M.

Sat, Jul 10, 2010 : 11:50 a.m.

halflight - I appreciate your insight; it makes a lot more sense than ffej440's attempt to reason. I do not mind paying the taxes I'm supposed to pay for things that need to be done, like keep violent criminals behind bars...even if it means an expensive trial. Some people would really rather keep money in their pockets than go after child abusers? The only reason I could agree with not taking her to trial is what halflight stated, or if they assumed a jury wouldn't find her guilty. a2.com - I'm disturbed to see you deleted my "off topic" comment that said you must agree to the Terms and Conditions of the OTIS website before viewing an offender profile instead of correcting the problem. This is not off topic since you have this woman's profile directly linked to your article here.

jns131

Fri, Jul 9, 2010 : 6:52 p.m.

Atticus F? They threw out the Spock book in the 80's remember? To hit is to maim and injure the psyche of the child. I remember getting hit and I am doing just fine. To much extreme parenting people I guess.

Skeet

Fri, Jul 9, 2010 : 2:16 p.m.

i think belts are used because it hurts the spanker less than spanking with a hand. I was hit with "switches," belts, paddles, house shoes, hands, and once with a flip flop. My parents and supervisors never hit me in the head or face with anything. i know i needed some spankings because i was a wild kid. they did hurt me, but they always had the right idea in mind; to punish me for doing something that i knew i shouldn't have done. The extension cord is very extreme. I would assume that the parent isn't hitting the child with all their might... just a little sting to remind you to "be good." we all know folks who got whooped as children that are stand up members of our community. as long as you don't go crazy it seems that the law allows for physical discipline. She probably hit someone in the face or left bruises on someone.

Allison

Fri, Jul 9, 2010 : 11:52 a.m.

My neighbors got hit with belts when I was a child, this was in the mid to late 1990's, they were only hit on the butt and only once or twice, enough to get the point accross but not to the point of leaving any sort of mark, I didn't like seeing my friends hit but it was just part of life for them, my house hold was a no hitting house hold, no spanking no nothing, and to tell you the truth I needed my butt smaked for the way I acted some times, my parents did not think that what my neighbors did was child abuse, they used to tell me that it become abuse when it's done for no reason and over and over again leaving marks.

Bones

Fri, Jul 9, 2010 : 9:46 a.m.

Question, Did she beat the children all over with the belt's and cords? Or did she just paddle their behinds with them?

serfergerl

Fri, Jul 9, 2010 : 9:27 a.m.

I wish they would mention where the kids are now. With family members? Foster care?

KJMClark

Fri, Jul 9, 2010 : 6:27 a.m.

"Hitting a child with electrical cords or a belt is considered abusive when it leaves welts visible on the child-- that's the rule of thumb I learned from numerous child protective service investigators. Using a weapon like a belt is likely to get you in trouble." That's funny, since both a belt and a paddle were commonly used when I was a kid. There were paddles hanging on the walls in some of my schools, and my dad used his belt about every other month on one of us. Even my grandmother used a paddle when she thought we'd done something bad. All of that left welts, I can assure you. I've never seen any need to hit our kids; yelling seemed to have been enough when they were younger, and I can reason with them now. Still, if I'm psychologically damaged by it, I don't know about it. I think this is really just a change in parenting styles over time, along with a creeping definition of what constitutes abuse. On the other hand, can we really say that people are better parents than in the past, that today's children become more law-abiding teens and adults than in the past, and that therefore our current discipline methods work better? I don't have an answer to that question, but I have to agree with Atticus on the sentence, unless she was terrorizing the kids with electrical cords.

Ryan Munson

Thu, Jul 8, 2010 : 9:19 p.m.

In this case, what does a status of habitual offender do for the sentencing. Does this add to the sentence and/or change their record?

halflight

Thu, Jul 8, 2010 : 8:34 p.m.

Malorie wrote: She got a plea deal...great justice. In addition to what ffej440 said, the prosecutor also considers the possible effect of a trial on the victims. Victims of child abuse often feel a conflicted loyalty to their abusers, and forcing them to publicly testify can cause additional trauma. The prosecutor also must consider whether the children will be credible witnesses--the last thing you want to have happen in a case like this is for the prosecution case to blow up at trial and let an abusive parent go free. ffej440 wrote: The law is so broad its best these days to NEVER touch your child That's an overstatement. The legal description of child abuse is broad, because unfortunately people find inventive ways to abuse their children. Physical discipline is not abuse, but excessive physical discipline is. Hitting a child with electrical cords or a belt is considered abusive when it leaves welts visible on the child-- that's the rule of thumb I learned from numerous child protective service investigators. Using a weapon like a belt is likely to get you in trouble. A slap on the butt with an open hand that leaves no mark and no long term effects on the child won't.

Jeffersonian

Thu, Jul 8, 2010 : 4:44 p.m.

It is sad to think that it is necessary to strike children to effect discipline. Doing so is a commentary on poor parenting skill. I hope these children can break this cycle of ruin.

ffej440

Thu, Jul 8, 2010 : 4:25 p.m.

Malorie- The courts have to make these deals to avoid the cost of trial. Remember YOU pay for the prosecution AND the defense.On the bright side,being sentenced as a habitual offender means NO early release. The minimum must be served. AtticusF- The law is so broad its best these days to NEVER touch your child. If you tell your child they are going to get spanked and the child runs away and into something (My daughter ran into the clothes drier) You could be charged. It was the schools duty to report the bruise and hours later came a visit and warning from DPS. From then on my children only got lecture and grounding- Its the only tools left for a parent.

Atticus F.

Thu, Jul 8, 2010 : 4:14 p.m.

Not sure of the exact circumstances, but we were beaten with a belt as children, and I always thought of it as normal discipline. I would like to know who determines what is child abuse...8 years in prison seems a little harsh for something that was considered normal when I was a kid.

Bob Needham

Thu, Jul 8, 2010 : 3:29 p.m.

(2 off-topic comments removed)

M.

Thu, Jul 8, 2010 : 3 p.m.

"She pleaded guilty to four counts of second-degree child abuse at her scheduled preliminary hearing last month and faced up to four years in prison on each count. Prosecutor dismissed four counts of first-degree child abuse as part of the deal." She got a plea deal...great justice.

uawisok

Thu, Jul 8, 2010 : 11:13 a.m.

No mention of the father...wonder where he is???