Poor little guy.
I thought I recognized you.
She made it to her great-aunt's house. That would have been a great opportunity to take the child to the hospital. She didn't do that.
Also a good point.
I understand just fine. I have done work relating to domestic violence. I have done work relating to child abuse.
1) Show me where it says she is a victim of DV.
Then her children should have been removed from her care.
Hm... Moving to a new daycare shouldn't have effected anything. If that's how MN's children's services worked, then I'm really glad they revamped it. That does not sound effective at all.
Then I apologize for my tone. My bad. Just seeing a lot of people who don't think she should have been arrested bc she was probably abused, too. Which I get. But her possible status as a DV victim does not disqualify her from being a child neglect perpetrator.
Being a domestic violence victim does not disqualify her from being a perpetrator of child neglect.
You can sort of understand it? Her child was injured and in need of medical treatment. She denied him that treatment. She wouldn't have automatically lost custody... She only would have if she dumped the guy who intentionally burned her child. She chose herself over her severely injured child.
More to the point, the daycare would have reported the burns. Mom would have been given the choice of ditching murderer boyfriend or losing the children. Either way, no children die.
As they very well should. A person who leaves their children with a person who they know FOR A FACT is abusing the kids, then they should lose custody of those kids.
I get that, but the children are vulnerable parties. If they are in danger of injury while in her care, then they should be removed from her care.
Preach
No. She would not have given up her children if she thought it would be socially accepted. That isn't real.
Duh so?
THIS IS MY FAVORITE THING. HERMIONE GRANGER AND BELLE ARE THE SAME PERSON.