She Has to be Evaluated? Whiskey Tango...

[tellner]

The Cherokee County woman who killed the man who raped her most likely will be able to take her daughter home with her, probably by next week.

First the mother has to complete a psychological evaluation.

"They want to make sure I am of no harm to myself or anyone else," the woman said Friday after a hearing in Juvenile Court in Cherokee County. She hopes to celebrate Christmas with family in Ohio.

I'm trying to figure out the logic here. I certainly hope she's a danger to murderous rapist monsters.

The youngster was in their rural Cherokee County home when her mother was raped. Authorities have said Gerald A. Lee, who was armed with a shotgun, broke into the house and raped the 38-year-old mother. A fierce battle between Lee and the woman began when he threatened to also rape her daughter. She stabbed Lee several times and was severely injured during the struggle.

Does anyone in Georgia have any more information on this? I thought Castle Doctrine and "Violent felons in your house are fair game" laws were the rule in your part of the world.

 

[pcosmar]

tellner
"I'm trying to figure out the logic here"

It is the "justice" system. Logic does not apply.
In several States, and many cases I have seen over the years, there seems no common sense applies once someone is in the grip of the "system".

 

[griz]

I hope that just means they want to make sure she is mentally "there" enough to raise her child. If we are to the point where we worry about a mother defending her daughter we are doomed.

 

[RevolvingCylinder]

Defending your family from murderous rapists is a sign of mental illness now according to the "American" injustice system.

 

[hockeybum]

its probably just to make sure she's stable so she can look after the kid, after all most people do go into shock when they kill someone or so i've heard

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

?

got a link

 

[JohnBT]

"after a hearing in Juvenile Court"

Like the man said, this was about caring for the child. I assume since she was injured in the attack, someone else may have been caring for the child.
I don't think they try self defense cases in Juvie Court do they?

John

 

[tellner]

Here's the link

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I can see the logic. After such an experience, the mother might not be fully coherent and "all there". She might not be able to care for a dependent. She might be depressed and borderline suicidal. She might be unstable.

I disagree with this logic, but I can sorta kinda see where they're coming from.

 

[White Horseradish]

You know, killing a human being is a pretty dang traumatic experience. I don't think this reflects badly on the woman in any way. Cops are obligated to talk to shrinks after shooting someone all the time.

 

[TrapperReady]

Cops are obligated to talk to shrinks after shooting someone all the time.

Do they have their children taken from them until after they "talk to shrinks"? I've got two children, ages 6 and 8, and the only thing I can imagine being more traumatizing that surviving a violent attack would be to have my kids taken away by beaurocrats.

 

[iiibdsiil]

Yup, I've made my mind up. This year for Lent, I am giving up hope.

 

[JohnBT]

Re: cops and "Do they have their children taken from them until after they "talk to shrinks"?"

If they're in the hospital or unable to care for them.

"She stabbed Lee several times and was severely injured during the struggle."

"She was recovering at an aunt's home."

Somebody had to take care of the child until she got out of the hospital, so it looks like foster care was it. The youngster probably needed counseling too.

John

 

[Geno]

Family, Friends and Church?

It seems to my memory that this is role of the family, friends and the church.

Doc2005

 

[dfaugh]

Very possibly just a "check-up" due to the severe trauma she's been through.

If the child was witness to all this, she should be evaluated as well, as it may have been at least as traumatic for her.

Hoping everything turns out well for both of them.

 

[Tim Burke]

Whether it's a good idea or not, where does the government get the authority to mandate it?
Oh, yeah, "it's for the children." That is lib-speak for "the government needs more power."

 

[Manedwolf]

Ironically, if someone showed no remorse at having killed a rapist, they'd likely be labeled "unstable and dangerous" by our suffocating-PCness-Freudian-fluff psychiatric practitioners in this country. They'd be advised to "get in touch with their feelings."

A sentiment of "They tried to rape me, I killed them, no, I don't regret doing it." or even "They tried to kill my children so I killed them, I don't regret it" would not be acceptable in our current society.

 

[TrapperReady]

If they're in the hospital or unable to care for them.

The problem I have is with these quotes from the article (bold added):

The Cherokee County woman who killed the man who raped her most likely will be able to take her daughter home with her, probably by next week.

First the mother has to complete a psychological evaluation.

...

The woman is recovering in an aunt's home.

She said Judge Ellen McElyea presided over her hearing Friday in Juvenile Court to determine if her daughter could go back to live with her.

It sounds like the woman is not in the hospital, she's the one staying with an aunt. Why on earth should the mother have to go through Juvenile Court to get her kid back?

 

[tellner]

On top of that the article says that she is being evaluated to see if she's a danger to herself or others. Not "is she physically recovered" or "does the little girl need counselling" but "is the mother a dangerous lunatic because she killed someone".

 

[Coronach]

This might sound like a broken record, coming from me, but there is almost no information in that article, and certainly not enough to draw a conclusion as to the propriety of "the system's" actions. Specifically:

Why was the child taken in the first place?

What behavior has the woman exhibited that might call into question her stability, or ability to parent, thus presenting a danger to the child?

Why was the child not placed with relatives or friends, which seems to be the norm?

We can infer answers for those questions, but I bet those inferences are not complete or 100% correct. Without those answers, the whole process just becomes yet another fist-shaking exercise. For instance, we assume that the child was taken because mom was in the hospital and had just killed a man, and they were not going to give the child back until mom had seen a shrink. Possible. What is also possible is that mom was in the hospital and has been making suicidal statements or having some schizophrenic episodes. Also possible.

Now, does that latter conclusion include facts not found in the article? Absolutely. Guess what? If that was the case, no one from the Juvenile Court system, county prosecutor's office, or any aid agency would be telling the media about it. Why? Because of the victim's privacy, that's why. Hmm, kinda like:

McElyea did not return a telephone call. Dena Smith, spokeswoman for the state Department of Human Resources, said she could not comment on the DFCS case.

Yes, kinda like that. Hmm. Odd, isn't it? There might be a lot more to this story.

So, as usual, we are trying to fill in the blank spots by guessing, and not really learning anything.

Mike

 

[JohnBT]

"Why was the child not placed with relatives or friends, which seems to be the norm?"

Placement is a process that takes time. It takes time to weed out the druggies, alcoholics and perverts. Since the mother was expected to recover they likely decided wouldn't shuffle the kid off to another place for a few days.

I'll tell you what I know about the local Juvie system. Let's say there's a tragedy and the parent, or parents, is severely injured somehow. The Juvie system shelters the child, or children, because the parents are in the hospital and the house has burned down or it's the middle of the night and they're standing on the side of the road after a head-on wreck.

Now the kid is safe for the night and we get to your question - "Why was the child not placed with relatives or friends...?"

Because they have to do interviews and checks and whatnot before they can turn a child over to someone they don't know. It takes time to make certain the aunt, uncle, sister, neighbor or well-meaning lady down at the local church is capable of safely caring for a youngster - especially one who has been traumatized like the one under discussion. They do home visits and the whole nine yards and it takes time.

Around here you run into a lot of family members with drug and alcohol problems that disqualify them. It makes more sense to keep the child in foster care until the parent recovers.

And Juvie judges have A LOT of leeway in setting limits on who gets to do what when. Maybe the judge simply wanted to make sure the mother wasn't traumatized and depressed to the point of sitting and rocking hour after hour. The Juvenile system looks out for the kid.

John

 

[Optical Serenity]

Sounds to me like chest thumping and making a mountain out of a mole hill. She'll be fine. Here in Georgia the justice system is pro-citizen and Pro-2nd Amendment. She'll be ok.

 

[JohnBT]

Forgot something.

"said she could not comment on the DFCS case."

"Yes, kinda like that. Hmm. Odd, isn't it?"


There's nothing odd about a "No Comment" on a juvenile court case. That's all anybody ever gets. Here's the relevant part from the City of Richmond site:

"Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Courts differ from other courts in their duty to protect the confidentiality and privacy of juveniles coming before the court"

They don't say anything about anybody involved - nothing. They don't do jury trials either - the judge gets the first, middle and last word.

John

 

[Art Eatman]

Doc2005 & Tim Burke: We have all this juvenile justice system mostly because of the abdication of responsibility on the part of parents and relatives. If not the family, who? A vacuum was thus created and no vacuum goes unfilled: The State steps in because somebody must do something about kids with problems.

Regardless of the nature of the problem, when people abdicate their own responsibilities, people in government are more than ready to step in and assume power. That's what governments do.

Art

 

[rhubarb]

A fierce battle between Lee and the woman began when he threatened to also rape her daughter. She stabbed Lee several times and was severely injured during the struggle

Sounds to me like she takes seriously her responsibility as a parent. If the government wants to get involved (beyond carting away the rapist's body) they should give her a medal.