Toronto grandpoarents guilty in child starvation trial

by Lady Lee 3 Replies latest social current

  • Lady Lee
    Lady Lee
    Toronto grandparents guilty in child starvation trial

    http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060407/baldwin_verdict_060407

    CTV.ca News Staff

    After hearing months of heart-wrenching testimony, a judge told two Toronto grandparents they are guilty of second-degree murder for the starvation death of their five-year-old grandson in 2002.

    Justice David Watt handed down his verdict for Elva Bottineau and her common-law husband Norman Kidman on Friday afternoon.

    The pair are expected to be sentenced at a later date.

    Details of Jeffrey Baldwin's short life with his grandparents were outlined for the court Friday in a lengthy address by Justice David Watt that took much of the day.

    Officially, the five-year-old died of pneumonia and septic shock. But the events of his life suggest a slow and desperate demise.

    The Catholic Children's Aid Society (CCAS) placed Jeffrey in the care of his grandparents in 1998 while the agency probed allegations of abuse by his parents.

    A videotaped statement given to police by Baldwin's sister – who cannot be identified -- described a scene of squalor in the grandparent's home.

    She recounted how the unheated bedroom that she and her brother were locked into each night became their bathroom.

    The sister also told how the boy was called a "pig" by Bottineau and Kidman and forced to dig through garbage to find food and use the toilet for drinking water.

    A former boarder in the home described a similar scene. James Mills told the court in Oct. 2005 that he witnessed the young boy begging for food and water, and saw Baldwin and his seven-year-old sister locked in the filthy bedroom for days at a time.

    The boy – who had never attended school – succumbed to starvation in Nov. 2002. He weighed an emaciated 21 lbs. when he died just short of his sixth birthday. A healthy child of that age normally weighs twice as much.

    Court arguments

    During the trial, the prosecution argued that the onus for Baldwin's death rested equally between Bottineau and Kidman.

    In her closing arguments last January, Bev Richards said that both grandparents abused the boy and that Bottineau knew her grandson would die if she did not feed him.

    "Mr. Kidman and Ms. Bottineau viciously abused their position of trust and dominance over a protracted period of time," Richards told the court.

    Both Bottineau and Kidman pleaded not guilty to the first-degree murder charge. They also pleaded not guilty to forcible confinement of Baldwin's older sister.

    Bottineau's lawyer claimed that the grandmother viewed the boy as a source of income because of the child benefit cheques that she received from the government. He argued that she did not intentionally kill her grandson since he would be no good to her dead.

    He also claimed that his client was extremely mentally deficient and therefore did not know the consequences of her actions.

    Kidman's lawyer argued that his client is only guilty of negligence since Bottineau was the one in charge of looking after the children.

    The Crown built its case for neglect and abuse around the testimonies of Mills and Baldwin's sister.

    Legal fallout

    Immediately after the verdict was handed down, Ontario's chief coroner announced an inquest will be held.

    "The circumstances surrounding Jeffrey's death have been a matter of public interest," Dr. Barry McLellan's office said in a written statement.

    The Catholic Children's Aid Society (CCAS) came under fire during the trial for the decision to place children with Bottineau and Kidman.

    It is alleged the CCAS did not do a background check on the grandparents prior to the children being placed in their care.

    If a check had been done it would have revealed that both grandparents have previous child abuse convictions.

    "Issues to be addressed at the inquest include the Toronto Catholic Children's Aid Society's involvement in Jeffrey's placement and the role that agency, and others, had in monitoring his well-being prior to his death," McLellan's statement said.

    The coroner's office also established a policy to disclose details of all suspicious child deaths in the province.

    The move, according to The Toronto Star, will blow the lid off the secrecy that previously surrounded such deaths.

    Provincial coroners investigate about 230 child deaths every year; about 20 are deemed suspicious.

    The policy change was prompted by Baldwin's death, The Star reported Friday.

    With files from The Canadian Press

  • Legolas
    Legolas

    They just mentioned a brief thing about that on the news about 45 minutes ago...so sad!

  • Lady Lee
    Lady Lee

    As tragic as Jeffrey's life was it has lit up a controvery that needs to come out of the dark ages. This is a good thing.

    For far too long people have yelled and screamed after the fact about the Children's Aid Society not doing their job. The child in this case never should have been placed into the care of the grandparents who both had previous child abuse convictions.

    For far too long we have read about children being abused by foster parents (whether they are relatives or not).

    The system needs a rehaul.

    I was in the Child Services Care in Toronto for 3 years when I was a child. They came to inspect the home but that was about it. Granted back then (early - mid 60s not too many people were talking about abuse.

    Child welfare services are caught up in this no win situation of too many kids needing placement and not enough homes to put them in. They often place children in homes without doing the required background checks just so they have a place to put the child.

    To my way of thinking if a couple of parents are bad enough to have their children removed from their care then there really should be a second look at the grandparents to make sure they:

    1. didn't abuse their own children
    2. and that the background checks are done.

    Research has shown that most often abusers were abused as children themselves. (This DOES NOT mean all victims become abusers - they DON'T) So if parents were abused as children by their parents then it just seems illogical to think that taking the kids away from their parents and giving them to the grandparents is just plain stupid.

    That's not to say that all grandparents on both sides would be bad. But a background check would confirm the safety of the home.

    Historically there was an belief that social workers were out just waiting to rip children out of the clutches of their parents and put them in the system. Unreasonably people seem to still think this way.

    So the debate about giving social workers more powers vs less power looks like it is revving up.

    I think they need the power to do their jobs. Tying their hands by saying the background checks are not needed when the person is family is absurd.

    A few years ago I found out that my stepfather who sexually abused my sister (her father), my aunt and me as well as his 3 daughters in his first marriage moved to the US and married a woman with daughters and they became foster parents - to daughters.

    This isn't a local problem. Attitudes towards social workers and especially those who work in child welfare services need to change. They need the tools to do their jobs and the legal power to protect those children who really need the protection

  • looking_glass
    looking_glass

    There was a case in the states of parents who starved their baby, but they got off w/ prob. The courts determined that they did not have "intent" but it was based on their strict religious beliefs of being vegan and only eating things. I am a bit ignorant as to what religion they are or what it exactly involved, but it sounded like they believed in the raw food diet. Anyways the baby died, she had health issues and she was not get the right dietary needs so she essentially starved to death. I could not believe that the court put the parent on prob. and gave them back their kids w/ the condition that the kids be allowed to eat meat. A bit of a mixed message. But then again, a history of puritan religion allows many in the US to get away with things that are just BAD on the ground of religious freedom.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit