Moms from Hell

by Kathryn Casey

Lately the Mom-from-Hell phenomenon has consumed residents of my hometown, Houston, slapping us in the face every morning over our cereal and orange juice. During the past month, the Houston Chronicle's front pages have displayed photos of a beautiful young mother charged with committing a despicable crime against her infant son and a supposedly dedicated nurse who allegedly sat back and let her boyfriend turn her young daughter's life into a living hell.

Case one, photo above, Katherine Nadal, in March 2007 the mother of a five-week-old boy. What did Nadal do? Well, according to her ex-husband, she first spent a night partying and taking drugs, then argued with him about whether or not their infant son should be circumcised. It seems Nadal was in favor and her husband wasn't. The next day, prosecutors argued, Nadal took a knife and cut off her infant son's penis and testicles, then unemotionally watched him bleed, nearly dying, as the EMTs she called attempted to save his life.

A former cheerleader, Nadal's nothing if not consistent. Last Friday, when she stood to hear the jury's verdict -- a resounding guilty -- she stared blank-faced around the courtroom. Jurors apparently didn't believe Nadal's contention that the family's mini-dachshund bit off the infant's genitals. Experts during the punishment phase argued that the child will never have a normal life, be able to have children, and may be in danger of committing suicide throughout his teenage years. For this horrible act, the jury sentenced Nadal to 99 years.

Case two is just as horrifying, the on-going heartbreak of the short and terrifying life of little Emma Thompson, the cute, red-headed four-year-old pictured on the right. Before she died, Emma came to the attention of Houston's Child Protective Services when she contracted genital herpes. One would think perhaps that should have been enough to take the child away from her mother. Apparently CPS disagrees. Emma's mom, Abigail Young, is a nurse, described as a gifted one at that. How did she explain her daughter's STD? A dirty toilet seat. Next thing we know, little Emma was beaten to death.

Granted, CPS didn't know that Young was living with Lucas Ruric Coe, reportedly pond scum already well known to the agency. That's Coe and Young pictured below. Among his past brushes with the law: assault with a deadly weapon, criminal mischief and injury to a child. He'd been investigated by CPS three times in unrelated charges involving another girlfriend's child.

When CPS investigated the herpes blisters found in Emma's mouth, hands and genitals, Young insisted she lived alone with Emma and her two older daughters, ages 11 and six. "She denied having a boyfriend," a CPS spokesperson has said.

The day Emma died, her mother rushed her to the hospital. But first, Young apparently tried to repair some of the damage from the horrendous beating the child received by attempting to super-glue her cracked skull. At autopsy, Emma had 80 bruises, a fractured skull, brain hemorrhage, and a vaginal tear. She also suffered blunt-force trauma to her abdomen, the death blow.

Texas Governor Rick Perry has ordered an investigation into why CPS didn't remove little Emma when the herpes was diagnosed, which might have saved her life. Meanwhile, the rest of us shake our heads and wonder how any mother could do the things Nadal and Young are charged with. Sometimes reading the morning newspaper is enough to make me sick.

Tweet

Failure to Act a Capital Crime?

by Diane Fanning

Guilty by omission. In other words, the defendant is found responsible for another person’s death by not acting quickly enough to save that life.

A fair enough charge. If someone sits by and watches while another person is clearly in medical distress, there should be a penalty.

But capital murder? Capital murder convictions, we’ve been told, are reserved for the worst of the worst—for the crimes that we all find inconceivable and horrendous. In Texas, a capital conviction means the defendant receives the death penalty or life without parole. These ultimate penalties are intended to be used for the most heinous crimes.

But a jury in Corpus Christi found Hannah Overton , the biological mother of five, guilty of capital murder for failing to act quickly enough to get medical attention for an ailing child.

That’s right, according to an in-depth investigative piece written by stellar journalist John MacCormack in the San Antonio Express News, the jury did not believe, as the prosecution alleged, that Hannah intended to harm or kill Andrew—they simply believed she took too long to get him help. The judge’s instructions led the jurors to believe they had no other choice. They did not know that their guilt by omission conviction would result in the ultimate punishment under the law.

Hannah and her husband Larry were fostering Andrew Burd and working toward his adoption. Child Protective Services claimed Andrew was a perfectly healthy child when they placed him in their home. But it simply was not true: Andrew had an unhealthy obsession with food. Not only did he gorge on foods in the refrigerator, he also ate inappropriate items.

If they left a bar of soap in the bathroom, Andrew took a bite out of it. He’d eat any food left behind in the cat’s dish. He ate toothpaste. He once broke a glow-stick and tried to eat it. Hannah and her adoption counselor were seeking help for his condition, known as pica.

The day of Andrew’s death, Hannah made Cajun stew seasoned with Zatarain’s spice. Andrew loved the hot flavoring and his insatiable appetite did not diminish after eating. In order to soothe him, Hannah sprinkled Zatarain’s into water in his sippy cup.

Soon after, Andrew exhibited symptoms of hypernatremia, sometimes caused by salt poisoning. Typically, victims are not recognized as being critically ill for an hour and a half. On the outer edge of that window of time, Hannah and Larry entered the emergency room with Andrew. They drove him in their car because they thought there was not enough time to call 9-1-1 and wait for the arrival of an ambulance.

The jury’s rejection of the prosecution’s belief in intentional poisoning made sense to Dr. Michael Moritz, an expert on salt poisoning. He arrived in Corpus Christi to testify for the defense but he was never called. He told John MacCormack, “There is no evidence of force. No salt on the body. No lacerations to his mouth. No salt crystals in his mouth or nose. . . . If you go into the literature, in every single case of alleged salt poisoning, they were kids just like him… There’s nothing to say he didn’t dump the whole damn thing of Zatarain or the salt shaker into his drink. A normal kid won’t eat it because it’s unpalatable. But this is not a normal kid. He’s having a highly stressful day. He’s a gorger. He’s got pica. And boom. He gorges it and ten minutes later, his brain is starting to shrink.”

So how did Hannah end up in such a mess?

At one point after Hannah’s arrest, Child Protective Services submitted an affidavit with a long list of child abuse allegations in the household. But that could have been a cover-up for their failure to act when Hannah requested a referral for Andrew’s pica problem. Every point was proven to have no basis in fact—all twenty accusations were shown to be false and CPS dropped the case. The employee who wrote the affidavit, no longer works for the agency.

On the forensic front, the autopsy was flawed. Although the pathologist ruled the death a homicide, he admitted on the stand that he could not be certain of his own determination. In addition, he never analyzed the contents of Andrew’s stomach or examined the microscopic sections of key organs that could have shown his underlying condition.

Further, in the trial itself, the prosecutors never called one of the witnesses on their list, including the doctor who treated Andrew, and they never disclosed to the defense the opinions they received from this doctor.

It seems as if law enforcement and the prosecution lost their way in an extreme case of tunnel vision. They could only see one possibility and refused to look at any others. The judge appeared to aid and abet their prosecutorial misconduct by instructing the jury in a way that led to a mandatory sentence of life without parole for a crime that the jury believed was committed without premeditation, without intention to harm or murder, and without malice.

Even the jury’s decision of negligence is considered unrealistic by medical experts. But even if you do agree with the jury, how could any reasonable person believe that a faulty judgment call merits total banishment from society for life?

The case is under appeal at the Texas 13th Court of Appeals—I fervently hope that common sense and justice will prevail.

Tweet