AFAIK post-partum depression can be treated just like any other
depression. This would however require that some help be available
with the children, from family if not spouse. I am speculating here
but perhaps this woman (or her husband) did not want to admit that
there was a problem and convinced the worker to see things their way.
Evidently there was, and the children should have been removed if
necessary. Better foster children than dead.

The news stories I have seen don't give me enough information to
assess this woman's degree of culpability. SInce I had a mild case of
PPD myself, I am inclined to be sympathetic, but my sympathy doesn't
extend to these actions. Surely she -- or her husband -- must have had
some inckling somewhere along the line that the kids were in danger.
Poor things.

Dana

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:55:03 -0500, Jim Davis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But that's exactly my point: I don't think that these things are followed up
> on with subsequent children.
> 
> Post Partum Depression (as this case proves) can be very serious and
> dangerous - but there seems to be no system in place to do follow ups.  This
> is in general as well, forget about dropped investigations: if you're
> convicted of child abuse you don't have to legally inform anybody when you
> get pregnant again.
> 
> But the problem remains: what to do about PPD?  Do we lock up the mom until
> her hormones balance out?  I'm not saying by any means that this was not
> preventable, just that the solutions don't seem all that clear to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Davis
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:44 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: WTF?
> 
> Well, gee, I think that the conclusion that she did not pose a threat
> to her children might possibly have been mistaken. It seems like a
> case where you would want to err on the side of caution. Regardless of
> why she had the third child... maybe she doesn't believe in
> abortion?.... the presence of a newborn should have been a major red
> flag. Babies are totally helpless and can't tell anyone that they are
> in danger. And I wonder what the husband has to say.
> 
> Dana
> 
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:18:51 -0500, Jim Davis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not sure, but as I read/remember it the episode was in relation to the
> > second child, not this (third) one.  I thought they had done an
> > investigation, labeled it "post partum" and kept her on file.  I may very
> > well be wrong tho'
> >
> > That being said if you're a nice, sane person normally and your second
> child
> > caused post-partum depression (enough to have a psychotic break and nearly
> > lose your kids) why in the name of Dog would you have third?
> >
> > I'm sure there would be privacy issues, but I also think there could be
> some
> > reasonable way to monitor women with diagnosed PPD and interview/counsel
> > them in the event of more children.
> >
> > All told I'm not sure that anybody has done anything wrong (even the
> mother)
> > that could have been surely prevented... but a great wrong has been done
> and
> > I think there may be many ways to address that and prevent future
> incidents.
> >
> > Jim Davis
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:00 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: WTF?
> >
> > the thing that really got to me was that child protective services
> > already *knew* about this family. In my opinion that calls for a
> > serious investigation, and probably a firing or two. Who the hell
> > allows an innocent 6-day-old child to return to the care of a woman
> > who just had a psychotic episode and has other small children to
> > boot??????????
> >
> > Dana
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:29:59 -0500, Bill Wheatley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > wow. Hopefully i never have to experience something that would drive
> > > me to kill my child. Has to suck. Poor kid.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:21:47 -0500, Ray Champagne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/3ln4j
> > > >
> > > > Ray
> > > >
> > > > =============================================
> > > > Ray Champagne - Senior Application Developer
> > > > CrystalVision Web Site Design and Internet Services
> > > > 603.433.9559
> > > > www.crystalvision.org
> > > > =============================================
> > > >
> > > > The information contained in this transmission (including any attached
> > > > files) is CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the person(s) named
> > > > above. If you received this transmission in error, please delete it
> > > > from your system and notify us immediately. If you are not an intended
> > > > recipient, please note that any use or dissemination of the
> information
> > > > contained in this transmission (including any attached files) and the
> > > > copying, printing, or retransmission of that information is strictly
> > > > prohibited. You can notify us by return email or by phone at
> > 603.433.9559.
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 
> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net
http://www.cfhosting.net

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:137845
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Reply via email to