Hot Sauce Mom Found Guilty Of Child Abuse

[Nathair/|\]

Some time ago, the case of a mom who punished her children with excessive amounts of hot sauce was extensively discussed on this board. Yahoo news reports today that she was found guilty of child abuse and may be facing jail time.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/health-15749655/hot-sauce-mom-found-guilty-for-spicy-punishment-26405354.html

[BCSpace]

I guess we have to draw the line at soap......

[bluebell]

I saw this the other day. I don't know that i agree with the conviction, but i definitely agree that what she did was wrong.

[frankenstein]

most unfortunate for all of them.

[thesometimesaint]

I feel sorry for the mom(prisons aren't nice places). I feel more sorry for her kid(he was the one abused).

[bluebell]

I feel sorry for the mom(prisons aren't nice places). I feel more sorry for her kid(he was the one abused).

I would be amazed if she saw prison time-she was convicted of a misdemeanor(sp) and her and her husband did not lose custody of any of the children if i understand correctly. She still lives at home with the boy in question and his twin brother and her biological children (again, IIUC).

[Pahoran]

I would be amazed if she saw prison time-she was convicted of a misdemeanor(sp) and her and her husband did not lose custody of any of the children if i understand correctly. She still lives at home with the boy in question and his twin brother and her biological children (again, IIUC).

I read through a number of the comments. Most of them seemed supportive of the mother and thought the conviction was unnecessary. Mind you, no-one mentioned that she was a Mormon. If they had, I wonder if the comments page would explode with idiotic remarks like "What else do you expect from that cult."

Regards,

Pahoran

[bluebell]

I think the conviction is mostly punitive.

She was getting help, through dr. phil's services, long before the county(state?) even decided to press charges. She was in therapy and parenting classes and was seeing the best dr's. in the country for these types of issues. She was always very willing to accept that her punishment crossed the line and seemed to be responding to her 'treatments' very well.

I think the fact that they didn't even see a need to remove the children from the home as validation that her parenting style is no longer a threat. They are making a public example of her.

It'll be interesting to see how far other states start to go with these kinds of things. Will washing a child's mouth out with soap soon be considered child abuse or endangerment? Probably eventually.

[Calm]

I think the conviction is mostly punitive.

She was getting help, through dr. phil's services, long before the county(state?) even decided to press charges. She was in therapy and parenting classes and was seeing the best dr's. in the country for these types of issues. She was always very willing to accept that her punishment crossed the line and seemed to be responding to her 'treatments' very well.

I think the fact that they didn't even see a need to remove the children from the home as validation that her parenting style is no longer a threat. They are making a public example of her.

It'll be interesting to see how far other states start to go with these kinds of things. Will washing a child's mouth out with soap soon be considered child abuse or endangerment? Probably eventually.

Yeah, it is one thing when the parent is either clueless or resistant...then legal action may be needed to either remove the child or to insist that the individual get help (not terribly effective for making sincere behavioural changes, but at least they may recognize that someone is watching and there are consequences to their behaviour).

This case seems to a certain extent counterproductive. While I know the courts represent the needs of the community, when it comes to parents, the needs of the children should be met first as best as possible and it seems the decision to leave the children in her care means the court/law/social services saw the needs being addressed sufficiently. However, by taking her to court, they end up not only making her life more difficult, but making the children's life as well. Just what you should do to someone who abuses their children when you are trying to get them to stop abusing their children.....put them under huge stress by the threat of legal action. Plus there is the high cost of lawyer's fees, court costs, etc. That's not helping with either the stress or getting the kids' needs met, but rather adding to hardship for the family.

I think it would have been better simply to put her on probation with social services and insist that she get the help she needed so that the children's lives were improved to the maximum possible.

Instead it is likely the court went through all of this to make this gesture because the city probably felt they needed to look like they were hard on abuse because of the very public nature of the abuse.

The public example they should be using her for is to show that one can learn to control oneself, change one's behaviour....give people incentive to work with beneficial behaviours instead of making abusers be more likely to hide their behaviours out of fear of punishment.

[thesometimesaint]

bluebell:

The justice systems serves two purposes. One is to reform the offender. The other is to send a clear message to others that violations of law carry consequences. "If you can't afford to do the time, don't commit the crime". By going on Dr. Phil she attempted to short circuit the process. She committed the crime, but didn't want to do the time.

Regardless of what I think of Dr. Phil as a professsional, it is good that she sought professional help. A better course of action would been when she was first feeling frustrated, angry, and out of control of her own actions, to seek professionnal help then, before her actions actually took place.

It was/is not a validation of her actions. States are very remarkedly careful about removing children from a home, unless there is concern for the life/immediate health of the child. SOP is to demand treatment/correction, with follow up checks to confirm compliance.

Probably not. The problem with any type of physical punishment is that while it is very good at stopping the bad behavior, what it can not do is produce good behavior. So the bad behavors, or ones very like it, return. So the punishment often esculates, and so on and so on till the kid is seriously injured or dead.

[bluebell]

bluebell:

The justice systems serves two purposes. One is to reform the offender. The other is to send a clear message to others that violations of law carry consequences. "If you can't afford to do the time, don't commit the crime". By going on Dr. Phil she attempted to short circuit the process. She committed the crime, but didn't want to do the time.

Not really.

She didn't realize what she was doing was a crime at all. It was her tape to Dr. Phil that caused viewers of the show to call her local police and bring it to there attention (at least, that's what the news reports have said). She was on dr. phil and participating in his program before charges were even filed.

Regardless of what I think of Dr. Phil as a professsional, it is good that she sought professional help. A better course of action would been when she was first feeling frustrated, angry, and out of control of her own actions, to seek professionnal help then, before her actions actually took place.

Yes, that would have been a good idea. I don't think she had any idea that what she was doing was wrong though. Her husband is a police officer, and no charges were brought against him for allowing the punishments to take place.

By contacting dr. phil, i'm sure she thought she was seeking professional help in a timely manner.

[Calm]

bluebell:

The justice systems serves two purposes. One is to reform the offender. The other is to send a clear message to others that violations of law carry consequences. "If you can't afford to do the time, don't commit the crime".

Not sure how terrorizing abusers who often do not realize they are abusing their kids until after they've committed the act by making examples by punishing people who are sincerely trying to get help and change for the better is going to actually decrease abusing behaviour.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

It is hardly terrorizing to demand that the actual terrorist face the legal consequences of her actions on a little kid.

I don't know, and neither do you, of her real motivations. I do hope that she really does want the help she so despiritly needs. But I've never got out of a speding ticket, by claiming "Yes I was speeding officer, I'm really really sorry. I won't do it again".

Her husband is irrelevent to her case. You ain't going to get out of that speeding ticket either by claiming "But officer, another officer past me by without giving me a ticket".

That she is seeking professional help is good. I commend her for doing that. But that doesn't meet the demands of justice. I have no desire to see her sit in prison. Though she does deserve it. Court ordered in home treatment with folllow ups to make sure she is no longer abusive. Then after a year, or two, a dismissal of charges is how I would handle her case.

[Calm]

But I've never got out of a speding ticket, by claiming "Yes I was speeding officer, I'm really really sorry. I won't do it again".

The only ticket I've ever come close to getting was for not stopping for a policeman while he was out of his car clearing off a barrier on the shoulder of the road. It was on an exit off of a freeway and my instinct was to stop, but other cars in front of me passed him by, most without slowing down and there were cars behind me so I worried about the potential of causing an accident by stopping on a freeway and simply slowed down to 20 mph or so and swung over to the other side of the road as much as possible. I was probably the one who responded the most to the situation, I was also the last one to pass him before he got in his car. He caught up with me at the stoplight and flashed his lights, I pulled over on a side street and we proceeded to have a conversation about what I had done. He explained it was illegal, I apologized, said I deserved to be pulled over for letting myself be persuaded by the wrong thing (even though it was worry about safety, not about being inconvenienced) said I had felt I should have stopped but let the other cars' actions persuade me about what was right instead of listening to myself. Wouldn't allow that to happen again because next time I wouldn't be uncertain about what was and wasn't right to do. Gave no indication that I was asking him to excuse my behaviour and never thought that he should....though quite open to the idea if it was his. It turned out to be just what he was thinking, he simply gave me a warning and reminder to get a valid insurance card in the car, off he went and off I went with my 'not even a parking ticket' record intact.

In many cases the law has a choice. It seems to me that it would make sense to choose the path that will yield more people understanding what they did was wrong, but also more people getting the help they need to stop if they need it. And I don't see how creating a worry that one will automatically be arrested for past abusive behaviour if one tries to seek out help is going to result in anything but people hiding their abusive behaviour more out of fear, thus creating greater likelihood of future abusive behaviour in those who do it because of loss of self control as opposed to doing it just because they want to (and in the case of child abuse I suspect that loss of self control beats out sadism a hundred times over in cause). I think creating hope that they will get help if they are sincere in their attempt to change their behaviour and not be punished if their behaviour was not too extreme would result in less abusive behaviour in the long run instead of using the stick/fear approach to prevent it (since I suspect for first time loss of control abusers they most often do not realize they have crossed the line yet because of lack of education or are too emotional when crossing the line that they are unable to judge or even consider the consequences of their behaviour. It is only later when the crisis has pass that they may feel guilt and remorse, but by then the act has been done and they are now legally at risk for arrest.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

That cop was being nice. But IF you were a 16 year old boy chances are better that you'd have gotten the ticket.

[Calm]

calmoriah:

That cop was being nice. But IF you were a 16 year old boy chances are better that you'd have gotten the ticket.

Of course and it would be a wiser move because evidence shows that 16 year old boys won't learn if there is not something significant attached to give them incentive to learn. My point is the law sometimes has options on when to punish and when to work with a warning or some other form of positive encouragement. OTOH, if the law has If the individual is already showing they have changed and are working on changing more (for the better of course), then what sort of learning takes place when they are punished?

To be clear, I am not suggesting this occurs in all cases, I am saying there are some cases where the actions were not extreme enough that the benefits of positive reinforcement of good behaviours and the costs of punishment outweigh the benefits to society of punishment.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

The cost of punishment ALWAYS outweighs the cost of the benefits. Cops, judges, lawyers, clerks, office workers, the buildings they work in. The jails, prisons, guards, and their administers. All the assorted personnel and the hardwear they use. That comes to literally 100 of thousands of dollars, if not millions if it is a Capital case, per year per defendant. All that just to try an convince someone not to do, what they already know not to do.

What person of normal intelligence doesn't know that hot sauce is hot. I lived in New Mexico. I like spicey hot food. But I sure as all Hades didn't force my small children to drink the stuff.

[bluebell]

I lived in New Mexico. I like spicey hot food. But I sure as all Hades didn't force my small children to drink the stuff.

As i understand it, making a child put hot sauce in their mouths is quite common in some areas of the country, especially the South.

[thesometimesaint]

bluebell:

As a teen-ager I lived in Huntsville; Alabama. That's about as Southern as they come. Never heard of forcing small children to drink hot sauce as punishment. Of course that was over 45 years ago. So things might have changed. If they have then it is to the far worse.

[MorningStar]

What bothers me is that she knew she wasn't handling it appropriately and because Dr. Phil required a tape, she repeated the behavior knowing it wasn't OK and had her 10-year-old daughter record her doing it. I've heard of people putting a dab of hot sauce on a child's tongue for swearing, backtalk, etc., but making them take a swig of it would be very painful. I put a dab on my own tongue and it burned like heck!

I don't really think jail is necessary for her, but I wonder if it would be better for the boy to go to another home. I'm not sure which would cause more damage to him - staying there or adjusting to having a new family.

[Calm]

calmoriah:

The cost of punishment ALWAYS outweighs the cost of the benefits. Cops, judges, lawyers, clerks, office workers, the buildings they work in. The jails, prisons, guards, and their administers. All the assorted personnel and the hardwear they use. That comes to literally 100 of thousands of dollars, if not millions if it is a Capital case, per year per defendant. All that just to try an convince someone not to do, what they already know not to do.

What person of normal intelligence doesn't know that hot sauce is hot. I lived in New Mexico. I like spicey hot food. But I sure as all Hades didn't force my small children to drink the stuff.

I am not talking financial costs here, but rather the 'account' sheet for behavioural change (if the account is in the black, positive changes occur, if the account is in the red, negative behaviours will be promoted).

If the goal is to protect society and specifically the children, then the 'account' should be focused on behavioural change. If the goal is revenge or retribution, then that's a different matter.

My daughter in law does not experience hot sauce as hot, in part because she has built up a tolerance to it. She can down tons of the stuff while a bit of it sends my husband writhing on the floor (he has an oversensitivity to it) and it ruins the rest of the meal for me (even once I can stand the pain, the sensation overwhelms all taste).

I have also known many people that aren't aware that something like hot sauce can cause permanent damage (as in burns, though if she got the typical stuff from the grocery store I don't think that can occur even in children....though perhaps if they are forced to keep it in their mouths).

[bluebell]

What bothers me is that she knew she wasn't handling it appropriately and because Dr. Phil required a tape, she repeated the behavior knowing it wasn't OK and had her 10-year-old daughter record her doing it.

I agree.

For me, the cold shower was almost harder to watch than the hot sauce (and in case someone isn't aware, she didn't make him drink any-she made him hold some in his mouth for a minute. Not that that wouldn't be worse than drinking it, just mentioning it for accuracy's sake), but the whole video is heartbreaking.

Especially, i don't know how she could have thought doing those things to a six year old adopted son from Russia (with all the potential for emotional problems that such children have) wasn't horrible. Not that it would have been fine for a different child but you'd think at the very least she would have been able to see the bigger picture with a child who so obviously had serious issues going on.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

It is much more like the social cost of not stopping the bad behaviors. Abusers typically continue to abuse until something dramatic happens. The abused children are more likely to go on to abuse their own children. Thus continueing the abuse cycle.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for trained professional counseling. I made my living doing just that. But I see the whole thing as one tragic loss of human potential, and lives lost.

[Calm]

calmoriah:

It is much more like the social cost of not stopping the bad behaviors. Abusers typically continue to abuse until something dramatic happens. The abused children are more likely to go on to abuse their own children. Thus continueing the abuse cycle.

This is ignoring that in this particular case positive changes had already occurred and likely to keep occurring, thus with its high public profile potentially providing other abusers with a positive incentive to seek out help....instead they've lost that opportunity and instead added more reinforcement to the abuse behaviour by giving them a reason to avoid seeking out help (out of fear of being arrested, etc. if they publicly confess).

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

I certainly hope so. I would love to be wrong, but history isn't so optimistic.