Today is 10 years since Andrea Yates drowned her children

[silliness7]

I just went back to re-read some bits and I think there was another unforseeable trigger and that was her father's death. This happened after baby #5. Again, not a good idea but her husband thought he could spot her depression if it returned and he thought it would be treatable. And then her dad died and all, you know what, broke loose. Literally. It is a very sad chain of events.

[Nestof3]

I read the part about her children not developing correctly. I am just opening up so much here, but I remember feeling the same feelings of despair when reading Michael Pearl's trash and also when hearing time and time again that I was failing if I couldn't get my kids to obey completely the first time. Everytime we left church, I would have to listen to dh complain about how our boys didn't behave as well as the others at the meeting. And they didn't, though I successfully patented Aaron to adulthood. I felt hopeless many times.

[YLVD]

And Rusty is remarried, free, and has a new family.

 

As a (former) homeschooler, a Houstonian Texan, and a mental health professional, that case has always been on my mind. It's come up in a few of my classes.

 

I think her xh is as guilty as she is.

 

:iagree:

[Nestof3]

I agree.

 

((general response, not just to astrid))

 

Hmm, it's been a while since I've read about it, but I definitely do NOT remember Andrea asking not to be left alone with the kids. The m-i-l was in town helping on a daily basis, and it's understandable, imo, that no one imagined tragic consequences to leaving her alone for the hour after Rusty left for work, and before the m-i-l arrived.

 

Andreas was under medical care when this occurred. Rusty was supportive of this, and, iirc, tried to get the doctor to put her back on the medicine that was most effective in the past. He did not oppose mental health care.

 

I think a big factor in this tragic situation is the tremendous religious guilt many people feel at limiting family size. People are often told that their concerns about physical or mental health, finances, etc, show a lack of faith in God. If you believe that God and God alone "opens and closes the womb," and that God will provide for your needs if you have faith, then you likely believe that God would not let you get pregnant if the result was going to be homicidal psychosis.

 

Do I think it was stupid and irresponsible of them to have another baby? Yes, I do. I also think it's stupid and irresponsible for religious leaders to urge people to ignore their fears and concerns about having more children.

[Aelwydd]

I just hate to sit as judge and jury over someone in a situation that I know very little about. These people are suffering in ways...I cannot even comprehend the horror of what they have been through, what he has been through. 5 of his children are dead. I cannot imagine. You don't think this man carries guilt for the decisions that he made? Because he has another wife and another family? Maybe he doesn't. But I certainly wouldn't assume so based on anything that I've read. I would think the man would still need our prayers whenever he comes to mind and Andrea too.

 

I never said he doesn't carry guilt. I actually think he carries a tremendous burden of guilt, precisely because of all the aforementioned reasons I listed. He knows he bears responsibility.

 

Regarding how he impregnated her so quickly after the forth, yep, itsure sounds like "breeding stock." If that's offensive, it should be, because that's how he treated her. But, that's how their religious leaders considered women. I don't particularly feel sorry for Rusty being "led astray," because he was warned repeatedly by other people, outside of his religious circle, that his wife was mentally ill. In other articles, which I can link you to if you're interested, Andrea's brother and other relatives testified to the fact he rarely helped her with changing diapers or other chores. He just dumped on her.

 

So then, she then attempted to kill herself twice in the months preceding the drownings. Yet, he felt it was safe to leave her alone, at all? He didn't realize it was unsafe??

 

Again, speaking as a person whose sister suffered from psychosis for at least a year, I cannot understand how he left her alone. Our family understood not only from a medical standpoint, but from the intuitive, emotional sense you get from a loved one when something's not right. We knew it wasn't safe. You can't hide that level of mental illness--you just can't.

 

So, I'm not calling for him to be imprisoned, although prosecutors did seriously consider charging him with negligent homicide (which tells you the level of responsibility the investigators considered him to have in the situation), but opted not to. I'm not calling for him to be castrated or anything like that.

 

What I am calling for is that his poor judgment, selfishness, and religious indoctrination should be called out for what it is, and held up as an example of what happens when mental illness is ignored or glossed over, for the sake of achieving some person's or group's ruthless ideal of a "godly family."

[Nestof3]

I agree.

 

I never said he doesn't carry guilt. I actually think he carries a tremendous burden of guilt, precisely because of all the aforementioned reasons I listed. He knows he bears responsibility.

 

Regarding how he impregnated her so quickly after the forth, yep, itsure sounds like "breeding stock." If that's offensive, it should be, because that's how he treated her. But, that's how their religious leaders considered women. I don't particularly feel sorry for Rusty being "led astray," because he was warned repeatedly by other people, outside of his religious circle, that his wife was mentally ill. In other articles, which I can link you to if you're interested, Andrea's brother and other relatives testified to the fact he rarely helped her with changing diapers or other chores. He just dumped on her.

 

So then, she then attempted to kill herself twice in the months preceding the drownings. Yet, he felt it was safe to leave her alone, at all? He didn't realize it was unsafe??

 

Again, speaking as a person whose sister suffered from psychosis for at least a year, I cannot understand how he left her alone. Our family understood not only from a medical standpoint, but from the intuitive, emotional sense you get from a loved one when something's not right. We knew it wasn't safe. You can't hide that level of mental illness--you just can't.

 

So, I'm not calling for him to be imprisoned, although prosecutors did seriously consider charging him with negligent homicide (which tells you the level of responsibility the investigators considered him to have in the situation), but opted not to. I'm not calling for him to be castrated or anything like that.

 

What I am calling for is that his poor judgment, selfishness, and religious indoctrination should be called out for what it is, and held up as an example of what happens when mental illness is ignored or glossed over, for the sake of achieving some person's or group's ruthless ideal of a "godly family."

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

I can't remember any mother anywhere defending Rusty Yates 10 years ago.

 

Michael Pearl is a dangerous man. I've seen suffering at his hands, broken moms, broken kids, broken dads, broken homes.

 

When my youngest baby was very, very sick with an illness that made him scream night and day, even in my arms, and I was homeschooling the other three and they were very young and I was SANE and just determined to LOVE my family through that very difficult time (and I did)...

 

one of my best friends told me (as my baby screamed in my arms) that she thought homeschooling was dangerous because I would probably kill my children like Andrea Yates. Moms need a break from their kids or they'll go crazy, she said, and she dreaded hearing that I'd done it, too.

 

I have NEVER been the same after that remark. NEVER. I have never let a woman get so close to me again as to feel the liberty to say such a thing to me.

[Aelwydd]

Why wasn't he charged then?

 

He very nearly was. They certainly wouldn't have considered it, if there wasn't any basis for suspicion in how he approached her fragile mental state.

[silliness7]

I never said he doesn't carry guilt. I actually think he carries a tremendous burden of guilt, precisely because of all the aforementioned reasons I listed. He knows he bears responsibility.

 

Regarding how he impregnated her so quickly after the forth, yep, itsure sounds like "breeding stock." If that's offensive, it should be, because that's how he treated her. But, that's how their religious leaders considered women. I don't particularly feel sorry for Rusty being "led astray," because he was warned repeatedly by other people, outside of his religious circle, that his wife was mentally ill. In other articles, which I can link you to if you're interested, Andrea's brother and other relatives testified to the fact he rarely helped her with changing diapers or other chores. He just dumped on her.

 

So then, she then attempted to kill herself twice in the months preceding the drownings. Yet, he felt it was safe to leave her alone, at all? He didn't realize it was unsafe??

 

Again, speaking as a person whose sister suffered from psychosis for at least a year, I cannot understand how he left her alone. Our family understood not only from a medical standpoint, but from the intuitive, emotional sense you get from a loved one when something's not right. We knew it wasn't safe. You can't hide that level of mental illness--you just can't.

 

So, I'm not calling for him to be imprisoned, although prosecutors did seriously consider charging him with negligent homicide (which tells you the level of responsibility the investigators considered him to have in the situation), but opted not to. I'm not calling for him to be castrated or anything like that.

 

What I am calling for is that his poor judgment, selfishness, and religious indoctrination should be called out for what it is, and held up as an example of what happens when mental illness is ignored or glossed over, for the sake of achieving some person's or group's ruthless ideal of a "godly family."

 

Well in all fairness, her latest psychiatrist seemed to be glossing over her illness more than her husband he didn't seem to be motivated by this ruthless ideal of a "godly family." I'm bristling a bit at that statement.

 

This was a tragedy that happened to a family with lots of kids. It could have well happened to a family with one or two kids. It's like the crazy family of abusers that "homeschools" that starts calling into questioning homeschooling for everyone. She wasn't psychotic because she had 5 kids. She was a psychotic who happened to have 5 kids. It really sounded like her dad dying was the straw that broke it all.

 

I have 7 kids. My dh doesn't do much with diapers and dishes either. It doesn't make me psychotic. :confused:

[YLVD]

I'm sorry but if anyone ever came up to me and told me that someone caring for my children had "homicidal ideation" about MY kids...

 

I don't care how "rare" it is. You don't leave your children with someone like that EVER.

 

Andrea was SICK. Rusty walked out of that house that morning KNOWING that. He's sicker than she is, IMO. And he did get off scott free on it. He couldn't have cared too much about those kids or he would have made their LIVES his priority.

 

:iagree:

 

I honestly can't believe that anyone would take that chance!!! I would cut off my own arm before I would leave my child with someone that had homicidal feelings.

 

He didn't care about her or those children. They were all a means to an end.

[Nestof3]

I hope you don't think i was saying the same thing this person said to you. What I couldn't take was dealing with a child who cried all the time as a baby, who didn't talk but groaned until he was three, who had what I know now are sensory issues and OCD issues -- and being taught that I should just spank him until he changes or let him cry alone until he gets over it. Nothing will ever erase from my mind the memory of him lying in the dark on the living room floor screaming as a baby to the point of hysteria because I believed the religious trash I was being taught.

 

My baby turns ten tomorrow. I'm so glad I escaped such bondage.

 

My posts were about me and I would never presume to imagine what another mother could handle.

 

I can't remember any mother anywhere defending Rusty Yates 10 years ago.

 

Michael Pearl is a dangerous man. I've seen suffering at his hands, broken moms, broken kids, broken dads, broken homes.

 

When my youngest baby was very, very sick with an illness that made him scream night and day, even in my arms, and I was homeschooling the other three and they were very young and I was SANE and just determined to LOVE my family through that very difficult time (and I did)...

 

one of my best friends told me (as my baby screamed in my arms) that she thought homeschooling was dangerous because I would probably kill my children like Andrea Yates. Moms need a break from their kids or they'll go crazy, she said, and she dreaded hearing that I'd done it, too.

 

I have NEVER been the same after that remark. NEVER. I have never let a woman get so close to me again as to feel the liberty to say such a thing to me.

[Mrs Mungo]

No, having 5 or 7 kids, homeschooling, not much help from a hubby, those things do not make a woman psychotic. *Nobody* is saying that it does or could.

 

However, when a husband has been *told* that his wife is dangerously psychotic, she has had suicidal and homicidal ideations and he insists on more kids, homeschooling and isn't much help, then that is a completely different story. And I think he does bear a lot of responsibility in the tragedy.

 

That said, I wish there were more places for families to turn for help. How is a man supposed to earn a living when he can't leave his wife at home with the kids? How is a broken family to afford the type of extensive psychiatric treatment needed in these cases? Where was the magical church or privat charity people believe should step in and help? Government help is less and less available. Private help is almost non-existent. Their church was part of the problem.

 

I have known women for whom I was afraid. I don't know how to fix it.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

Oh! (((((Dawn)))) :grouphug:

 

No, not at all! You have the wrong end of the stick entirely! I was sharing that I was also a victim of that same darkness that comes from spiritual abuse combined with parenting advice, same as you. I'm so sorry I was unclear.

 

:grouphug:

 

My child acted like that, too, and my friend telling me I would probably kill him made me so angry I was afraid I would hurt her. I'd met Pearl and his ilk with my older children and knew the teachings were evil. I have long-standing trust issues with female friends since then, both the aforementioned harbinger of doom and other friends who told me to put him in his bed and let him scream. He was obviously unwell, and I hated them for repeating that unloving advice over and over while I was so stressed.

 

Where were the 'older women' in the church encouraging me to love my children? Nowhere. They were all encouraging me to let him scream and put the big kids in public school.

 

(Toby was like your baby, too. He banged his head constantly and shrieked night and day, and couldn't learn to talk. It was so, so hard. In his case, his autism symptoms disappeared completely after his celiac diagnosis. He was almost 4 when he started getting better, learned to talk, etc. He's almost 7 and fine now.)

[silliness7]

He very nearly was. They certainly wouldn't have considered it, if there wasn't any basis for suspicion in how he approached her fragile mental state.

 

The italicized portions are from the above article. I bolded things for emphasis. (This is not the entire article, btw. I did clip it)

 

Prosecutors will weigh a number of factors that may lead them to prosecute Andrea Yates' husband Russell for either child endangerment or negligent homicide, ABCNEWS has learned.

No decision has been made, but it is being seriously considered, sources said. Prosecutors would charge Russell Yates if and when the evidence warrants, but do not have the evidence now, sources said.

 

I guess evidence never warranted it. *Wondering* if someone is guilty and checking into it in no way, whatsoever, implies guilt. Does it? I'm not a lawyer. I just watch them on T.V. :001_smile:

 

 

Russell Yates testified at his wife's trial that she never told him about the voices and visions she later claimed led her to drown their five children.

"She kind of described it as a dark period, that she was in a dark place," he told jurors in February, referring to his wife's two suicide attempts two years before the June 20 slayings. He earlier described his wife as a loving mother whose mental problems worsened in the months before the drownings.

 

From this and that other article it does sound like she hid a lot of what she was going through from him.

 

 

He said Andrea Yates suffered from severe postpartum depression following the birth of their fourth child and was under the care of a psychiatrist following the suicide attempts. She soon became pregnant with Mary, who was born in November 2000. Russell Yates testified her depression returned and grew worse after the death of her father last March.

 

And that's what the other article said too. Her father's death precipitated a severe turn for the worse.

 

 

Russell Yates Blamed HMO and Doctors

He said his wife was treated by Dr. Mohammed Saeed, a psychiatrist, but didn't seem to improve. Russell Yates said he and his wife returned for treatment June 18, but the doctor didn't put her back on an anti-psychotic drug and changed her prescription. She killed the children two days later.

Today, Russell Yates blamed his HMO insurance and doctors for his wife's actions.

"How could she have been so ill and the medical community not diagnose her, not treat her, not protect our family from her?" he asked. "I would never have taken Andrea to the doctor and hospital that I took her to ... They miserably failed us."

He also said he was considering filing a lawsuit against some of her doctors, but he did not elaborate.

 

It seems to me that if we're going to blame someone for not being with-it on her state of mind and the threat she posed it's more likely we blame her psychiatrist. Why didn't he admit her to the hospital for crying out loud?

 

 

Yates has come in for criticism for not doing more for his wife. She home-schooled all their children, and had little time to herself, and one friend testified in the trial that she tried to get Russell to do more, but he didn't.

 

This is the kind of carp that really frosts my cookies. I homeschool all of my children. I have little time to myself. I try to get my dh to do more but he doesn't. So what? This does not drive a woman to kill her children. Run off and get a divorce. Maybe. She was very sick. I hate fingers pointing at the homeschooling lots of kids thing. She was just sick. And I can't help but think how much more guilt this piles on him. Like if he would have just picked up his SOCKS the kids would still be here.:confused:

[YLVD]

No, having 5 or 7 kids, homeschooling, not much help from a hubby, those things do not make a woman psychotic. *Nobody* is saying that it does or could.

 

However, when a husband has been *told* that his wife is dangerously psychotic, she has had suicidal and homicidal ideations and he insists on more kids, homeschooling and isn't much help, then that is a completely different story. And I think he does bear a lot of responsibility in the tragedy.

 

That said, I wish there were more places for families to turn for help. How is a man supposed to earn a living when he can't leave his wife at home with the kids? How is a broken family to afford the type of extensive psychiatric treatment needed in these cases? Where was the magical church or privat charity people believe should step in and help? Government help is less and less available. Private help is almost non-existent. Their church was part of the problem.

 

I have known women for whom I was afraid. I don't know how to fix it.

 

I agree with every word of this. I erased my own post and just cosigned onto yours as I was repeating most of it.

 

I'm fairly new here to the forums but I'm just going to be open here and state that I have Bipolar disorder. It's well treated with medication and all of that.

 

My partner has the responsibility to make sure that I'm in a state in which I can care for my DD, drive, etc. That is just one aspect of being with someone that is mentally ill. He will intervene and make sure that I don't drive or do anything really, if I'm having a rough time.

 

If I'm having a major mood issue at night, which tends to be an unsafe time for me, he stays up all night with me if he has to. He is not going to take a one percent risk that the Bipolar disorder could steer me to suicide..even though that isn't really an issue with me.

 

Another part of helping me with this is that he stays on top of my medications, doctor appointments, etc..all to keep me and our family healthy and safe. That's what a good partner does.

 

That's how he keeps me and all of us safe, even though I've not ever had psychosis, etc..it's still applicable.

 

I do find it sad that there are so few resources for spouses of mentally ill people. The treatment and time is so hard to handle. The stigma is tough to face. I decided that after my diagnosis, two years ago, that I was not going to hide from it and speak about it as I would any other illness. But, that stigma does persist.

Edited June 21, 2011 by YLVD

[Carol in Cal.]

Again, NOT defending Rusty Yates as I *do* have huge issues with various aspects of his involvement.

 

However, on the issue of fears about her hurting the kids. Though she was having post partum psychosis and "homicidal ideation," it still is considered "not likely to happen." The great majority of women who have PPD and PP psychosis will NOT harm their own children or themselves though the thoughts (as well as visions, auditory hallucinations, etc) are suffered.

 

Statistically, it's not going to happen. It almost never does. So why would the professionals (not defending Dr. Starbranch either as I strongly dislike that woman) or husband believe she would be the exception to the rule?

 

I do believe we need to take concerns seriously. And I certainly don't think the problem should be exacerbated! But it is reasonable to me to believe that no one really thought she would do it.

 

I think that whether or not you think that someone is likely to kill their children, to leave a flock of very young children with someone who is not seeing reality clearly is criminally irresponsible. There is so much trouble that children can get into on their own. The oldest was only 7. Leaving them alone would probably have been illegal, and leaving them in the care of a delusional person was wrong.

[Aelwydd]

No, having 5 or 7 kids, homeschooling, not much help from a hubby, those things do not make a woman psychotic. *Nobody* is saying that it does or could.

 

However, when a husband has been *told* that his wife is dangerously psychotic, she has had suicidal and homicidal ideations and he insists on more kids, homeschooling and isn't much help, then that is a completely different story. And I think he does bear a lot of responsibility in the tragedy.

 

That said, I wish there were more places for families to turn for help. How is a man supposed to earn a living when he can't leave his wife at home with the kids? How is a broken family to afford the type of extensive psychiatric treatment needed in these cases? Where was the magical church or privat charity people believe should step in and help? Government help is less and less available. Private help is almost non-existent. Their church was part of the problem.

 

I have known women for whom I was afraid. I don't know how to fix it.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[angela in ohio]

I suffered so badly after my second and third that we came close to having me hospitalized both times. It was very, very, very difficult for dh. The mental health professionals were very little help at all, and dh was trying to juggle work (which paid the bills and provided the medical care) with children - including a new baby - and caring for a sick wife. He wasn't trained in mental health, yet he had to make decisions about what to do for me. I think cases like this highlight the sad way our society fails women who suffer from postpartum mental health issues. It was a struggle for me to get help (and I never really did get adequate help, I just suffered horribly and got better with time) even with excellent medical coverage, and that is ridiculous considering the stakes.

[silliness7]

I suffered so badly after my second and third that we came close to having me hospitalized both times. It was very, very, very difficult for dh. The mental health professionals were very little help at all, and dh was trying to juggle work (which paid the bills and provided the medical care) with children - including a new baby - and caring for a sick wife. He wasn't trained in mental health, yet he had to make decisions about what to do for me. I think cases like this highlight the sad way our society fails women who suffer from postpartum mental health issues. It was a struggle for me to get help (and I never really did get adequate help, I just suffered horribly and got better with time) even with excellent medical coverage, and that is ridiculous considering the stakes.

 

:grouphug: I think if we are going to focus on this tragedy, *this* is where our focus and energy should go. It is awful that people cannot get the help that they need. Truly Awful!

[BamaTanya]

I remember that day too well. In the following weeks, every article I read made me identify with her more and more. The ages of her children. The homeschooling. The religious beliefs. The scriptures and the smiling faces in photographs. Buying homeschool curricula and making costumes.

 

There but for the grace of God . . .

 

When I look at her face I cannot see the "evil" I wish I could recognize in a murderer. And I don't see it in the father, either.

 

My dad was an engineer. He was (is) a great fellow, but not really in touch with much in the emotional areas, iykwim. Everything is black and white for him, and he doesn't grasp how *anyone* can't see rational ideas/solutions/etc like he does. He likes to fix things, but this isn't a problem anyone would know how to fix.

 

I remember that my aunt was mentally ill and advised not to have any more children. Yet, she did. She wanted to. I remember that there were some hushed tones in my childhood about how my uncle had impregnated her against the dr's advice . . . but there were times when she seemed fine -- lively and fun and sweet and she loved babies so much . . .

 

Sigh.

 

I just cannot believe it ever entered the Yates' minds that anything so horrible could ever occur. That a bright and gentle person could become something altogether different . . .

 

Without reading all those depressing details again, I remember that, at the time, I blamed the insurance company that approved X-number of days of inpatient care. WHAT????? Wasn't she nearly catatonic when released into the care of a working man with 5 young children? How could anyone provide the level of care she needed on an outpatient basis? It's possible this (or a similar) tragedy could have occured while he was at home asleep.

 

In fact, there was a similar case some time later -- a woman took her children (maybe 2 or 3?), individually, into the backyard during the night.:crying:

 

Oh, it still breaks my heart.

 

I'd be prone to placing blame with the psychiatrists if I didn't know how very primitive our psychiatry is. If anyone knew the possible danger, wouldn't it have been her doctors? And if they knew the danger, why couldn't someone force her ins. co. to continue covering her hospitalization?

 

What a tragic story. I'll never forget it.

 

I think the worst part is knowing that she was ill, that she was in treatment, that she had a family and a neighborhood, and everything EVERYTHING failed. Her doctors and husband and church failed her and those beautiful children.

Edited June 21, 2011 by BamaTanya

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

I'm on my galaxy tb and have to finger pick, so can't go into my story, but want to share a verse. A few years ago I was praying and asking God about the full quiver doctorine as I never had peace about it. I wanted to know the truth, not mans opinion. I believe he brought this verse to my mind and felt such peace and joy in my spirit that this was his answer. I shared it with my dh and he felt so too.

 

Jnh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

 

 

Jhn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

Even God recognized that flesh and man have and excercise a will in child bearing. It is all about balance, a just balance. We want more children, but are taking a break due to health reasons, which I did get flack for in our quiverfull circles. Also, if I could do it over again, I would of had more space betwwen children. Hubby has mentioned to me how much he feels like really knows our youngest in a way he never did with the others at that age. And, Yes their is a xarkside to the quiverfull movrmrnt that nobody talks about...i have seen it first hand...and it is shameful that these moms can't be honnest about thier struggles and get help...ppl just don't do that around here which is probably common everywhere...but I think there should be a responsibility especially among qf cv hurches and families to nurture and provide that level of openess and care.

Edited June 21, 2011 by JENinOR

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

Oh, and the word man in John 1:13 means husband...so the will of the husband and flesh, well, both man and woman are flesh. And will means a key as in shutting a lock according to Strons concordance.

Edited June 21, 2011 by JENinOR

[GypsieFamily]

I'm sorrym but I read that link and I got to the seocond page and I feel like vomitting. I can't read any more...the reaction of the seven year old ... I have to believe she was seriously mentally ill because how else could you explain something so cold and calculated?

[EthiopianFood]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/houston11news-15750765/10-years-after-drowning-children-andrea-yates-may-be-ready-for-release-25689520

[EthiopianFood]

I'm sorrym but I read that link and I got to the seocond page and I feel like vomitting. I can't read any more...the reaction of the seven year old ...

 

That's the part that really got to me, too. :(

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

Sorry, queen of afterthought here, I wanted to mention that we know in the OT that ppl did use the withdrawl method! Sorry, I know this is OT. :blushing:

[Aelwydd]

Of course the situation isn't analogous to mine. When random reportings, however, harp on how many kids she had and that she was homeschooling ALL of them with their knowing looks and tsk tsk's (people ought to know better) then *they* make it analogous to mine. Apparently we're both trying to point out the same thing. I guess our semantics are crossing wires.[/Quote]

 

I understand that mommas with big families get a lot of flack from other people. It's my opinion that a woman and her husband should have how ever many kids they want, so long as they can provide for their kids' physical and emotional needs.

 

I don't think anyone here has harped on large families as a matter of point. What has been criticized, are certain darker elements of the quiverfull movement and a few other similar groups that push each family to have children, regardless of the means or ability of each couple to provide for these kids. But large families in general? No, no one in this thread has targeted large families as the culprit. If they had, I would have disagreed with the sentiment. That's what I meant about you not needing to feel defensive; the Yates case was not merely about her having a lot of kids.

 

I agree that the religious teaching she was receiving was wrong and disgusting. But I don't think that in and of itself was the problem either. Many people sit and listen to that. Some women find it perfectly fine and correct and teach it to their daughters. Many women get fed up and leave. Not many kill their children. This concept, harping on it bothers me though, because there are people who would think that I sit under religious teaching that is wrong and disgusting. And so many people are assuming that she didn't agree with her religion. Maybe she did. The assumptions are just mind-boggling. And again I'm not trying to make her situation LIKE mine. I'm just using myself (I could use any number of women) as an example of what we have IN COMMON with Andrea Yates. And this was NOT the problem. [/Quote]

 

Well, the point I've been trying to make is that Andrea Yates was not in a state of mind to agree or disagree with the teachings. Her judgment was compromised by her irrational state of mind. That made her particularly vulnerable to harmful suggestions and ideas, in a way that you or I, if we were likewise presented with such, would not be. If I heard someone say, "You're an evil Eve and you're the source of evil," and "Why don't you have 18 children already you unsubmissive, wife," I'd say, "Eff you, very much," gather up my only child, and punch anyone in the face who stood in my way out the door.

 

But I'm not the fragile, insecure person that Andrea was. At least, I'm not now. When I had PPD, I was pretty vulnerable then, and it was difficult to separate objective reality from my emotional interpretation of things around me. However, my dh recognized those signs and he sat down with me to call a psych, and drove me to my appointments, and watched me take my medication. He asked the Dr. questions, and went to counseling with me, to make sure he was on the same page with my treatment.

 

Andrea's husband, on the other hand, got her pregnant again, listened to some crackpot religious nuts with her, and took a passive approach to her disease management. After her two (count 'em, TWO) suicide attempts, did he attempt to get a nanny to relieve her burden? No. Did he take a leave of absence from his NASA job to assess the situation and find out what was seriously wrong? Haven't read of any mention of it.

 

No, he did not change the situation. He left a mentally crippled person with the burden of 4 children a new baby alone.

 

You see why I link the mental illness, the crazy religious beliefs, and the number of kids all together?

 

The mental illness was already present in 1999. It was exacerbated by increasing emotional guilt and shame surrounding her parenting, by the evil, evil "pastor" and his wife. She struggled to be a "good mother" by hs'ing, along with caring for her kids. At this point, Andrea was already stressed, and her mental stability was being tested. But, she was apparently able to cope to a degree with her three kids.

 

Then, her husband gets her pregnant with her fourth, and she has a serious case of PPD. Her mental health is deteriorating rapidly, but she is still attempting to function as a full-time house keeper and teacher for other children, while coping with a newborn--all while depressed!

 

Very soon after, her stupid (yes, he is stupid!) dh gets her knocked up AGAIN. While she's still suffering the effects of PPD. She has her fifth, and then she is in full-blown PP psychosis. Those last two pregnancies have taxed her way beyond her innate ability to cope with the hormonal fluctuations, and combined with her exhaustion and emotional stress of always failing to be a "good enough" (thanks to her pastor's words), something in Andrea snaps.

 

She tries to kill herself. Twice.

 

Then her father dies.

 

Her dh leaves her alone with the kids. The rest is history.

[asta]

And Rusty is remarried, free, and has a new family.

 

As a (former) homeschooler, a Houstonian Texan, and a mental health professional, that case has always been on my mind. It's come up in a few of my classes.

 

I think her xh is as guilty as she is.

 

My first (decent) neurologist was dual boarded as a neuropsychologist and a neurologist. He was the first one to examine her and had to testify at her trial.

 

I still remember, the first time I went to see him - I had seen 2 neuros who were real jerks, who had that "you're just an hysterical woman" approach to medicine - I was really starting to think I was just crazy, just imagining everything. He was doing a mirroring test on me, stopped my hands, looked in my eyes and said (extremely seriously), "I've seen crazy, and you're not crazy." It was very out of character to his otherwise gentle manner.

 

It wasn't until I googled him that I knew who he was talking about.

 

He died rather recently, but I have to tell you, every time I have to meet with a new neuro, I steel myself with his words. And I always wonder why he wasn't allowed to examine Rusty; he would have had him dead to rights.

 

 

asta

 

 

(just to clarify: my neuro wasn't her mental health provider before she killed her children - he was called in as an expert after the fact to assess her competency)

Edited June 21, 2011 by asta

[asta]

This was the opinion, BTW:

 

Over the years Yates has had numerous diagnoses — everything from postpartum depression to schizophrenia. The diagnosis at Skyview at the moment is bipolar disorder.

 

“I don’t believe that for a second,” said Dr. George Ringholz, who testified during the trial that Yates is schizophrenic.

 

Ringholz, chief of the section of behavioral neurology and neuropsychology at Baylor College of Medicine, spent considerable time testing Yates. He said all indicators — the abnormalities in the frontal lobe of her brain, her visual and auditory hallucinations, the postpartum psychosis after the births of Luke and Mary, and interviews with her and her family — all point to schizophrenia.

 

Dr. Lucy Puryear, also an expert witness for the defense, thinks Yates may have schizo-affective disorder. But the precise diagnosis really doesn’t matter, said the psychiatrist and expert on women’s mental health issues. “What’s important are the symptoms,” Puryear said. And that they be treated correctly.

 

“The medical system failed her,” Ringholz said. “There was an overemphasis on calling this postpartum depression. People saw her problems as isolated events, as opposed to a disease unfolding.”

 

Had Yates been helped before she killed the children, Ringholz said, her prognosis would be fairly good today.

 

But she wasn’t. And it isn’t.

 

“It’s horrid,” Ringholz said.

 

 

and a similar synopsis:

 

 

Houston, Feb. 26--(AP) Andrea Yates suffered from schizophrenia and didn't know right from wrong when she drowned her five children in the bathtub in June, a psychologist testified Tuesday at her capital murder trial. "Mrs. Yates was severely ill and in the course of an acute psychotic episode," Dr. George Ringholz said in his second day on the witness stand. "She did not know the actions she took on that day were wrong."

 

Ringholz, a neuropsychologist from Baylor College of Medicine testifying for the defense, said his determination was based on research culled from her medical and family history and tests he conducted on the 37-year-old woman. The testimony of Ringholz is key to the defense, which must convince jurors Yates was insane when her children were drowned one by one on June 20. Prosecutors argue Yates was sane at the time of the killings.

 

Yates is on trial for two counts of capital murder. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty in the deaths of 7-year-old Noah, 5-year-old John and 6-month-old Mary. Charges eventually could be filed in the deaths of Paul, 3, and Luke, 2.

 

On Monday, Ringholz said Yates's schizophrenia began during childhood and surfaced initially after giving birth to her first son, Noah, in 1994 when she considered grabbing a knife and stabbing the child.

 

Yates told him she felt Satan's presence shortly after Noah's birth and "heard Satan's voice tell her to pick up the knife and stab the child," Ringholz said. The symptoms of the schizophrenia didn't resurface until Yates' fourth son, Luke, was born in 1999. Medical records show that Yates attempted suicide twice that year.

 

Jurors were told the mental illness is characterized by a significant impairment in functioning and symptoms like delusions, hallucinations, incoherence and isolation. Defense attorney Wendell Odom asked Ringholz if Yates had ever been diagnosed with schizophrenia before. "Not that I'm aware of," Ringholz testified.

 

Earlier Monday, Dr. Melissa Ferguson, who interviewed the Houston mother in jail the day after her children were drowned, said Yates considered stabbing her five children but decided it was too bloody and that drowning was a better way to end their lives.

Edited June 21, 2011 by asta

[MariannNOVA]

And Rusty is remarried, free, and has a new family.

 

As a (former) homeschooler, a Houstonian Texan, and a mental health professional, that case has always been on my mind. It's come up in a few of my classes.

 

I think her xh is as guilty as she is.

 

I agree.

 

This is what sticks in my mind -- seeing him on Oprah and wondering why he wasn't behind bars.

 

Also - think about when we wash our kids hair in the tub -- some kids, the slightest amount of water near their face, and the child is incredibly resistant and tries to get away from the water. THAT haunts me -- how those children must have fought her and she had the physical strength to continue what she was doing. Tragedy.

[Mosaicmind]

I would have to agree after reading the documents and such that she probably has schizophrenia. Although, I am not expert and have only studied in this field for 5 years; don't have my master's in professional counseling yet. It sounds though as if she had been hearing voices for years before this tragic event and yet no one got her the help she needed. I don't understand; did they all just sit back and let her suffer and her children suffer?

 

Again, I am going to say it: Her husband did not care or love her and her children. If he had he would have stepped up and gotten her the help she needed. I would be dead now without the help of my husband. She was then and is now a very, very sick woman who unfortunately will never get much better and she will now have to suffer with the deaths of her own children on her hands. Her husband got away with it in my mind. He ought to be rotting in jail just like she is; and yes I am a Christian and I do believe in forgiveness but i also believe in justice. Andrea has only to allow the Lord's vengeance to judge Rusty and His vengeance is not going to be pretty.

[FaithManor]

I am in full agreement with Joanne, Aelwydd, and Asta. I would also like to say that Mrs. Mungo is 100% on target.

 

This nation has failed miserably in both the public and private sector on behalf of families and mental illness. We waste lives and the pain is unimaginable. The church, as a general rule but certainly there are exceptions in individual churches, has not done anything to educate men as to their responsibilities, and I hate to say it, many older women do not take the admonishment to "train the younger" women seriously or worse, those that do belong to some crazy cult like the one the Yate's belong to so they do harm of untold magnitude.

 

My sister has studied this case while working towards her master's in psychology. There is more to it than most of us will ever be privy to. The stack of papers she has read numbers into the hundreds and none of it is well disposed to the husband. I mean no disrespect to the state of Texas, I am just relaying something one her professor's said. He feels that the "prosecuting" of a dad under such circumstances is a huge cultural issue, somewhat unique state by state and of course the wording of the child endangerment/abuse laws of each state varies. Some states would be more prone to bringing charges than others. He said the evidence against Rusty Yates would have been enough to bring him to trial on negligent homicide though each state's culture might differ as to how much public support there would be for such a trial. From what I can determine of the laws of Michigan, he probably would have been charged here.

 

Faith

[hsmom]

I am reading about it on the link provided. The first thought that pops in my head why did she kill the kids if she is a bad mother? Why not just kill herself? I hate selfish, nasty people like that.

 

Yes, the husband needed to be charged also!

[Violet Crown]

one of my best friends told me (as my baby screamed in my arms) that she thought homeschooling was dangerous because I would probably kill my children like Andrea Yates.

I suppose this is off-topic for this thread, but I don't understand why Yates is repeatedly presented as a homeschooler. Maybe they intended to homeschool, but my memory is that it was the summer before the oldest child's first grade year. In Texas, Kindergarten isn't (or at least wasn't at the time) mandatory, and I've known plenty of Texas parents who didn't put their children in Kindergarten but weren't homeschoolers.

 

I remember only one single media source at the time mentioning that the Yates children weren't, in fact, being homeschooled.

[FaithManor]

I am reading about it on the link provided. The first thought that pops in my head why did she kill the kids if she is a bad mother? Why not just kill herself? I hate selfish, nasty people like that.

 

Yes, the husband needed to be charged also!

 

She attempted suicide twice. Additionally, she was delusional and hallucinating. When one is hallucinating, one does not have any rationality/reasoning. So it's easy for us, in our right minds, to say, "Why didn't she just kill herself?" She'd already tried that and intervention saved her. When you are so far gone mentally that voices tell you you are so evil, the world is so evil, etc. that your children are better off dead and you get letters from your pastor's wife telling you you are evil, wicked, Eve's witch, and doomed to hell, demon possessed, etc. well, if you have psychosis, if you are schizeophrenic, then at some point you are doing to do what the voices in your head and the voices outside your head (the cult they belonged to) tell you to do. It's the most extreme desperation and it is very, very difficult to wrap our brains around.

 

She needed a nice quiet psyche hospital with excellent 24-hr. per day care. Her husband needed to take the advice of the several psychiatrists she had been to that said, "Under no circumstances should you ever leave your children alone with her, ever" and "don't have anymore children". He didn't. He left for work knowing she would be alone with the children and that she was psychotic. She was not in her right mind and he was. That's why I have some pretty major issues with him not being prosecuted.

 

Faith

[SweetMissMagnolia]

oh man I remember that....sad situation.....

[hsmom]

Yes and no. I have known quiet a few people who have killed themselves. I am by no means proud of this, but if someone really wants to do this (kill themselves) they do it.

 

I am sorry but I really don't care if she was sick or not, it was wrong. She should be dead also. Same for the husband he knew better and still did nothing. He should be locked up for life for doing nothing.

[angela in ohio]

I suppose this is off-topic for this thread, but I don't understand why Yates is repeatedly presented as a homeschooler. Maybe they intended to homeschool, but my memory is that it was the summer before the oldest child's first grade year. In Texas, Kindergarten isn't (or at least wasn't at the time) mandatory, and I've known plenty of Texas parents who didn't put their children in Kindergarten but weren't homeschoolers.

 

I remember only one single media source at the time mentioning that the Yates children weren't, in fact, being homeschooled.

 

Ask any parent here with a kindergartener in a state with no mandatory K if they are still a homeschooler. :001_smile: I would assume the family identified themselves as homeschoolers, and the media didn't check compulsory age requirements to verify that.

[Robin's Song]

I hate that I read the article linked a few pages ago. I read two pages and I am so upset. The details...my babies are that age... please edit and post a warning.

[....]

This just irritates me. They weren't homeschoolers. They just didn't go to school. You can't tell me the parents were working with them and teaching them every day. Yeah, right.

 

I have other things to say, but I don't want to get banned. :glare:

[Nestof3]

:iagree: with everything you said.

 

I have no desire to regulate how many children a family has. I am not for one second questioning a family's choice to homeschool. I haven't criticized families who have and take the time to provide for and educate their children.

 

I am only mentioning what I believe can be the darker side, as you put it, of the quiverfull movement. Walking in a manner worthy of my calling by Christ Jesus is a huge desire of mine, and I believe it is people with this same desire who latch onto this teaching. I have to wonder how many women (and perhaps men too -- they have a lot of pressure and guilt too) are silently suffering. Does anyone else remember the blog post that (I believe) Joanne posted a while back here?

 

Again, I am not saying any of this causes mental illness by ANY means. I am saying they can be a deadly combination.

 

I do not have severe mental illness, and I felt like vomiting while reading the amount of the article I could read, but I do know that I do have enough OCD and struggle to keep calm when there is a lot of stimuli and stress, so quiverfull would be a disaster for my family.

 

I understand that mommas with big families get a lot of flack from other people. It's my opinion that a woman and her husband should have how ever many kids they want, so long as they can provide for their kids' physical and emotional needs.

 

I don't think anyone here has harped on large families as a matter of point. What has been criticized, are certain darker elements of the quiverfull movement and a few other similar groups that push each family to have children, regardless of the means or ability of each couple to provide for these kids. But large families in general? No, no one in this thread has targeted large families as the culprit. If they had, I would have disagreed with the sentiment. That's what I meant about you not needing to feel defensive; the Yates case was not merely about her having a lot of kids.

 

 

 

Well, the point I've been trying to make is that Andrea Yates was not in a state of mind to agree or disagree with the teachings. Her judgment was compromised by her irrational state of mind. That made her particularly vulnerable to harmful suggestions and ideas, in a way that you or I, if we were likewise presented with such, would not be. If I heard someone say, "You're an evil Eve and you're the source of evil," and "Why don't you have 18 children already you unsubmissive, wife," I'd say, "Eff you, very much," gather up my only child, and punch anyone in the face who stood in my way out the door.

 

But I'm not the fragile, insecure person that Andrea was. At least, I'm not now. When I had PPD, I was pretty vulnerable then, and it was difficult to separate objective reality from my emotional interpretation of things around me. However, my dh recognized those signs and he sat down with me to call a psych, and drove me to my appointments, and watched me take my medication. He asked the Dr. questions, and went to counseling with me, to make sure he was on the same page with my treatment.

 

Andrea's husband, on the other hand, got her pregnant again, listened to some crackpot religious nuts with her, and took a passive approach to her disease management. After her two (count 'em, TWO) suicide attempts, did he attempt to get a nanny to relieve her burden? No. Did he take a leave of absence from his NASA job to assess the situation and find out what was seriously wrong? Haven't read of any mention of it.

 

No, he did not change the situation. He left a mentally crippled person with the burden of 4 children a new baby alone.

 

You see why I link the mental illness, the crazy religious beliefs, and the number of kids all together?

 

The mental illness was already present in 1999. It was exacerbated by increasing emotional guilt and shame surrounding her parenting, by the evil, evil "pastor" and his wife. She struggled to be a "good mother" by hs'ing, along with caring for her kids. At this point, Andrea was already stressed, and her mental stability was being tested. But, she was apparently able to cope to a degree with her three kids.

 

Then, her husband gets her pregnant with her fourth, and she has a serious case of PPD. Her mental health is deteriorating rapidly, but she is still attempting to function as a full-time house keeper and teacher for other children, while coping with a newborn--all while depressed!

 

Very soon after, her stupid (yes, he is stupid!) dh gets her knocked up AGAIN. While she's still suffering the effects of PPD. She has her fifth, and then she is in full-blown PP psychosis. Those last two pregnancies have taxed her way beyond her innate ability to cope with the hormonal fluctuations, and combined with her exhaustion and emotional stress of always failing to be a "good enough" (thanks to her pastor's words), something in Andrea snaps.

 

She tries to kill herself. Twice.

 

Then her father dies.

 

Her dh leaves her alone with the kids. The rest is history.

[Nestof3]

This just irritates me. They weren't homeschoolers. They just didn't go to school. You can't tell me the parents were working with them and teaching them every day. Yeah, right.

 

I have other things to say, but I don't want to get banned. :glare:

 

You would probably be surprised how many families are like this.

[asta]

I am reading about it on the link provided. The first thought that pops in my head why did she kill the kids if she is a bad mother? Why not just kill herself? I hate selfish, nasty people like that.

 

Yes, the husband needed to be charged also!

 

There are some apples and oranges being mixed in that statement.

 

A good person (Jane) can have an illness (schiz) that tells her she is a bad mother, and that she will never be capable of caring for her children (this is a delusion stemming from Jane's illness).

 

Jane is convinced (by this delusion, or "false belief system" - think of it as an entity if that makes it more understandable) that she is, indeed, not capable of caring for her children. It becomes a Catch-22. She is not capable of caring for her children = she is not capable. She is not capable = she must act, to show she is capable.

 

(stay with me - remember: Jane is under a delusion, she is not "in her right mind")

 

While in her delusion, Jane begins hallucinating: seeing, hearing things that no one else can. They may be whispers or shadows out of the corners of her eyes, or they may be full on visuals and clear voices. Often they start as the first and end as the latter.

 

Jane is doing something that is referred to as "decompensating" - meaning, the mechanism you and I normally have in place to "compensate" for the daily ups and downs of life - it is disintegrating in Jane. She is unable to compensate for her illness. Her whispers have become screams. Her shadows have embodied themselves. And they have told her exactly what it is she needs to do to show the world she is capable.

 

In the case of Andrea Yates, she was "told" that the children "needed" to be killed (or die - I'm not exactly sure which it was). I don't know what justification her mind gave her. The papers wrote that she said something about the devil telling her to do it, but that isn't consistent with the pathology - that isn't the justification. Faith's sister has probably read whatever the justification was. If I had to guess, I would say it was something along the lines of "you're such a capable, loving mother who loves your children so much you're sending them to heaven", or some such. That would be consistent.

 

Schiz is a scary place when the patient is off meds. And sometimes when they're on.

 

Here is a short, unbiased discussion of what schizophrenia actually is, put out by the National Institutes of Health.

 

 

asta

[Violet Crown]

Ask any parent here with a kindergartener in a state with no mandatory K if they are still a homeschooler. :001_smile: I would assume the family identified themselves as homeschoolers, and the media didn't check compulsory age requirements to verify that.

But I think it's important as an objective question, and so not important whether the Yates family self-identified as homeschoolers. (As an aside, I know people who claim they are "homeschooling" some subject while their children are in a brick-and-mortar school, and so identify themselves as "partial homeschoolers"; also I have met parents who are "homeschooling" their under-four and only child. Saying a thing doesn't make it so. But I digress.)

 

The implication--sometimes explicit, sometimes left for inference--was that homeschooling in some way exacerbated the situation. But the family was not homeschooling: (1) it was summer, so if they were homeschooling, so was every family in Texas; (2) not one of the children was yet of mandatory school age in Texas.

 

If my husband had been hired by the Post Office, but hadn't yet started work, and then went and shot a lot of people, we would find it misleading to have the media describe it as "Postal worker goes on shooting rampage." Even if he considered himself a postal worker. Because the implication would be that something about working in that environment caused, or contributed to, the tragedy: when in fact he objectively would not have been a postal worker.

 

In just the same way, it doesn't matter what the Yates considered themselves. Homeschooling could not have contributed to the tragedy because they had not (yet) homeschooled any of the children. And I therefore find it misleading, if not outright false, for the media to present homeschooling as somehow linked to the killings.

[asta]

Yes and no. I have known quiet a few people who have killed themselves. I am by no means proud of this, but if someone really wants to do this (kill themselves) they do it.

 

Sadly, this is pretty much true.

 

Most suicide attempts are cries for help, not actual death wishes, when it gets right down to it. What people really want is for the pain to stop, and death seems like the only route.

 

If you know someone in this place, there is a national suicide hotline that is free and confidential: 1-800-273-TALK

 

I am sorry but I really don't care if she was sick or not, it was wrong. She should be dead also. Same for the husband he knew better and still did nothing. He should be locked up for life for doing nothing.

 

Gotta agree with Dawn.

 

You might want to read my post on schiz. I spend every day with severely mentally ill individuals. In many ways, they are a heck of a lot more sane (and kind!) than anyone else I encounter.

 

 

a

[justamouse]

Then he offered some scriptures, saying that what had happened was God's will. At the end, he sat down, clearly still in shock.

 

 

:confused::svengo:

 

Sick, sick, sick.

[Nestof3]

Just because no one was mandatory age doesn't mean they weren't homeschooling their children. Didn't they even have a room in which they homeschooled?

 

But I think it's important as an objective question, and so not important whether the Yates family self-identified as homeschoolers. (As an aside, I know people who claim they are "homeschooling" some subject while their children are in a brick-and-mortar school, and so identify themselves as "partial homeschoolers"; also I have met parents who are "homeschooling" their under-four and only child. Saying a thing doesn't make it so. But I digress.)

 

The implication--sometimes explicit, sometimes left for inference--was that homeschooling in some way exacerbated the situation. But the family was not homeschooling: (1) it was summer, so if they were homeschooling, so was every family in Texas; (2) not one of the children was yet of mandatory school age in Texas.

 

If my husband had been hired by the Post Office, but hadn't yet started work, and then went and shot a lot of people, we would find it misleading to have the media describe it as "Postal worker goes on shooting rampage." Even if he considered himself a postal worker. Because the implication would be that something about working in that environment caused, or contributed to, the tragedy: when in fact he objectively would not have been a postal worker.

 

In just the same way, it doesn't matter what the Yates considered themselves. Homeschooling could not have contributed to the tragedy because they had not (yet) homeschooled any of the children. And I therefore find it misleading, if not outright false, for the media to present homeschooling as somehow linked to the killings.

[hsmom]

I do believe it will cause you to do things you would not do if you were sane. Still this lady was able to kill her children knowing it was wrong, telling others it was wrong, knowing she needed to be punished. She knew she was wrong, she was even reported saying she thought she would hurt someone and the she filled the bath on 2 separate occasions before doing so.

 

So, if she was able to do this why couldn't she say "hey I am going to kill my kids" she was screaming for help every where else why not there?

[FaithManor]

 

 

In the case of Andrea Yates, she was "told" that the children "needed" to be killed (or die - I'm not exactly sure which it was). I don't know what justification her mind gave her. The papers wrote that she said something about the devil telling her to do it, but that isn't consistent with the pathology - that isn't the justification. Faith's sister has probably read whatever the justification was. If I had to guess, I would say it was something along the lines of "you're such a capable, loving mother who loves your children so much you're sending them to heaven", or some such. That would be consistent.

 

 

asta

 

Asta is correct, she was also having visual hallucinations and she was "told" that the world is soooooo evil that her children would go to heaven when they died...that this was better for them. She believed that death was better for them and that death was better for her. The problem in killing herself was that after the two suicide attempts, pretty much everything that she could use to do it, meds, knives, guns, hammers, you name it, were removed. Plus, when one is that mentally gone, it can be pretty difficult for coming up with a plan to hang yourself.

 

DD is a paramedic and she's picked up suicidal schizophrenics...they have a very hard time "getting the plan" right so to speak. The hallucinations are just mind-boggling...the hardest one for them is when the person believes that the police officers, fire fighters, medics, etc. are demons...they literally, physically see them as demons...fire coming from their eyes, unearthly bodies, etc. so they are terrified of the very people there to help them. It can take several trained individals to bring them under control and their natural "fight or flight" reponse/adrenals is HUGE. So, it's a really difficult issue to restrain them in a way that brings them under control and yet not hurt them or anyone else for that matter. You should have seen the bruises on dd's legs (shins) and bite marks on her arms a couple of weeks ago from assisting in restraining a mentally ill patient. It's extraordinary! and until the general public gets it's head out of the sand and educates it's collective self about this, we will continue to under treat, under assist, and severely under serve families dealing with this.

 

But, for those that are getting assistance and have been appropriately forewarned, there can be absolutely no excuse for leaving a child in their care. Seriously, Yates could have taken the children to his mother, her mother, an aunt, a cousin, a neighbor, for crying outloud, to a drop in daycare center. He did have options. He was forewarned on numerous occasions, and he did not do what he should have done.

 

As for the poster that suggested Andrea Yates should have been executed, I suppose that if the defendent is found sane enough to stand trial, then that is an option, but I would also suggest that if this is what our society demands, than the very sane, very in their right mind relatives including Yates himself, who chose to leave innocent children in the care of such an individual, should suffer the same fate. It would be a double standard to preserve the life of the sane person who can make choices for good and for evil, and yet deprive the person incapable of rational thought of theirs.

 

I do believe that the "insanity" plea gets thrown around WAY to much. But in this case, she was completely, totally out of her mind...no culpability...thoroughly hallucinatory and the guy who could have taken his children to daycare, called a neighbor and begged for help, called his employer and explained his situation - that he would be late because his MIL was a half hour out - etc. his fate should not be that he has his freedom and is remarried with children. At the very least, we as a society should recognize that he is not one who should be walking freely amongst us.

 

Faith

[Violet Crown]

Just because no one was mandatory age doesn't mean they weren't homeschooling their children. Didn't they even have a room in which they homeschooled?

If a family had a schoolroom for their children, but put them in school at mandatory school age, nobody would think to call them homeschoolers.

 

Words mean things. Years back, the media was making a big deal out of these little white supremacist singing star girls who were "homeschooled." Turns out the mom considered them homeschooled, but they in fact were enrolled in a charter school, and the mom just gave them Nazi trash to read when they were at home. But they were not "homeschooled," any more than the other children in their charter were, and the mother saying they were didn't change the objective reality of the situation.

 

If we want to pretend the Yates children were homeschooled, even though none of them were yet of mandatory school age, then either (a) every child not put in some voluntary school substitute (day care, preschool, nursery school) is at risk to the same extent that the Yates children were (all other things being equal, such as mental illness of a parent); or (b) there was somehow an extra risk created for the Yates children by virtue of their parents considering them to be homeschooled, which would not have existed if the parents hadn't considered them to be homeschooled.

 

Either way, it's fatuous for the media to mention in every report that the Yates children were homeschooled, as if not going to school until mandatory school age is somehow a bizarre and risky endeavor.