece and I was the court-appointed caretaker of her baby, I would NOT let her move in with me, unless the court had released her to be around her baby.

 

[Gabe]

It would be hard to prosecute the aunt, they could say she was an accessory, but they have to prove intent that she knew the baby was going to be harmed. The law is very complicated in motive as well as responsibility. The mother violated the restriction to stay away so the aunt was wrong in granting her access, but it's very much like the mother approaching them in the mall.

The only person who broke the law was the mother. The aunt had a duty of care to look after the child, but that falls under tort law rather than criminal law.

 

[FuZyOn]

It's hard for the aunt to be prosecuted. They need hard proof and in this case she can win the case in court with some good lawyers.
Honestly I don't think she saw it coming. She was probably just a tool and a little bit naive.

 

[thegrey1]

It would be hard to prosecute the aunt, they could say she was an accessory, but they have to prove intent that she knew the baby was going to be harmed. The law is very complicated in motive as well as responsibility. The mother violated the restriction to stay away so the aunt was wrong in granting her access, but it's very much like the mother approaching them in the mall.

The only person who broke the law was the mother. The aunt had a duty of care to look after the child, but that falls under tort law rather than criminal law.

How about violating a court order? Last time I checked, that was a crime of some sort! This aunt is culpable, and if they wanted to charge her with something, they could. She would probably be found guilty!

 

[missbishi]

The aunt is certainly guilty of negligence and I'd be surprised if she wasn't charged as such. We don't actually know whether the aunt has been charged with anything though, I cannot find any reports to say whether she will face and charges or not.