Today is 10 years since Andrea Yates drowned her children

[amey311]

Was there a TV movie or CSI episode or something where the couple had several young children and the mother was feeling incredibly overwhelmed, expressed as much to the father and he basically told her (as he left for work, leaving her alone) that basically God would take care of her and she just needed to be a better mother?

 

Because I swear that's one of the things I think of whenever I think of Andrea Yates - a desperate woman and a domineering husband who thinks she's just not trying hard enough.

 

I have no evidence Randy was anything like this, but the cynic in me sometimes wondered if a similar thing happened. And you can say all you want that he didn't want his children to die (because it's horrible to think that maybe he did), but who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Maybe he thought he had a weak wife and was going to end up with weak children. Maybe he wanted out of the marriage and family, but didn't want to do the dirty work. Maybe he really did think that his god would provide. Maybe Randy is a psychopath.

[Violet Crown]

nm

Edited June 21, 2011 by Sharon in Austin
probably the wrong tone for this thread

[cathmom]

I wouldn't hand a drunk driver the car keys, even if he could walk a straight line and recite the alphabet forward-backward-sideways, even if I believed that he could probably get home just fine. Drunk drivers usually do get home just fine, but the risk is too great and the cost too high when they don't. If I did, and someone was killed as a result, I could (and should) be held liable.

 

I cannot imagine leaving my children with anyone who was battling a mental illness that could endanger them in any way, even if it was most likely that they would be all right. I think Rusty Yates probably thought to himself, "Half an hour <until his mother arrived> will be just fine," believing that the risk was small. But he was in his right mind, and he did know that there was a risk, and he took that chance. He is culpable.

 

I'd be willing to bet, though, that every single day of his life he regrets walking out that door.

 

Cat

 

I like your comparison to a drunk driver. When I hurt my back a few months ago and was on pain killers, my dh wouldn't leave me alone with the little ones at all, not even for an hour to drop our oldest off at dance. I couldn't take care of them myself and he knew it.

 

While I agree with Mrs. Mungo (and according to the poll, most of us here do) that once a dc is K age, he/she is homeschooled, I think the larger issue here is that the dc were always home. Andrea never had a break when the one or two oldest were at school. She had been having problems since the birth of the 4th child. The baby was 6 months old at the time of the drownings. That's an entire school year after she had begun having trouble and after they knew she was now pg with a 5th. That's an issue. A mentally ill, pg mother with several small dc probably should not be homeschooling.

 

I had 3 boys in 2 years (2 of them twins), plus 3 older dc I was homeschooling. I had very little IRL support: no family, no babysitting, no driving dc to activities, no meals beyond a few freezer meals friends had made, no money to hire help, and dh could not take off work after the birth of the twins. The sleep deprivation was horrendous - I got to where I had no expectation of sleep, and by the time the twins slept well, I was so used to being awake it took me a while to get used to the idea of actually planning to go to bed and doing winding down activities again. I was blessed to NOT have PPD or PPP, but I can easily see how those kinds of stressors would make it incredibly worse.

[Wheres Toto]

While I agree with Mrs. Mungo (and according to the poll, most of us here do) that once a dc is K age, he/she is homeschooled, I think the larger issue here is that the dc were always home. Andrea never had a break when the one or two oldest were at school.

.

 

I agree with this. I think mentioning the kids were homeschooled was just a way of pointing out that none of them were out of the house for any portion of the day. All 5 kids were home ALL the time.

 

I do think Rusty did not give his wifes issues the attention he should have. Whether deliberate or stupidity, I don't know.

[Aelwydd]

While I agree with Mrs. Mungo (and according to the poll, most of us here do) that once a dc is K age, he/she is homeschooled, I think the larger issue here is that the dc were always home. Andrea never had a break when the one or two oldest were at school. She had been having problems since the birth of the 4th child. The baby was 6 months old at the time of the drownings. That's an entire school year after she had begun having trouble and after they knew she was now pg with a 5th. That's an issue. A mentally ill, pg mother with several small dc probably should not be homeschooling.

 

Yes, exactly. Hs'ing was incidental to the larger issue, and relevant insomuch as it posed more responsibilities to an-already-overwhelmed psyche. Hs'ing did not cause Andrea Yates to kill her children; the fact that hs'ing meant that all her children were always with her, is much more relevant.

 

And cathmom, mental illness aside, I have known several moms who had several small dc, while pregnant, and hs'ing. I have a cousin who has 8, and fits this description. It's exhausting and requires an enormous amount of attention and energy, but doable if a mom is healthy, and well-organized. I've come to think of that scenario as the Christian hs'ing equivalent of the secular ideal that working women can do it all: pull off a career, while raising kids and keeping a clean house.

 

I admire those women who can pull it off, because they're better women than me!

[silliness7]

Yes, I chose my language deliberately. Because Rusty based his "family size choices" on information he received from cult leaders. My sister's dh and her were actively trying to prevent the second, and then he got snipped.

 

Did you read any of the posts since mine? :confused::confused: Have you been arguing your position and making your statements based on what people have said in their posts? Many of whom said they could not or would not read the linked articles because they were too disturbing. I am only using the linked articles (admittedly may have some errors, but what else is there to go on?) Even though I have read the other posts,, since no one here claims to have had a conversation with anyone in the Yates family, I just chalked it up to chitter. I'm only using the linked article for my information. There are several which point out that Andrea's mental illness was present long before the fourth child. And I'll agree with you on this point since the linked article says so. I've never denied this. What the linked article DID say was that she kept her mental illness a secret from everyone, even her husband. She did not tell him she'd had thoughts of stabbing her first child. He did not know. She apparently considered stabbing her first child. Her disease only manifested clearly after the fourth. And by manifested you mean, that it finally got to the point where she could not hide it from her husband at which point he took her to a doctor. Is that what you mean by manifested? If so, I agree based on what I read in the article. It was the repeated pregnancies, along with other factors, that contributed to her complete break down. I think it is 100% possible that if she had NOT had baby #5 AND if her dad had not died, she could have worked through the situation with her doctors and things would have had a very different ending. So I don't think it was the *repeated* pregnancies. I think it was the *fifth* pregnancy that unfortunately timed within months of her dad's death is what made her no longer able to cope and caused the psychotic break.

 

This is the point that I want to make. You have accused her husband of knowingly endangering her by getting her pregnant 5 times in quick succession. You've accused him of ignoring medical advice MULTIPLE times by being intimate with her against doctors orders. How does your accusation have any feet to stand on if he did not KNOW she was mentally ill and was not consulting a doctor about her mental health until AFTER baby #4 was born?

 

You have repeatedly painted a picture of an evil and selfish man and your evidence isn't really evidence, it's just the above accusation. But the evidence says he got his wife pregnant only *one* time after he realized she was mentally ill. I'm not saying that was a good thing to do. I'm saying it paints a different scenario. A completely different scenario. Rusty thought his family was normal after baby #1, after baby #2, after baby #3, after conceiving baby #4. He thought his wife was healthy and fine and able to homeschool her growing family just like many, many, many women are. Why would he think otherwise? Why would anyone think otherwise unless they were predisposed to think that having 4 children is just plain crazy. period. And there are people out there in the wide wide world that think no sane person would have 4 children. I've met some. :001_smile:

 

I was filtering what you were saying about Rusty through the lens of the actual chain of events from the linked article. I wasn't using the hearsay of posters in this thread. Just the linked article. I thought you were making *your* accusation through that same lens. So when you would say "shame on him for treating his wife like breeding stock and thoughtlessly impregnating her based on some whack-job religious philosophy 5 TIMES." I took great offense. I took great offense because I thought you were making the accusation based on the evidence that he believed his wife to be healthy for the first 4 (quick-succession-based-on-religious-weirdness) conceptions. Can you see how that would be offensive? Can you see how it appears that you are saying "Shame on You" to every husband who has a wife in which they had 4 babies in quick succession based on religious beliefs? I realize that you meant only to shame those whose wives were mentally ill and couldn't handle it. But when you use comments like "breeding stock" and "5 babies in quick succession" all the while ignoring the fact that HE DIDN"T KNOW HIS WIFE WAS ILL for the 1st FOUR conceptions, you're not saying what you claim to be saying.

 

So, did you base your decision to have several children on the advice of clearly dangerous, cult personalities? Did your dh ignore repeated and increasingly serious indications that your health was failing, while engaging in attempts to impregnate you? Were you pressured to have children in quick succession by bullyish church leaders? Did your dh choose to leave you alone with your kids after multiple suicide attempts?

 

If the answer is "no," to those questions, then you can rest safely assured that I don't put your family in the same category as the Yates, no matter if you had 20 children. It is your bias that insists that any criticism of the fact that Andrea Yates could not cope with the stresses that came with her 5 children, plus hs'ing, plus serious mental illness, must mean that I think all large families are problematic.

 

I'm still confused why you think *some* large families are problematic. What's problematic is a severely mentally ill woman having a baby without proper medical attention.

 

 

Again, you are projecting your situation onto the Yates'. We are not discussing a case where a woman willingly, with full possession of her wits, chose to have several children with her loving husband. That is exactly what we are talking about. For the 1st 4 conceptions that is what her husband believed her to be. This is why it is offensive because our families have this in common as far as our husbands KNOW and yet you will go all the way back to the beginning to start criticizing their decisions. How can you do that? How can you go all the way back to the beginning? Only hindsight lets you do that. Unfortunately none of us has access to hindsight when we're making decisions in the present. And how can we accuse a man of wrongdoing when he's not a fortune teller.

 

We are talking about a woman who was very sick, partnered with an irresponsible husband, who was bullied spiritually and emotionally by some whack jobs, who fed into her illness by telling her she was evil and the devil. Then, had 5 children fathered on her in quick succession. :confused::confused:

He didn't know she was sick for the first 4. Seriously. Is there some other article I need to read? Please link it.

 

Yes, I do use language that identifies Rusty as the aggressor and the party mainly responsible for the pregnancies, Why is pregnancy plural? He only got her pregnant ONE time after she became ill. That's not good, but it's not as bad as you're making it out. because Andrea was not in a position, emotionally or mentally, to make cognizant choices about how and when to reproduce. Anymore than a woman who is drugged is able to "consent" to sexual relations with her partner.

 

Please link another article. I seriously feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. Can you back up your accusation with evidence that he KNOWINGLY did this FIVE TIMES? Because I totally would agree with the majority of your conclusions if the man KNEW his wife was sick since the beginning of their marriage.

[goldberry]

I lived in Texas at the time this happened and it was heartbreaking. I was ashamed that in Texas she went to prison instead of getting the help she so obviously needed.

 

(And before anyone starts flaming, yes, some insanity defenses are fabricated, but that doesn't mean we should assume everyone is lying and responsible for their actions.)

[Scarlett]

I lived in Texas at the time this happened and it was heartbreaking. I was ashamed that in Texas she went to prison instead of getting the help she so obviously needed.

 

(And before anyone starts flaming, yes, some insanity defenses are fabricated, but that doesn't mean we should assume everyone is lying and responsible for their actions.)

 

I do have so much sorrow for that woman. I cannot imagine how hard it must be to continue to live every day knowing I had killed my children.

[Audrey]

I lived in Texas at the time this happened and it was heartbreaking. I was ashamed that in Texas she went to prison instead of getting the help she so obviously needed.

 

(And before anyone starts flaming, yes, some insanity defenses are fabricated, but that doesn't mean we should assume everyone is lying and responsible for their actions.)

 

 

She is in a psychiatric prison. She is getting help. IMO, she is exactly where she belongs. Yes, she is ill. Yes, she needs her treatment, but what she did also means she needs to be removed from society. On her own, she was not taking her medications. It was only under scrutinous care that her meds began to help her. Without that -- on her own -- and given her horrific acts in the past, if she were not incarcerated, she could be a danger to herself and any subsequent children.

[cindergretta]

Is she alone? With Rusty having moved on with his life, does anyone visit her? Does she have family who check in on her?

 

What a tragic life. :crying:

[Aelwydd]

Please link another article. I seriously feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. Can you back up your accusation with evidence that he KNOWINGLY did this FIVE TIMES? Because I totally would agree with the majority of your conclusions if the man KNEW his wife was sick since the beginning of their marriage.

 

 

Rebecca, please do not take this in the wrong manner. But every. single. argument you are making is based on a misrepresentation every point I have made. The best example being where I refuted your belief that "I think all large families are problematic."

 

I completely, and totally denied that. So, then you twisted it around to say, I therefore believe some large families are the problem. The only large families that are a "problem," are those that combine parenthood with mental illness. The same is true for small families as well!

 

Again, I have again, repeatedly, and clearly stated that it wasn't merely the fact she had a large family. My argument is that her illness combined with too many children, too quickly, for her to recover from, led to the psychosis. For her. To point that out, is not to make an argument that other women who have several children are going to become psychotic as well.

 

Do you understand now? Is there any other way I can phrase that so you that you comprehend, I am not blaming Big Families for mental illness?

 

Sometimes, pregnancy and birth alone, are enough to cause mental illness, and that is often in the form of PPD. There are also times when the stress of having and caring for children maycompound the problem, or act as the catalyst to a breakdown, but that does not translate to it automatically being the underlying cause.

 

With Andrea Yates, I believe her mental illness was present from early on in her life, due to the numerous reports of a strong family history of it. However, she remained functional, because her mind was able to compensate and hold the illness in check.

 

Then, she got married. The pressures of marriage, and her new life (she quit her job to stay home) began to strain her psyche's ability to compensate. She got pregnant and gave birth to her first, Noah, and it was the combined barrage of the chemical make-up of pregnancy and birth hormones that seriously destabilized the precarious balance of her psyche. This is when she had her first hallucination (see below for links). Not long after, her dh moved them into a trailer, while she had young babies, and started having a Bible study 3x a week, with the cult leaders as the main attraction. She's struggling to assimilate all the demands put upon by religious authorities in her life, as well as going through 2 more pregnancies, and the strain those put upon her mental health.

 

I'm sure Andrea Yates was teetering pretty badly at this point. Finally, she has her 4th baby, and BAM. The floodgates burst and she has her first serious break down. She is seriously, seriously ill now. She's way past the "exhaustion" phase, and into a deadly decline. Not long after, she's pregnant again. Subjected, again, to the barrage of hormones that better her injured synapses and push her past any innate ability to recover from this latest insult. (And before you bristle, I'm using the term "insult" in a medical context. Google it if you are not familiar with it.)

 

This brings us to the crux of the matter.

 

The point of contention you seem to hold strongest with based on the idea that Rusty was unaware of the extent of his wife's mental illness before the 4th baby, and therefore he should be excused from not taking it seriously enough when it did manifest. Prior to that incident, he was just like any loving, concerned, and tender husband.

 

Here's what I find unbelievable about that: I firmly believe that your husband, or mine, or most women's here, would be aware if you started spacing out, or had a total personality shift. My issue with Rusty is that serious mental illness like that never comes out of nowhere, with no signs, and no warning. If he didn't notice the inevitable signs of her progressing illness, it's because he either wasn't paying attention, or he believed it wasn't an serious issue.

 

Instead of thinking, "Gee, maybe going through the hormones of pregnancy, and birth, and the stress of sleep deprivation, and telling her God wants us to have a large family, is not a good idea right now, until we know her health is up to it," he looked the other way.

 

These following links do indicate that the illness was present early on. What I cannot accept is that Russell Yates never had any inkling, the slightest clue she was off her hinge, during all the time between Noah and her fourth baby. Again, you cannot hide mental illness, and depression--not for long anyway, and certainly not for years. I think your spouse would notice if you suddenly couldn't sleep, became irritable and apathetic, emotionally disengaged from your loved ones, lost or gained weight, and never did anything but sit down and stare off into space. Those are all classic signs of depression and mental illness.

 

Andrea Yates began to show signs of mental illness shortly after the birth of the couple's first child, when she had an hallucination that involved a stabbing.[/Quote]http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)69789-4/fulltext

 

Yet soon after Noah [the first child] was born, Andrea began to have violent visions: she saw someone being stabbed. She thought she heard Satan speak to her. However, she and her husband had idealistic, Bible-inspired notions about family and motherhood, so she kept her tormenting secrets to herself.[/Quote]http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/andrea_yates/5.html