My bet is that she was just another crazy woman, who was/is divorcing, and wanted to keep the man from the child.

I'm against the death penalty but this "mother" should be put down for the sake of humanity. This story is disturbing, who could put bleach in a... I can't even say it. Horrific.

If the second child was placed with relatives, what was the cause? If suspected child abuse was the cause, then why wasn't this poor child taken away from her?

This woman definitely needs to be sterilized and put in prison for a very long time.

I feel so sorry for this child...there are just no words for this kind of child abuse. Horrible.

I'm still cringing minutes after reading this. I should have known better than to click on this article.

I have a problem with Dr. Weiss who said, "Of course we feel guilty, we knew from early on that she had this" "But were reluctant to implicate the mother until they were 100% sure" is he kidding????

This makes me very ill and disgusted--what is wrong with people? Please, please speak up if you suspect a child is being abused. This childs father should have had someone checking on her if he wasn't being a loud to see her!!

Kris1234-3592742: The second child was taken away because of the investigation into the abuse of the first child.

There are some truly sick people in this world. My thoughts are with this little girl. I wonder, however, how her father didn't investigate his daughter's health problems earlier?

As usual, some here are already attempting to shift some blame over to the father.

Thom: He should have been close enough to his child to know/sense something was going on. Who else would have noticed? The neighbor across the street? The cashier at the Safeway? NO... the DAD. He is an accessory in this. I also agree with Allison who was disturbed by the doctor's "we knew this was going on, but wanted to wait till we were 100% sure..." !! Meanwhile, this little child was being tortured and permanently blinded. God, for the fear of lawsuits, people stand by and let things happen. Hope this woman is in prison for a good 30-40 years and can have nothing to do with any children, ever.

It's hard to believe that these doctors didn't react when the child improved at the hospital stay and got worse when the child went home. Doctors have reported suspicion of abuse over much less than this.

I was reminded of a recent article where a police officers daughter had a genetic disease that caused bones to break easily. They took the child and fought the parents attempts at getting their child back even after the child suffered numerous fractures while in foster care. The couple ended up as a murder suicide I believe. Two weeks later a doctor that didn't have his head up his arse correctly diagnosed the problem. The child welfare system failed this family as the doctors who were treating this child failed their patient. They wonder why malpractice insurance is so costly.

The world is totally screwed up.

From the article:

[Cody B., Mothershead] told investigators his estranged wife wouldn’t allow him to administer the eye drops

Weiss said the toddler was brought to Seattle Children’s with an unusual eye infection and a corneal abrasion.

The mother appeared “unperturbed about the situation..."

After the head injury, doctors confiscated the child’s eye drops.

Laboratory tests confirmed a pH of 6.0 and the presence of bleach

...The little girl’s vision is permanently impaired,

If found guilty...

Jennifer Mothershead has displayed exceptionally, morbid Child Abuse and Child Cruelty.

Send this Compassionless and Predatory "mother" to Prison for Life!

LOCK HER UP and throw-away the key

Who the @!$%# is sick enough to do such a thing?! If you're criminally insane, should you really be excused for your crimes? Or should we put you down for the sake of everyone around you?

DH-1294801 wrote "He should have been close enough to his child to know/sense something was going on. Who else would have noticed? "

Dad is out working and collecting income. Why shouldn't the mother be charged with a felony and permanent loss of parental rights for her attempt to blind a child? Why do you blame the father? Is he responsible for the mother's actions?

The woman is NOT mentally ill. Put her abusive arse in solitary confinement and only let her out long enough to get bleach put in HER eyes daily.

I'm sick of reading about innocent children getting inflicted with pain and traumas, not to mention life-long disabilities because these imbeciles are allowed to roam our streets freely.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again....I wish there were SOME way we could weed these sickos out before they have a chance to do harm to others.

Unbelievable!

AN EYE FOR AN EYE!!!

He should have been close enough to his child to know/sense something was going on.

Try having a child with an estranged and disturbed woman who does everything in her power to keep you from seeing your child. You won't have much luck in the courts, I will tell you that much.

...now the child can SEE CLEARLY what kind of mom the child has. WOW the cruelty. We should send this mom to fight the Taliban.

It's just amazing how people are trying to blame the father. Part of this woman's abusive pattern was to deny the father a relationship with his daughter. The doctors probably saw the girl more than the father. The sanctimonious attitude toward motherhood in this country is how this woman got away with sadistic torture for months.

Like the doctor said,

“But we were reluctant to implicate the mother until we were 100 percent sure.”

So months slipped by and now this girl is close to 100% blind. Right under his nose.

It's time for women, especially feminists, to turn around and smell the kakapoohpooh! Most, not all, of the most heinous crimes against children are perpetrated by women. Yet we live in a country where the big pink elephant in the room is telling everyone that 'no woman would ever do that to her own child.' And we believe it. Hook, line and sinker.

This case is exactly the reason we need to pass Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) Violence Against Children Act. Yet it's wallowed in judiciary committees for years. Yet the Violence Against Women Act sailed through in 1994 and has been dutifully ratified ever since. If feminists had the same zeal for children as they have for themselves, Boxer's Act would have been passed years ago.

Politicians from both parties need to quit pandering to special interest lobbies and playing politics with kids lives.

My heart breaks everytime I read of a child or children being abused by their parent(s), still I cannot find it in myself to fully implicate the father in this situation. I know of too many fathers who are denied access to their children altogether or, at least, for any extended period of time, and are then relegated to being nothing more than a source of money. This woman showed no emotion as it pertained to the critical condition of her child following the brain injury. Her lack of emotion says it all and certainly rules out Munchhausen By Proxy. She seems to have become a sociopath and someone Hell-bent on inflicting all of the pain she felt onto the only person she could fully control, her own child. It's unimaginable and I cannot fathom the pain that precious child endured. This world has some pretty sick tickets running around, but this one. . . .sigh. . .

Kris1234-3592742: "If the second child was placed with relatives, what was the cause? If suspected child abuse was the cause, then why wasn't this poor child taken away from her?"

Just to clarify, Kris ... the second child was not removed from the home until AFTER the abuse was discovered - the same time the then 14 month old daughter was removed from the home. The second child was not removed from the home at birth and the older child allowed to remain. They were both removed at the same time. The older child was not immediately placed with relatives because she was being hospitalized. She will probably be placed with the same relatives upon her release but that remains for a court to decide, assuming the determination has not already been made.

Elpea: "... I wonder, however, how her father didn't investigate his daughter's health problems earlier?"

DH-1294801: "He should have been close enough to his child to know/sense something was going on ... the DAD. He is an accessory in this."

That's a lot of pretty presumptive damning of the father, folks, and it goes to the issue of reading comprehension on your part.

1) The parents were separated.

2) The father was not given open access to his daughter and only got to see her "a few hours every week to ten days" and was not in a position to recognize the patterns. He could only accept the information his wife was feeding him.

3) The mother was, essentially, in control of everything he knew about his daughter. (I do wonder, however, why the courts did not grant the father custody of the children or if the separation is not yet followed by a divorce action and there was no court ruling on custody.)

4) The father, not being a medical professional, cannot be held at fault if the mother tells him some outrageous tale of malady and illness and does not allow him full access to his daughter because of the child's purported ailment.

Which brings me to my next point:

Allison-467021: I have a problem with Dr. Weiss who said, "Of course we feel guilty, we knew from early on that she had this" "But were reluctant to implicate the mother until they were 100% sure" is he kidding????

Allison, you are absolutely correct. Sadly, the Seattle Children's Hospital should be charged with a violation of the Child Abuse Protection Act. The law does not say the medical professional must report any known cases of child abuse. It states the medical professional[s] must report any SUSPECTED cases of abuse. It is not the hospital staff's place to investigate and substantiate any suspicions. They are merely to report what they may suspect could be an indication of abuse. It is the law enforcement agency's onus to investigate to prove or disprove the suspicions. Such reluctance on the part of medical professionals to report suspicions of abuse (in children and others as well) results in many deaths every year. They take the "safe" (for them) road of not accusing a parent of guardian because they don't want to accuse an innocent person but, in the end, they are taking the wrong road in not protecting the defenseless. And, since hospital emergency rooms see such a large number of these cases, their staffs need to be trained to report ANY suspicious injuries. And, if they don't, and someone dies as a result, they should be held accountable. In this case, Seattle Children's needs to be held accountable for their lack of action in the case. PERIOD. Perhaps, when states start taking action against such inaction, the attitude of such medical professionals will change.

And this is not to paint all medical professionals with the same broad and tarnished brush. Some will always err on the side of the possible victim. Some have even been chastised for being so "over" zealous. But, for a profession supposedly rooted in compassion, medical professionals who hesitate to report suspicions of abuse are not only in violation of civil law but are in exact contravention to their professional code of ethics. And, in that light, the treating physicians and staff of Seattle Children's Hospital who had any suspicioin of wrongdoing should be held responsible and the hospital should be censured for their lack of inaction. And, when you see someone with a condition which improves while the patient is in the hospital but immediately deteriorates when they are released back to their home environment, at the very least, that would suggest something is wrong in the home environment whether it is abuse or some environmental cause. In any case, it should be reported. Since the hospital was in a position to see this pattern (and, by their own admission they did) but did nothing to mitigate the injury to their patient, they should be held accountable.

Someone should torture that b!tch. I volunteer..........

I hope that poor kid goes to someone that will care and love her like she deserves.

Excellent point asknreceive. Parental demeanor is a huge part of child abuse investigations. It was Susan Smith's feigned 'crocodile tears' that made police suspect her in the murder of her sons. And lack of emotional response doesn't necessarily rule out Munchausen. In fact it's lack of emotion, or empathy, that allows it to occur.

Andrea Yates showed no emotion after drowning her children either, but her's was not a case of Munchausen. I believe she was diagnosed as schizophrenic, not with post-partum depression as claimed by the National Organization of Women who defended her. As would be expected, N.O.W. also blamed the husband.

RevSpinnaker: "Most, not all, of the most heinous crimes against children are perpetrated by women."

Y'know, whether you call it 'egregious' one day and 'heinous' the next, you repeatedly make this unsubstantiated statement and it is patently untrue. (Which suggests you might have some personal issue with a woman or women in general and child abuse. This is something you should probably deal with outside of these forums rather than perpetuating a falsehood. Either that, or you need to clarify what constitutes 'heinous' in your book.)

As I tried to explain to you once before, the most instances of child abuse are perpetrated by women because mothers are, typically, most often the caregiver and are with the victim more often than men. However, the most violent, death or severe injury, crimes against children are generally perpetrated by men due in large part merely by the fact that men generally have a more muscular body and are able, with less effort to inflict more severe injuries. Furthermore, men tend to act out of anger while women act out of frustration. (Cases such as the Mothershead fall into a slightly different category as the perpetrator is, quite obviously, mentally deranged and frustration may or may not play a part in the abuse.)

More often than not, abuse resulting in hospitalizations, permanent injury, or death are, sadly, the domain of men. This may be a father but, in the majority of cases, the abuse involves a re-married woman or a single mother with a live-in or regularly present boyfriend. The substitute father has no emotional ties to the child and therefore has no emotional censor. He acts on a purely emotional level. The abuse may go on for months or years or it may be a short-lived pattern that quickly results in fatal injury.

Now this in no way addresses what may well be the most horrendous child abuse ... sexual abuse. This type of abuse, almost solely (though not, by any means exclusively) the domain of men, leaves damage to the victim which is not immediately evident and will cripple the victim for the rest of his or her life.

Well Rev. You certainly found your story to back up your sterotype that mothers are monsters. I suppose we'll never hear the end of you now. Are you planning to tell the folks reading this story your sorrowfull tale of abuse at your own mothers screwed up hands so you can skew others opinions as you tried to do on the story of the tolddler who was run over by a woman driving the SUV backing out of a parking space??? Make sure you talk about Oprah and your airborne tampon campaign too!!!

fSomething's wrong with officials in WA state. Waiting until they were 100% sure? They should take action at the First hint of a problem. Don't give the child to relatives unless they live in another state and have had no contact with the wacko mother. Any relative living nearby should have been aware she was nuts and not just stood by to see what happens.

I have done childcare for over 18 years now and have seen first hand the effects of divorce. I am reluctant on blaming the father also. Only because I have had a few clients who kept the father and denied them access to the child as a punishment to the father. The eye drops were in a prescription bottle...only 4 hours weekly how was he suppose to know? They mention a second child, was there evidence of abuse in this child? If not then I honestly can't see how he would know. The ones I feel let this child down was the doctors in this case. They had all the proof they needed, and even suspected. I am trained to call in abuse if I suspect it. My home was registered with the state and I was required to take all types of classes including one on signs of child abuse. I am not saying I am an expert.

I can't imagine the horrible suffering this child endured at the hands of someone who was suppose to protect and love them. It reminds of the book "A Child Called It" written by Dave Pelzer. A true story of years of this type of abuse. His mom made him swallow bleach and he suffered horrible abuse. His mother also burned his hand over a gas stove. Our system fails children like this.The ones who seem to slip in the cracks.

I know that it is also used the wrong way too, as in what was reported above about the parents who children were taken away over this childs disease. I don't know the answers, but there has to be one. There has to be one that help children like these.There is too many cases!

I am crying now at the thought of all the children who suffer like this! They are so innocent and venerable! It breaks my heart! THERE HAS TO BE A SOLUTION!! I know of a many cases were on child is removed and the other ones stay...where is the logic in this???

I have done childcare for over 18 years now and have seen first hand the effects of divorce. I am reluctant on blaming the father also. Only because I have had a few clients who kept the father and denied them access to the child as a punishment to the father. The eye drops were in a prescription bottle...only 4 hours weekly how was he suppose to know? They mention a second child, was there evidence of abuse in this child? If not then I honestly can't see how he would know. The ones I feel let this child down was the doctors in this case. They had all the proof they needed, and even suspected. I am trained to call in abuse if I suspect it. My home was registered with the state and I was required to take all types of classes including one on signs of child abuse. I am not saying I am an expert.

I can't imagine the horrible suffering this child endured at the hands of someone who was suppose to protect and love them. It reminds of the book "A Child Called It" written by Dave Pelzer. A true story of years of this type of abuse. His mom made him swallow bleach and he suffered horrible abuse. His mother also burned his hand over a gas stove. Our system fails children like this.The ones who seem to slip in the cracks.

I know that it is also used the wrong way too, as in what was reported above about the parents who children were taken away over this childs disease. I don't know the answers, but there has to be one. There has to be one that help children like these.There is too many cases!

I am crying now at the thought of all the children who suffer like this! They are so innocent and venerable! It breaks my heart! THERE HAS TO BE A SOLUTION!! I know of a many cases were on child is removed and the other ones stay...where is the logic in this???

The "mother" should be put in prison for life and administered her own brand of eyedrops every hour, every day. Even after she goes blind, they'll hurt like HE!! and she'll be reminded of her heinous crime against her innocent child. Horrible. Like someone above said, I don't know why I let myself read this. I knew I was going to get SO ANGRY!

thewordsmith...while your arguments and "facts" may be correct, you undermine yourself by making statements such as "obviously deranged". Do you know this woman? Do you know facts beyond what is reported here? Are you in a professional capacity that would enable you to make that diagnosis? You claim others statements are "unsubstantiated" and yet you freely and willingly make a statement that is also unsubstantiated.

By labeling her "mentally deranged" you are actually giving an excuse to her behavior. You make it seem like it is less of an offense because of a condition that she can not control. You made a claim to one of the posters here that he clearly has an issue with women. Do you have an issue with men? Would you have made the same claim if the aggressor in this case was a man? Or would you have simply labled him a child abuser, and not given him blanket protection unde rthe term "mentally deranged"?

I think everyone should be careful what they lable people without facts and when it is beyond our capability to do so. We see it every day how that can be dangerous. And yes, we have the right to do it, but all that usually means is that we have the right to make ourselves look like idiots.

I'm against the death penalty but this "mother" should be put down for the sake of humanity. This story is disturbing, who could put bleach in a... I can't even say it. Horrific.

I'm for the death penalty for this very reason. I think its use should be expanded to include people like this "mother".

thewordsmith: Before you accuse me of "perpetuating a falsehood," let's see your citations. As you may recall I'm culling mine from the Center for Disease Control, the American Psychiatric Foundation, the Federal Child Maltreatment reports...

As you stated:

"...the most instances of child abuse are perpetrated by women because mothers are, typically, most often the caregiver and are with the victim more often than men."

Yes I agree. And When Phil Donahue was confronted with that fact he dismissively responded, "Thats like saying more men hit homeruns." Your response is equally dismissive.

You claim:

" ...the most violent, death or severe injury, crimes against children are generally perpetrated by men..."

This is true for children older than five years. Younger than that the perpetrators are most exclusively women. The majority of child abuse and murder happens to children who are younger than five.

You again:

"Furthermore, men tend to act out of anger while women act out of frustration."

Where did you read that? Ms. Magazine? Citations please.

And again:

"More often than not, abuse resulting in hospitalizations, permanent injury, or death are, sadly, the domain of men."

That sounds like the fabricated March of Dimes study which proported 'Domestic Violence' was the leading cause of injury to the fetus. No such study existed and the March of Dimes said the statement was patently untrue. The most recent fabrication said DV was the primary cause of women admitted to the emergency room. Again, not even close. Then there's the spike in DV during the Superbowl hoax. Again, pulled out of thin air.

You are almost correct on this one:

"in the majority of cases, the abuse involves a re-married woman or a single mother with a live-in or regularly present boyfriend."

No... in the majority of cases it's the mother acting alone. Then comes the mother acting in conjunction with a paramour. Then the paramour acting alone. Then the mother in conjunction with the natural father. And last, the natural father acting alone. Children are safest in households where the natural father has a significant presence.

"Y'know, whether you call it 'egregious' one day and 'heinous' the next... you need to clarify what constitutes 'heinous' in your book."

I guess you've already done that for me.

"Now this in no way addresses what may well be the most horrendous child abuse ... sexual abuse. This type of abuse, almost solely (though not, by any means exclusively) the domain of men...

No doubt the majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by men. That's why it's politically correct to talk about it. But keep in mind, as much as 30% of intrafamilial sexual abuse is perpetrated by females, moms, aunts caregivers... And thanks to political bias they are just finding out those statistics.

And there is something very unseemly about qualifying what constitutes "the most horrendous" child abuse because there's always a child that's had it worse. Do you really believe sexual abuse is worse than torturing a child? Are you actually saying this girl would have been worse off if she was sexually abused by her mother and not sadistically blinded?

Once again, the argument of CHOICE is huge. Some people should NEVER, EVER have children. This woman is one of those. I am sure the child wishes she had never been born.

Sometimes the courts need to get their heads out of the butts and realize that not all mothers are good mothers. Just because she can give birth, does not make her a motherly sort.

How many kids need to be abused before the court system realizes that?

This is a sick, twisted individual who needs to buried 10 ft under.

Well done, court system.

@thewordsmith, I beg to differ with you on 1 point, the medical staff, that includes doctors, charge nurses, nurses and certified nursing assistants are morally and legally bound to report all suspected abuse.

When I was still working in nursing homes, medical rehab. hospitals and hospitals I was obligated to report to the patients nurse and so on up the food chain which does include reporting to the police. It's done all the time. When I moved to Colorado I found a patient with blisters and open sores from the waist down to just above the patients knees, I had to report my finding to the patients nurse and chart my findings. The nurse in this instance did nothing, like the doctors in this article. There came a time when the patient had to be rushed to ER for a different problem, so of course the ER nurse reported the same findings to the on duty charge nurse who in turn reported the findings to the on duty ER doctor. To sum it up, the ER charge nurse also called the police to make a report. Needless to say heads rolled at the nursing home and disciplinary action was also taken, because it takes 3 shifts to take care of 1 patient. What I had done was "cma" as we call it and that's exactly what happened at the ER---"cma",

And another point @thewordsmith, when the hospital received the baby the 1st time and identified that something was wrong with her eyes, upon admission the nurse/certified nursing assistant was supposed to ask for the very same eye drops and any other medication that the baby was taking...period okay? In years gone by I have personally gone through even an adults weekender/tote/purse why? I was looking for medications that I suspected had been "forgotten", the reason being we don't want to over dose a patient who may be attempting to "self medicate" while in the hospital, etc.

"Who the @!$%# is sick enough to do such a thing?! If you're criminally insane, should you really be excused for your crimes? Or should we put you down for the sake of everyone around you?"

Shhh turn your Nazi thoughts off we don't need anymore repeats of this.

One thing that need to change, which is illustrated in this story, is the stereotype in US court systems that in a divorce the woman allways gets primary care of the children. This story and countless other examples illustrate the fact that the psychological health and financial stability of each parent as an individual must be taken into account in order to determine the better parent to leave the child with, and NOT the gender of the parents. The gender should be ignored in custody cases.

An observation to share: I saw a lot of early comments about the father, and thoughts that he sould have seen the abuse, or shold have known that something was wrong. There is a very big problem here. In divorces, or cases where there are custody/visitation disputes, the courts almost invariably seem to side with the woman. Had he filed a complaint, or request, he would likely have been ignored. Had he levelled (spelling?) charges of abuse (without absolutely ironclad proof [not easy to do]), again, he would likely have been ignored, or possibly had charges brought against himself or harrasing the mother. In this land of women's rights, and "men are evil" when it comes to divorce, the courts seem to almost invariably side with the woman; the man just doesn't seem to be able to win. It is those few cases where a man does seem to prevail in domestic litigation that reiniforces this impression.

I tried to stay on subject here, and not slide into a rant. The subject/point was: "he's a male; he'd have most likely been ignored."

may god be with this innocent child......

I"t's time for women, especially feminists, to turn around and smell the kakapoohpooh! Most, not all, of the most heinous crimes against children are perpetrated by women. Yet we live in a country where the big pink elephant in the room is telling everyone that 'no woman would ever do that to her own child.' And we believe it. Hook, line and sinker."

REv, why are feminists the ones who need to turn around and smell the kakapoohpooh? Nope it's the ones who are so holier than thou who don't believe that women are capable of these acts. Example, last night on Nancy Grace (who is as conservative as they come), one of the defense lawyers mentioned to her that one of the female witnesses shouldn't be dismissed as a person who may be involved in the case of the missing Tucson, Arizona girl and Nancy Grace went off yelling at him saying women don't do that. There are many who think that is true like me. I kept saying, Sandra Cantu case, (Melissa Huckabye killed her daughter's friend) and Alyssa Bustamante (killed her sister's friend).

Trust me, I believe anyone is capable of any crime, so I don't discount a person based on gender. Anyway I say fry this bwitch.

There sure seem to be a lot of parents out there, that shouldn't be parents !!!!!

I live in Washington. I left my ex wife in late 2006. She was granted full custody. She has complete and total control over what my son does and when he can see me. She does not have to follow the parenting plan. There is not much a father in this state can do. If you take the mom to court, the system allows her to drag it out for months. If this father was trying to do anything on behalf of his daughter's welfare, I'm sure he was met with roadblock after roadblock. This state gives every benefit of the doubt to the mother and looks at fathers with contempt. I know it sounds like I'm whining, but take it from one who has been fighting this fight for over 5 years now. This father is not to blame.

Also, has the fater been the one to bring the girl in to Children's, they would not have waited so long.

Harry: I know what you mean. I went though it 40 years ago. A California divorce, when I was in Maryland, a Vietnam combat vet. Been there, endured that for 18 years, until my daughter was emancipated at age 21.

Munchhausen by Proxy syndrome seems to be at play here. In MBPS, an individual — usually a mother — deliberately makes another person (most often his or her own preschool child) sick or convinces others that the person is sick. The parent or caregiver misleads others into thinking that the child has medical problems by lying and reporting fictitious episodes. He or she may exaggerate, fabricate, or induce symptoms. As a result, doctors usually order tests, try different types of medications, and may even hospitalize the child or perform surgery to determine the cause.

Typically, the perpetrator feels satisfied by gaining the attention and sympathy of doctors, nurses, and others who come into contact with him or her and the child. Some experts believe that it isn't just the attention that's gained from the "illness" of the child that drives this behavior, but also the satisfaction in being able to deceive individuals that they consider to be more important and powerful than themselves.

Because the parent or caregiver appears to be so caring and attentive, often no one suspects any wrongdoing. A perplexing aspect of the syndrome is the ability of the parent or caregiver to fool and manipulate doctors. Frequently, the perpetrator is familiar with the medical profession and is very good at fooling the doctors. Even the most experienced doctors can miss the meaning of the inconsistencies in the child's symptoms. It's not unusual for medical personnel to overlook the possibility of MBPS because it goes against the belief that a parent or caregiver would never deliberately hurt his or her child.

Fred, I feel for ya. Trying to divorce someone from across the country sounds delightful. LOL

Harry and Fred, are you aware that there is an organization that helps men get custody of their children or helps them out. I remember talking to an ex-boyfriend about that when he was fighting for custody of his children from a drug addicted girlfriend. I don't know what happened in his case (he had a history of drugs as well). Sorry that happened to you. BTW, i don't think women should automatically get custody because they are women and are supposed to be the better parents. I see men who are better parents than women and women who don't want to be bothered with their kids once they are born. Sad but true.

@ valhallaarwen:

"REv, why are feminists the ones who need to turn around and smell the kakapoohpooh?"

The sole focus of feminist groups since the 70's has been for "women & girls" exclusively. All manner of social support systems, VAWA etc. are based on the iron-clad premise that violence against women & girls is a product of "male privilege" and "patriarchal oppression." If a social ill, like maternal child abuse or male victimization, doesn't fit into that ideology it is demeaned, diminished and forgotten.

Nancy Grace has all the sensitivity of a lugnut. I'd rather listen to a chainsaw.

this is the group http://www.fatherscustody.org/

Rev thanks for your response, but I disagree. I don't believe what you wrote and that is not the focus of the feminist movement. I was taught by my mother to depend on myself, yes, it's good to get help, but why rely on others when you can do for yourself. They are not the ones who are saying that material child abuse does not exist, it is those who believe that women are delicate and not capable. That is a method of the far right that women could never do anything evil, which is why when a woman is accused of a crime, it is oh she could never do that, for she is not that way. Women can be just as evil as a man. I would never call Nancy Grace a feminist, which she is not.

Seriously, what feminist group has said that women could never commit crimes against children? Did they say Susan Smith didn't kill her boys? Did they say Andrea Yates could not have done it? Please clue me into which group said it. If anything, when a woman is accused, you always hear from family with that, oh I can't believe she could do it. When a female teacher is accused, why is it that there is denial from some that think it is impossible for a pretty teacher to be capable, but an ugly one yeah she's guilty. If anything, most of the feminist groups are upset when pretty teachers are considered innocent while ugly teachers are considered guilty. That is why I say anyone is considered a suspect.

valhallaarwen, thank you for that link. No, I had no idea there was an organization like that. They don't advertise those things. I think out of fear of women's movements. LOL

How fair are family courts to Men? Not very - There are documented case, in many... not just isolated cases - where courts will put a child in Foster care even if the father is able, willing and patitions the courts to be given custody of his child. If the father is not married to his Baby's moma - the a match in hell has better chance of not sponateously combuting than the father will to get custody.

They may, give custody to an elderly parent or grandparent - but not to the father.

1) The parents were separated.

2) The father was not given open access to his daughter and only got to see her "a few hours every week to ten days" and was not in a position to recognize the patterns. He could only accept the information his wife was feeding him.

3) The mother was, essentially, in control of everything he knew about his daughter. (I do wonder, however, why the courts did not grant the father custody of the children or if the separation is not yet followed by a divorce action and there was no court ruling on custody.)

4) The father, not being a medical professional, cannot be held at fault if the mother tells him some outrageous tale of malady and illness and does not allow him full access to his daughter because of the child's purported ailment.

He was lucky to even get visitation... as infrequent as that was. Family courts tend to see fathers as sperm donors - attached to an open wallet.

Harry, no problem. I do believe the better parent should parent the child. I honestly don't remember how I found that but there it is. Please let other men know if they need help for their rights to get custody of their kids.

Specifically what kind of damage to the child's eye is causing vision problems? Did the bleach damage the corneas? If that it the reason for the vision problems, perhaps they should transplant the corneas of the mother into the child so that she can again see well. Give the child's corneas back to the mother. Let her deal with the loss of vision for the rest of her life.

Munchausen syndrome by proxy IS listed in the DSM as a form of factitious disorder. It is actually fairly common, so the doctors here really dropped the ball by not suspecting it sooner. I agree the fact that the mom apparently has this disorder does not excuse her behavior, but it goes a long way in explaining it. (And could have pointed her child's doctors to the correct treatment, i.e. removal of the child from the home followed by treatment for the child's injuries MUCH sooner than it did.)

By proxy she should be put in Prison with a child tormentor label label and let the inmates take natures course.......

The sanctity of traditional marriage and traditional family values. Thank GOD ALMIGHTY she didn't do something truly evil like sin with another woman!(sarcasm)

I'm not sure what "traditional family values" have anything to do with this--don't get me wrong, I'm against the conservative notion of "family values", but this really isn't about societal views. It's about an insane criminal.

Devil's Son: I get your point, but I'm not sure that this story needs to be politicized.

@ Astro:

"...but I'm not sure that this story needs to be politicized."

I disagree, that's precisely what this story needs. Dr. Munchausen is exactly right. I include Munchausen in sentencing guidelines I've suggested as a provision for Barbara Boxer's Violence Against Children Act.

Barbara Boxer's Violence Against Children Act

Provision Suggestions: *(Includes provision for Caylee's Law)

Congressional Bill S. 1370 was sponsored by Barbara Boxer [D-CA] and introduced in 2009. The last actions pursuant to the bill were that it was read twice and then referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. I propose the following punitive guidelines to the Committee, to be established in accordance with the redefinition of child abuse in terms of Pathological Malnurturing, as the foundation of the Violence Against Children Act. The Malnurturing format of defining child abuse clarifies succinct categories of specific criminal pathologies, with assigned punitive ramifications. As a legal definition “neglect” is vague, ineffective and antiquated. “Felony neglect” is an oxymoron, not a viable sentencing guideline.

Definitions of the Pathologies of Malnurturing.

Abandonist: Deliberate emotional and affectionate rejection of a child.

Isolationist: Social and/or physical isolation of a child, with deliberate intent to allow the child to fall into harms way. *Includes but not limited to, failure to report the abuse, disappearance or death of a child.

Opportunist: Having or exploiting a child for personal gain, sadistic gratification or profit, including but not limited to, selling a child into prostitution or slavery. Using a child to seek revenge against a spouse.

The motivations for Malnurturing.

Delusional: Harming a child as a result mental illness and/or alcohol and drug addictions. Also, but not limited to, cult or religious fanaticism, as with denial of medical care or the Jim Jones massacre.

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy: Physically or psychologically abusing a child to garner attention by creating false medical traumas, illnesses and psychoses. The later is particularly applicable in “reality TV” i.e. Munchausen by Dr. Phil.

Homicidal: Susan Smith, who brutally drowned her two boys, to be free to divorce her husband and marry a wealthy man.

Sentencing guidelines for these Pathologies are assigned according to:

a) results in emotional and/or psychological damage to a child.

b) results in physical and/or sexual abuse, starvation, disappearance or abduction of a child.

c) results in the death of a child.

According to the Center for Disease Control: American women kill more of their own children than any other mothers in the industrialized world. This represents a 25 % increase since 1985. With these new guidelines Casey Anthony would have been charged as an 'Isolationist Malnurturer, resulting in the death of a child,' and received a mandatory sentence accordingly.

The woman in this case should be charged with opportunist malnurturing, as she appears to have abused the child to hurt the father or for her own sadistic pleasure. She was motivated by Munchausen by Proxy, that resulted in severe and permanent physical damage to a child.

So your a Doctor, physchiatrist, lawmaker, attorney and a Reverend too??? Or just somebodies patient who has gone off his meds??

Devil's Son...what does this have to do with anything in this story? Is anyone giving a pass to this woman because she is heterosexual? And should people be able to use the many instances of male pedophiles abusing little boys as an argument against gay marriage and/or gay adoption? The fact is, her being a straight woman, married and seperated from a man has nothing to do with her abusing this child.

30% of American children have no fathers in their lives. While children are most vulnerable to abuse, under 4, typical fathers spend little time with children as compared to mothers. Factor in the amount of time each gender spends with their children and a different picture emerges.

skrewdworld: I consider myself a children's rights advocate (CRA). Obviously you're not.

The mother appeared unperturbed and said the child's eyes had been swollen shut for four weeks. If she had Munchhausen by proxy, she would have rushed the child to the hospital every single day, screaming in panic.

Take your pick:

• Mental problems
• Social problems
• Financial problems
• Family problems
• Relationship problems (girl friend, boy friend)
• Work problems
• Technology problems
• Mortgage problems
• Vehicle problems
• Drug problems
• Alcohol problems
• ....et al.

I'll go with just plain phucked in the head.

@howmanyfingers

I'm going with your conclusion...........If they had never mentioned mental instability, I guarantee she would get a fitting sentence, but since they mentioned that and the fact that the house was littered with court documents, she was mentally unstable. Good looking ahead, for the accusation, and using her insanity to defend her actions, will put her in a psych ward for awhile, then back on the streets to get pregnant again, and repeat the abuse. Seems she couldn't get over the separation from her husband..Sad story. The child will become another cost to the state (taxpayers) for permanent health care.

ldo: Are you listing problems or excuses?

He's listing conditions turned into problems when stuff like this happens XD

I'm damn curious about the "mandated reporting laws" in Washington. In my state (I work in child welfare and understand our laws) if a professional (doctor, social worker, nurse, etc.) "has reason to believe" that child abuse is occurring they are required by law to report it and let those who are trained in the investigation of child abuse determine if it's happened. If these "professionals" practiced in my state they'd be charged with ignoring those laws because they were trying to be "100 percent certain" and a child suffered needlessly while they tried to figure it out.

It seems to swing wildly from state to state! Some places parents are turned over to social services in a blink of the eye for nothing...other states it's has to get this far before someone takes action! Seems we need more training for professionals on how to spot true abuse and how to properly report it!

@Lisa Ann:

"It seems to swing wildly from state to state!"

That's exactly why we need to enact Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) Violence Against Children Act, to establish national standards and guidelines for dealing with and prosecuting child abuse.

Lisa Ann Lowry-Johnson, You are correct that more training of professionals is needed but it is not necessarily a matter of spotting "true abuse" or how to properly report it and this is not a state centered issue. It is more a matter of any individual medical care facility and the people who populate that facility as the standards in one hospital or facility within the same state may vary wildly from another.

The problem seems to be that the standards need to be held uniformly throughout the nation and not left to the whims or sensibilities of one person or group of persons. The medical professionals are not charged with reporting cases of "true" abuse but with any 'suspected' cases of abuse. That means that they do not necessarily need to have absolute proof that abuse has occurred, only the suggestion that abuse might have occurred. This places a much higher standard of conduct on the medical professional. (This same standard holds for educational professionals who are in a position to see children on a regular basis for several hours a day and may be the first ones to notice some aberration - even before the child ends up in the care of a medical person.) As I stated previously, it is not within the spectrum of responsibility of the professional, whether medical or educational, to prove, or to have absolutely unwavering confidence in, an accusation of child abuse. It is merely their responsibility to report the suspicion of such abuse. The investigation into such suspicions lies solely within the purview of law enforcement. For this, better training and awareness of their responsibility is key.

thewordsmith...not to be picky, but you state that this issue should be "not left to the whims or sensibilities of one person or group of persons" in your argument that this should be nationalized. Now, I do not report to be against the nationalization of this, but yoru statement is flawed. You want the government, which is by nature "group of persons" to control, not just a state, but every state. So you actually want to give a VERY small group of people even MORE control, based on their "whims or sensibilities". Again, I am not saying I am against this, but you should be careful what you state, as you often contracdict yrouself, and it gets harder for people to take seriously the intent of yoru message when you continue to do so.

Also, as an argument against nationalization and these laws in general...many families have been harrassed, children intimidated by teachers and medical professionals who SUSPECT something is wrong with no proof. The following investigations can be disruptive and harmful to the family as a whole, and there are cases where it actualy bred a distrust between child and parent.

In addition, there is the argument that those in the medical profession are there to do THAT job, not social services. While I believe there was probably enough cause for concern, especially when the facility admits as much, their true purpose is to heal. That is their priority. As soon as you start distracting these life-savers from that mission, healthcare and treatment suffer. Isn;t there a valid argument that the hospital should not be forced to provide the service and function,a nd should actually be taken care of by a third party? At the tax payers expense, not the facilities?

Sorry Rev...but giving things to the national government is not always the answer. Look how they have ruined everything else they have touched.

Some Lame...sorry, but you could not be more wrong. They would have made a decision...in fact a series of decisions to get them to that point.

eric60watts: I'm not saying we give child rearing responsibilities over to the government. I'm suggesting a broad based public awareness program of proactive education, standardized reporting and sentencing guidelines and stronger outreach facilities for those children who have been effected.

Also I think more children fall through the cracks of social services or are not reported by teachers and medical staff, than those who are victims of unwarrantedsuspicions. Though in custady battles the false accusations are more common.

Docsuby, you are right to reserve on the insanity issue and I agree. I am a long-time lawyer admittted in three states and can say with feeling if ever there was a case for "an eye for an eye" I'd say this is it. In fact, once the treatment is complete she should be released from jail with the clothes on her back pointed towards the nearest dumpster for a snack. Why should taxpayers cover that monster?

Addendum to PMFog: And after being sterilized so she can't have more children, for heaven's sake!

Darlin, for some strange reason we can't "force" a child abuser to be sterilized. Some people think that would be cruel.

janellect: And ironically the same ones are all for castrating rapists.

Agree with Lisa. I don't understand though how this hospital couldn't realize the childs eyes were being burned. The medicated eye drops she was on were supposed to have this as a side effect??? IF so then nobody should be treated with that particular med ever again!!! Had a family member investigated and harrased for a month over a bruise on her sons ear. There was no abuse present at all but the powers that be got to play their games, disrupt the entire families lives and terrorize my 6 year old nephew for something as ridiculous as a tiny bruise. Yet here we are wit hthis toddler and nobody did anything?? Doctors, hospitals, schools and child prtective services themselves need much better training. I once called childrens services on a couple who had their sisters 3 kids. They were living with no running water, no electricity, the adults were doing drugs. One of the kids told me he was given a pill so he'd go to sleep because he had complained about being hungry. Called for an investigation and they did go to the house but dropped investigating because the couple had pit bulls that were trained to be aggressive and they wouldn't let them in the house. Go figure?!!?

Rev, really? You know for a fact that the ones against child abusers being sterilized are the same ones as are all for castrating rapists? Seems you like to make statements of facts when you have none to support it. Certainly does not go far in establishing any sort of validity to anything you say.

Got me on this one eric60watts. But you have to admit,we hear a lot more about sexual abuse in the media which brings out the castration comments. And look at the laughingstock the media made of Lorena Bobbit. A lot of people were acting like he deserved it when his only crime was being a jerk.

Screw visits, this woman doesn't deserve ANY type of contact with her children ever again! Permanent revocation of parental rights, and a court order to stay at least 100 miles away from them. That is, if she ever makes it out of prison alive!

Wasn't she a teacher? Wonder what she did to her students?

Sorry, I read it wrong. The Dad is a math teacher.

You won't see me say otherwise.

Me too.

Me three. I feel like I just swallowed a batch of poison. . .sickening!

Sometimes it's tough to face reality, but we must in order to establish a proactive stance against child abuse. Because there's always be a child who's had it worse than the next.

@ Orlando Sentinal:

AKERSFIELD, Calif. — A 4-year-old boy may be permanently blinded because his dad bit out one of his eyes and mutilated the other, police said.

Police said 34-year-old Angel Vidal Mendoza appeared to be under the influence of PCP when he bit his son's eye out April 28.

Can't help but to cry. But we need to turn our tears into activism and pass Barbara Boxer's Violence Against Children Act. It's long overdue.

Put bleach in the mom's eyes. Daily. Until she's completely blind.

I'll supply the bullet.

Burying her is too much of a kindness.

It's not out of kindness to her, it's so that nobody has to smell her $hit any longer.

B Murphy:

I'm with you. If you need any help with this "treatment," let me know........

But, not reused!! Recycling? I don't think she needs anymore chances.

An eye for an eye...mother should get daily eye drops of bleach while in jail...Dr. Weiss should go to jail too as an accomplice to this criminal act of inflicting excruciating pain since he allowed this little girl to severely suffer for so long...did he not even alert law enforcement and child protective services when he suspected this heinous, horrific abuse was occurring on an ongoing basis...it should have been handed over to law enforcement at the first hint of mistreatment to investigate and implicate the parent(s), not for Dr. Weiss to wait and see if the child came in later with enough evidence of abuse on her body so he could feel 100% sure...come on, how much reasonable suspicion do you need? I accidentally got dishwashing liquid in my eye once and that felt like acid burning through my cornea, couldn't open my eye for 3 days...I cannot imagine if it had been bleach instead of soap and my mother was forcing me to open my eyes every day to put in more!

If we did the same back to the mother it would be called cruel and unusual punishment!!

Vote up for the historical reference.

Been there, lived through that, haven't talked to the parent who was primary custodian in a very long time. I completely agree with what you say.

True. Been there done that here too. Back when I was a kid no one even bothered to ask. It was all family business and no one did a thing. No courts ever got involved until way later...it's a bit better, but obviously we have tons of a way to go to be right.

Courts are so quick to side with a mentally ill mother than an amazing and fit father. The kids suffer so much and there's nothing to do about it. The court system needs to be changed or the biased judges need to be knocked off the bench. As a stepmother to children with a mother that's a pathological liar and unfit mother, nothing can be done to get these kids help through the courts no matter how hard we've tried, and they're very slowly and surely turning into her. Judges side with mom and believe her outrageous lies and bullcrap.

Totally off topic, sorry. I think this mother is a horrible person and I bet anything that if the father tried to get custody initially, without some obvious fatal flaw of the mother, at best dad gets visitation. it's not fair

It goes both way, so I think bashing mothers isn't the answer here. I have seen kids handed over to messed up fathers, too, and the mothers who tried to help them were called names and assumed to be crazy until something happened to the kids at the hands of the fathers.

I'm not by any means saying all mothers are great and dads aren't, but just saying this goes both ways. Cruel and sick parents come in male and female both, and the courts don't always rule that mom gets the kids. The whole system is a mess.

The baby that was hurt will probably be institutionalized, her other baby will go to family members. And I agree, the nut doesn't fall far from the tree. I wouldn't trust a family member.

Other news sites have a better written article. The baby has been placed with the Dad.

It's because fathers have no rights in this country anymore. Especially if the mother is attractive, then she can just about get away with anything. Beautiful looking people have better chance of succeeding in this world, no matter what it is, getting a good job, winning in court, etc. The father probably had a parking ticket 10 years ago, so he is an unfit parent. And all of you man haters out there blaming the father, that is B.S. If she would not allow him to administer the eye drops, then she would know he would smell the bleach, and if it was me, the minute I smelled the bleach, I would have forcibly removed her from her custody and taken the baby to the hospital. Arrest me I don't care. but she would never see the baby again, I would hide the child from her and the authority's

Not always true - My youngest son was divorced a long time ago and got custody of his 2 sons. The mother wasn't abusing them exactly, she was just not watching them when she was sleeping after a long night of partying. The only one responsible is the abuser. The partner, married or divorced, is only responsible if they know about the abuse and do nothing - that applies regardless of the gender.