Culpability

Rusty Yates As Guilty As Andrea

from JoeUser Forums

*Note: This article is a response to commenting on Gideon's blog Andrea Yates' Conviction Overturned. As I did not want to hijack his thread, I chose to respond here*

Reply By: iamheather
Andrea Yates has had and surely continues to need mental help. I wish they would indict her husband. As someone who has a mental illness that requires daily medication, I think Rusty Yates was just as culpable if not more so in the death of the Yate's children.

Reply By: Shovelheat

I know I'm the odd ball here, but I think she needs to die for her crime, if anybody dies for their crime. Of all people, a mother should protect, even at the expense of her very own life, her children. A juror in the Scott Peterson trial pointed out that fact about him, that instead of protecting his wife and unborn child, he murdered them. Yates knew what she did, just like Peterson. I just can't believe otherwise.

Reply By: iamheather

if you really read into the story, you would see he was severely culpable. It wasn't just his inaction. He sold all of their stuff at some point and made her live in a bus with five kids. A bus....with five kids....that would drive anyone crazy. He also never bothered to make sure she took her meds and continued seeing the doctor. My husband has been married to me for 8 years, and even this morning, he asked me if I took my medication. He makes sure my med is refilled and picks it up from the RX.

Andrea was and is mentally ill. She hallucinated, heard voices, and was haunted with her own demons from the illness. I am not denying her responsibility, but she is a classic textbook case for "insanity." She should be hospitalized for the rest of her life.

Reply By: Shovelheat

Of all people, a mother should protect, even at the expense of her very own life, her children. A juror in the Scott Peterson trial pointed out that fact about him, that instead of protecting his wife and unborn child, he murdered them. Yates knew what she did, just like Peterson. I just can't believe otherwise.

Reply By: shadesofgrey

I don't believe in the death penalty, so I don't believe that she should be put to death. However, I also do not believe that anyone else is responsible for her actions other than herself. Yes, she might be mentally ill, but her husband is not her keeper, he does not control her. It is nice that your husband is concerned about you/cares about you enough to ask if you have taken your medication, but in my opinion, taking medication is the responsibility of the individual and no one else. This is just another attempt to shirk individual responsibility and place the blame elsewhere.

I don't know all that much about the case--if he emotionally or mentally abused her, than he should be culpable for those actions--but nothing further.

 

The above comments will give insight to what I am about to write.

First let me state, that I believe Andrea Yates is exactly where she should be. I believe she was guilty of five horrific murders. She brutally drowned her babies. She must remain under treatment and incarcerated. As for the death penalty, I will leave that in the hands of the jury.

My main assertion in my comments was the culpability of Rusty Yates. He has been portrayed as an unsuspecting victim. He is anything but!

In any marriage, whether good or bad, commitments are made to love, honor, and cherish the significant other. This commitment includes at the least a concern for the welfare of your spouse. In addition, both parents are legally and morally responsible for the welfare of their offspring. The father and mother are equally liable for the upbringing and care of their children.

Rusty Yates, assuming he is not mentally ill as well, holds a greater culpability in the deaths of his children than Andrea, in my opinion. Andrea's mental illness was apparent for years. She had been seeking treatment and on medications for literally decades. Rusty was well aware of her illness and need for treatment including her medication.

Often people who take any kind of medication for any kind of illness, whether it is a cold, flu, or mental illness, are lulled into a feeling of being well while on the medicine. They feel like they no longer need the remedy because the symptoms are masked, but the illness manifests itself again once the medication is ceased. For example, antibiotics usually have a label on them from the RX stating, "Take all of this medication, even if you feel better after a few days."

People who are mentally ill want to get better. They want to be "cured." The medication can make someone feel healed. Andrea Yates had a history of taking her medication for a while, and then stopping once she thought she was cured. Her illness always came back. Her delusions and hallucinations returned shortly thereafter. Andrea did this for years, on and off her medication, again and again.

Rusty Yates did not help his wife through her illness. He did not help her monitor her medication. He did not encourage her to continue the treatment when she began feeling better. No, he is not her keeper. No, he cannot force her to swallow the pills, but a person with Andrea's severity of illness cannot be expected to "think" like a normal person. She, alone, cannot be responsible for taking her medication.

Furthermore, he chose to willingly leave his five children with Andrea everyday. He committed the care of his five precious babies to the care of a woman who was mentally ill, without medication, and delusional. He committed the murders through his negligence and lack of parenting.

If I ever refuse to take my medication, I demand and expect that my husband not leave me responsible for watching and home-schooling our children. Take them to his parent's house, my parent's house, a daycare, anywhere but under the care of a mentally deranged woman.

 

5,684 views 22 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Unless he is the Amazing Kreskin and can read minds, i don't think the actual murder is his fault. If he was smart, he would have left her and taken the kids, or had her committed.
It's hard enough to second guess the sane, let alone the mentally ill.

I think he's more of an idiot for not heeding the signs, and because of that five innocent little kids died. Unfortunately there's no law against stupidity.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/andrea_yates/index.html Link

After reading something in another JU article a few months ago I decided to do some research about what the Andrea Yates case was and the above link tells the whole story with background information. I remember there was something about a - well I'm going to call it a cult. The wife of the "preacher" wrote letters to Andrea telling her she was evil the child of Eve and must repent.

Rusty Yates is culpable but so too are those cult leaders she obeyed.

Five children in a bus is Nuts!!!

But I can't believe that she didn't know what she was doing - she chased Noah and held him down as he struggled - there was vomit and other stuff in the bathtub. In fact it says she knew what she was doing - she was trying to get them to heaven before they grew up and went downhill morally
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

thatoneguyinslc

Unless he is the Amazing Kreskin and can read minds, i don't think the actual murder is his fault.

You don't have to be psychic to understand your wife needs help when she calls you at work day after day telling you she is hearing voices. You don't have to read someone's mind to help someone who is insane. The amazing thing is that Rusty Yates was not stupid. He was negligent.

trina_p

I remember there was something about a - well I'm going to call it a cult. The wife of the "preacher" wrote letters to Andrea telling her she was evil the child of Eve and must repent.

Yes, they were involved in a cult. Add those letters to her mental illness.....

Five children in a bus is Nuts!!!

And she was homeschooling all five of those children in that bus!

But I can't believe that she didn't know what she was doing - she chased Noah and held him down as he struggled - there was vomit and other stuff in the bathtub. In fact it says she knew what she was doing - she was trying to get them to heaven before they grew up and went downhill morally

She admitted what she was doing was wrong and horrible, while in jail under psychiatric care and medication. A fine point to remember. Anyone with the slightest experience with the mentally ill, knows that her type of illness manifests itself in "states." A state of "mania" can last for days, years, or hours. She could easily have done what she did in a state of mania, only to realize what she did when her mental state changed.

Again, I am not excusing her crime. I am not shirking her responsiblity. She should and will remain in a locked down environment.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

The similarities between you and I are frightening sometimes, Heather...I've been saying for ages that he did nothing to prevent what happened.

He did nothing, not a damn thing, to help his wife.  He even had them living in a freakin' BUS at one point. He merrily went off to work every day and left her at home alone with those kids.  She got no respite from caring for them, she even home schooled them...and all this took place when she was having major depressive periods and hallucinations.  He did nothing for her...he didn't make sure she was taking her meds, he didn't cut back his hours at work to give her a break....he stuck his head in the sand like a freakin' ostrich and did diddly squat.

He has been portrayed (and somewhat rightfully so) as a wronged man, a poor husband whose crazy wife murdered their innocent kids - we're supposed to feel sorry for him because he didn't see it coming, because there was nothing he could do.  I do feel sorry for him, I'd have to be a heartless bitch not to - but the fact remains that he must have seen it coming and he COULD have helped prevent it. 

Whew, I feel better now I've got that out.  Thanks Heather....sorry if I ranted a bit there, but it just really irks me.

I'm so glad I'm not the only one who feels like this, btw...

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

dharmagrl

He did nothing, not a damn thing, to help his wife. He even had them living in a freakin' BUS at one point. He merrily went off to work every day and left her at home alone with those kids. She got no respite from caring for them, she even home schooled them...and all this took place when she was having major depressive periods and hallucinations. He did nothing for her...he didn't make sure she was taking her meds, he didn't cut back his hours at work to give her a break....he stuck his head in the sand like a freakin' ostrich and did diddly squat.
He has been portrayed (and somewhat rightfully so) as a wronged man, a poor husband whose crazy wife murdered their innocent kids - we're supposed to feel sorry for him because he didn't see it coming, because there was nothing he could do. I do feel sorry for him, I'd have to be a heartless bitch not to - but the fact remains that he must have seen it coming and he COULD have helped prevent it.
Whew, I feel better now I've got that out. Thanks Heather....sorry if I ranted a bit there, but it just really irks me.
I'm so glad I'm not the only one who feels like this, btw...

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for your post. You said what I was trying (unsucessfully btw) to convey. I completely understood your rant. My post was basically a rant too.

I am so glad that some one else sees Rusty for what he is. Zombie spotted it right away. He just as outraged by Andrea's husband as he personally knows about living with a woman with mental illness and the responsibility and special love this type of marriage entails. 

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
He did nothing for her...he didn't make sure she was taking her meds, he didn't cut back his hours at work to give her a break....he stuck his head in the sand like a freakin' ostrich and did diddly squat.


But he didn't murder his kids, she did. Whether she was mentally ill or not is beside the point in my book--that information should only be relevant in the sentencing phase. You are also going to have a hard time convincing me that all murders don't suffer from some sort of mental illness (even if it is only fleeting)--I just don't believe that sane people kill other people.

But it all comes down to: I have a hard time believing that a husband is responsible for the actions of his wife--with that logic, Lacey Peterson should have known her husband was dangerous and should be held responsible for Connor's death, and her own. It just doesn't work for me.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

But he didn't murder his kids, she did


Yes, she did.  I'm not going to argue her innocence, she systematically drowned those children.  I'm not going to say that he's responsible for those children's deaths because he didn't drown them, as you said...she did.  But, he had some responsibility to protect those kids from his wife and her deteriorating mental staus, and he failed to do that.


Scott Peterson is a highly functioning sociopath.  Andrea Yates was a depressed, psychotic, delusionary mom of 5.  There's a big difference.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
She may have been the hands that drowned the children but he is an accessory before the fact in any sensible person's book.
I am with you on this one Heather.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Andrea was no doubt out of it. Her husband, may have and likely, did contribute to her illness as well as the death of her children. Crimes like this, don't happen without warning signs all over the place to those familar with the family. These things generally happen because they were inevitable outcomes to nearly everyone in the immediate family, primarily to the spouse. I have a sick feeling that Rusty knew it may well happen and thought of it as a means to rid himself of the responsibility of the children and his wife. It's just a gut feeling . But, a clue appears in Rusty's reaction to the whole crime. It is one that is compatible with and in some ways the same disregard for the horror of the crime that Scott Peterson had when he committed on Laci Peterson. There is a shut off valve in the mind that tries to block out assocation with the crime. The disassocation of the guilty shows up as a hardened or unfeelingness towards the victims. Rusty , like Scott Peterson, exhibited the same disregard for the welfare of the children. In that manner, it seems to me, he was a willing participant by simplying continuing to put the children in harms way.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

In that manner, it seems to me, he was a willing participant by simplying continuing to put the children in harms way.


You said what I wanted to much more eloquently and in fewer words!

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

i'd add the yates' spiritual advisers to the list of the culpable as well.  rusty should have been tried for negligent homicide or manslaughter.  his insistence on having more children condemned those already living to death as surely as charlie manson did the people living at the tate residence--and much more directly.  of the four adults involved, the only one deserving compassion is mrs yates. in whatever moments of lucidity she experiences, it must be horribly painful for her to have to realize what she was allowed to do and how badly she was served by her husband.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think Rusty Yates was just as culpable if not more so in the death of the Yate's children.


She may have been the hands that drowned the children but he is an accessory before the fact in any sensible person's book.
I am with you on this one Heather.


Just as, if not more so, culpable and an accessory are not the same thing. You can charge him for his inaction, as an accessory--but that doesn't mean he is just as culpable (note accessories to a crime often get far lighter sentences than the ones who actually commit the crime suggesting, in fact, that they are not just as culpable).

rusty should have been tried for negligent homicide

I'd agree with that.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Just as, if not more so, culpable and an accessory are not the same thing


You're right, they're not.


You can charge him for his inaction, as an accessory--but that doesn't mean he is just as culpable


Again, you're right.  He wasn't the one who drowned those babies.  it wasn't his hamds that held them under the water.  She did it not, him.  But.....he had a responsibility to protect those children, and he failed to do that.


I'll agree with Kingbee and Shades. He should have been charged and tried with/for negligent homicide.  I'll also agree that Andrea Yates was failed by a lot of people - her husband, her family, her friends, her spiritual advisors...people who were witness to her mental unstability but failed to report it or alert someone and have her get the care she so obviously needed.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

shadesofgrey

I just don't believe that sane people kill other people.

This is a ridiculous statement. Soldiers kill other people. Selfish people kill other people. Religious zealots kill other people. These people are not insane.

I have a hard time believing that a husband is responsible for the actions of his wife-

A husband is responsible at the least for the well-being of his wife. He is absolutely responsible for his children's welfare. It has nothing to do with a wife's actions, and everything with responsiblility to protect his family.

dharmagrl

he had some responsibility to protect those kids from his wife and her deteriorating mental staus, and he failed to do that.

At the very least. It wasn't like he didn't know about her mental instability. It wasn't like she became crazy overnight. Decades....

SSG

She may have been the hands that drowned the children but he is an accessory before the fact in any sensible person's book.

Exactly! He has culpability.

Sabbatismus

Have an insightful on me. Thank you for your eloquence.

kingbee

i'd add the yates' spiritual advisers to the list of the culpable as well. rusty should have been tried for negligent homicide or manslaughter. his insistence on having more children condemned those already living to deat

I have a little trouble with the spiritual advisers culpability. They did not live with Andrea. They were not married to her for over a decade. They were actually a short stop along the Yates' journey. But I do think they contributed to her illness.

Rusty once compared Andrea's having children with a luxury car. He said that if you were promised a Rolls Royce but knew that you would have to get the flu before you could drive it....well, you would suffer the insignificant flu in order to receive the reward of the luxury car. He said Andrea would have to "suffer her flue" to have the reward of their children. Disgusting!

shadesofgrey

You can charge him for his inaction, as an accessory

Agreed. Sorry if I was a bit on the dramatic exaggeration side of wording, but I was trying to portray my passion.

dharmagrl

Andrea Yates was failed by a lot of people - her husband, her family, her friends, her spiritual advisors...people who were witness to her mental unstability but failed to report it or alert someone and have her get the care she so obviously needed.

I agree. I guess that is why I am more outraged at Rusty at this point. I feel sad for Andrea, but believe she is at least suffering the consequences of her actions by imprisonment for the rest of her life. Rusty was on Larry King last night acting the victim and innocent husband. I was sickened.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Heather,


Excellent piece and something I've long felt (I responded to this effect on my piece as well, but, like you, wanted to keep it as on topic as I could). As a husband and father, I have identified a few days when my wife was a little overwhelmed and possibly a little more time alone with the kids would not be a good thing (although not to the degree of the Yates situation). I stagger time with each of the kids and get them out and about and give my wife a break. Sometimes it's as simple as letting her relax in the tub and not letting the kids knock on the door with another "need".


As a partner and confidant, I feel it is part of my duty to bring balance to the family so that my wife is best able to care for and nurture the children, an area where she is far more gifted than I. That responsibility includes recognizing when she needs time off (as every mother does, especially with five kids and homeschooling).

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

As a husband and father, I have identified a few days when my wife was a little overwhelmed and possibly a little more time alone with the kids would not be a good thing (although not to the degree of the Yates situation). I stagger time with each of the kids and get them out and about and give my wife a break. Sometimes it's as simple as letting her relax in the tub and not letting the kids knock on the door with another "need".

God bless you for that, Gideon. You are a wonderful man, husband, and father. My husband, thankfully, does the same thing for me and my children. He understands my illness and supports me in all aspects of coping with it.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #15 By: Gideon MacLeish

I think Rusty Yates was just as culpable if not more so in the death of the Yate's children.

Heather,

I couldn't agree more. As parents who homeschool (AND have five children to boot), I can tell you that the task of homeschooling is IMPOSSIBLE for one parent to undertake, especially coupled with the demands of a full time mother. Add to this the fact that Andrea Yates was mentally ill to begin with, and you had a disaster waiting to happen.

Those who don't homeschool will not see the relevance of this point, but as a father who has always been very active in the homeschooling of our children, I have been incensed at the numerous fathers who shrug off their responsibilities to the education of their children as the duties of the mother (the old "women's work" argument).

Rusty made commitments of Andrea's time and resources without being willing to back them up with his own full time support, an attitude that is far too prevalent in this day and age. He shirked his responsibilities as a man and a father, and then played the role of the victim as Andrea slowly deteriorated. I personally believe he was MORE culpable than Andrea, because, as one who was "mentally stable", he was in a position to better gauge Andrea's declining mental state (if nothing else, he could have/should have listened to others who DID see her deteriorating.

Andrea is by no means a victim in her actions, and by no means should she ever walk free again, for her own safety more than anything else. But she WAS a victim in another sense, of an overbearing, domineering and selfish husband, and while that does not mitigate her actions, it does gall me that he has not had to face any liability for his actions. 

 
 
 
 
Reply #16 By: KarmaGirl -  1/7/2005 3:01:10 PM

The first time that I heard about the whole story about this, I thought "Why would anyone let an extremely depressed woman take care of and home school 5 children under the age of 7 by herself?"  Her family *knew* that she was massively depressed, but they still left her alone.

I had depression after my daughter was born.  She had severe colic (which lasted for 6 months) and I had a really bad flare of Lupus which caused me to go bald.  I asked for help.  I demanded help.  I never had an urge to harm my baby, but I also knew that my mind was not in a happy place, and the help was needed to make sure that my child and I never were in harms way.  There is no reason that any mother should allow herself to get to a point where she may harm her child.  She could have called the police, and they would have been there to get her to help and take the children to safety.  It just doesn't make sense.

I don't believe that she should walk away from this.  I don't believe that anyone who could kill their own children should be "free".  A woman that is so mentally ill that they would kill their own child is so mentally ill that they could do anything.  A mother's first instinct is to protect her child.  If a mother can not do that, then she should be in an institution.  I don't think that life in prison is the answer.  I think that life in a mental institution would be better.  And, she needs to be made blatantly aware of what she did.

There are so many people that spend tens of thousands of dollars to adopt just one child.  She had 5, and she killed them all.  It really makes me sick.

 
 
 
 
Reply #17 By: Gideon MacLeish -  1/7/2005 3:11:42 PM

Karma,


She won't walk away from this, that much is certain. The overturning of her conviction reopens the possibility that she will be able to receive another sentence that puts her into a mental health facility for the remainder of her life rather than in a prison, which is ill-equipped to deal with someone with the complex mental problems this woman possesses (coupled with the fact that her lucid moments muct be spent with the guilt of knowing what she has done...a guilt that makes her sentence more appropriate than many realize).


What many people do not realize where Yates is concerned, is that the high profile of her case, coupled with the extreme brutality of her actions, already necessitate her cost of incarceration to be above that of the average prisoner. While we (as well as her attorney, who has publicly stated he will NOT seek her release) realize she needs to spend the rest of her life behind bars, the ever present question is "where?".


And this decision increases the likelihood that her time will be served at a more appropriate facility.

 

These comments were posted on Gideon's origional article. I liked them and thought they could add to the discussion both here and there.

 

 
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Rusty was on Larry King last night acting the victim and innocent husband. I was sickened.


As was I.  I was shouting at him on the TV, I was so irate.  I try not to get angry about much stuff, I try to see things from the other person's POV...but he just makes me spitting mad because she refuses to accept any part of the blame for what happened.  He portrays himself as her victim - poor Rusty, saddled with a crazy wife.  Poor Rusty, whose wife killed all of his babies. Poor, poor Rusty....yeah, right. Perhaps if he had been a better husband, a better friend, a better human being.....perhaps we wouldn't be discussing  how his psychotic wife drowned their kids.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is a ridiculous statement. Soldiers kill other people. Selfish people kill other people. Religious zealots kill other people. These people are not insane


Ok, soldiers and police officiers excluded...

It's all about a definition of sanity--I don't believe that religious zealots who murder in the name of religion are sane.--Now, I'm not arguing for the insanity laws to be changed, nor am I saying that this is a commonly held opinion, but in my book, in order to take another person's life (other than for self-defense) you can't possibily be thinking straight (or, in other words, you are insane--even, as I've said before, if only fleetingly).

My opinions are no more or less ridiculous than your own. But I will admit that they are wholly my own, and I will not force you to agree with them.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
A husband is responsible at the least for the well-being of his wife. He is absolutely responsible for his children's welfare. It has nothing to do with a wife's actions, and everything with responsiblility to protect his family.


I could be wrong, but I don't believe that a husband is legally responsible for the wellbeing of his wife--he could walk out on her tomorrow and no court of law is going to force him to return. Would it be nice if all spouses had their partners best interest and wellbeing in mind? Yes, of course. But I don't think he's legally responsible for her wellbeing.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

dharmagrl

He portrays himself as her victim - poor Rusty, saddled with a crazy wife. Poor Rusty, whose wife killed all of his babies. Poor, poor Rusty....yeah, right. Perhaps if he had been a better husband, a better friend, a better human being.....perhaps we wouldn't be discussing how his psychotic wife drowned their kids.

Exactly! I guess what infuriates me is that she is getting her just punishment and consequences. He is free and reaping monetary rewards through interviews.

shadesofgrey

Ok, soldiers and police officiers excluded...

It's all about a definition of sanity--I don't believe that religious zealots who murder in the name of religion are sane.--Now, I'm not arguing for the insanity laws to be changed, nor am I saying that this is a commonly held opinion, but in my book, in order to take another person's life (other than for self-defense) you can't possibily be thinking straight (or, in other words, you are insane--even, as I've said before, if only fleetingly).

My opinions are no more or less ridiculous than your own. But I will admit that they are wholly my own, and I will not force you to agree with them.

Soldiers and police officers excluded....makes my point that your blanket statement was ridiculous without proper clarification. Notice that I am not calling you or your opinions ridiculous. I am only referring to that one statement.

The legal definition for an insanity plea is two-fold here in Texas. 1) A diagnosed mental illness must be present. 2) The person must know the difference between right and wrong at the time the crime was committed.

There is a large difference in my opinion between insane and just evil. Ted Bundy was not insane; He was evil. The BTK killer is certainly not insane. He has been functioning quite well in society for years and calculatingly taunts the authorities. He is just evil.

But I don't think he's legally responsible for her wellbeing.

A husband makes a binding commitment when he marries, albeit maybe not a legally binding one. This is what separates the definition of marriage with a civil union. He promises to love, honor, and cherish.

Regardless of the spousal aspect, fathers are legally responsible for their children's wellbeing. If he leaves the mother, he still has to pay child support. Rusty Yates had a legal responsibility to protect his children. This includes but is not limited to not leaving his children under the care of a mentally ill woman without medication.

 

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't have a lot of time to reply because I am trying to meet a deadline.

I've decided that my original comment should have said murder not kill--that would eliminate the exception for soldiers and police as they are not murdering (they are killing in self or societal defense--there is a difference).

Also, note that I am not actually basising this on any legal definitions, just the belief that when you are thinking and acting sane and rationally you don't commit these types of acts. I suppose I should add that I don't think anyone is sane all of the time--we all lose the plot at some point--some to a greater degree than others.

This wasn't a completely thoughtout thesis--just something I've been mulling over. I sort of pulled you in on the beta level of my thinking--it still needs a bit of flushing out.

Regardless of the spousal aspect, fathers are legally responsible for their children's wellbeing. If he leaves the mother, he still has to pay child support. Rusty Yates had a legal responsibility to protect his children. This includes but is not limited to not leaving his children under the care of a mentally ill woman without medication.


We are agreed on the aspect of the children--he's guilty of indifferent negelect.