Essential Baby blogger Amity Dry
In Adelaide last week a father who violently shook his newborn son hard enough to cause brain damage and blindness in both eyes avoided a jail term so that he can be a “father figure” to his son. That sound you just heard is my jaw dropping to the floor as I struggle to understand how on earth this could be right.
As reported in The Advertiser on July 19,
‘In May, a District Court jury found Philip Edward Clarke, 29, of Ingle Farm, guilty of the criminal neglect of his 12-week-old son William in 2006.
In sentencing today, Judge Wayne Chivell said Clarke had lost his temper and either shaken his son, or thrown him onto a soft surface with a hard base like a couch.
William suffered bleeding in the space between his brain and skull, extensive brain damage and was blinded in both eyes.
Judge Chivell said a doctor who examined William's eyes said she had "never seen anything as bad in her entire career".
But obviously that doctors opinion meant nothing to Judge Chivell, who felt that Clarke deserved a chance to build a relationship with his now severely incapacitated son. He suspended Clarke’s three-year prison sentence on condition of a $1000, two-year good-behaviour bond because he felt that it was more "constructive" for Clarke to be a father figure to his son.
I really don’t have words to explain how dumbfounded I am that a court of law could find that a father capable of inflicting such harm to his 12 WEEK OLD BABY should not be sitting in a jail cell, let alone have the right to care for that child. What is the point of having laws anyway, if there is absolutely no punishment for breaking them?
Sadly, if this story wasn’t heartbreaking enough, it was reported that William’s mother has not seen him for the last three years, due to her “unresolved grief for what has happened."
I’m sure she has enormous grief. It is a tragedy beyond measure that her previously healthy son is now brain damaged and blind due to the violent actions of his own father. But it is devastating to think that this child, who has lost so much already, has also lost his mother when he needs her love and care now more than ever.
Little William, who will require full-time care for the rest of his life, now resides with Clarke's parents, with the judge agreeing that his father should be able to visit him as often as allowed. Because obviously a person who is capable of violently assaulting their own child should have the right to hang out with them whenever they are in the mood.
It is just unfathomable.
It’s not like Clarke could claim he didn’t know that shaking could cause serious harm, seeing as it’s widely publicised these days. When I received my baby book recently one of the flyers was information on shaking and the damage it can do. In fact, Clarke even admitted that he was “aware his actions could cause serious harm to the child.”
So he knew he was potentially harming his child but did so anyway because his crying was disturbing him watching the TV, yet a judge decides he can continue to be part of that child’s life. How could he get it so wrong?
Look, I am all for helping parents who are struggling to care for their children, as I have written about before. As an ambassador for the family support charity Good Beginnings I understand the cycle of abuse and neglect that causes parents to mistreat their children. And I believe, with the right help and support, most of these parents can turn their lives around and continue to care for their kids. But I also believe that, no matter how bad your childhood was, if you physically harm your child to this degree you forfeit the right to be part of their life.
William never got a second chance, so why on earth should his father get one? His promise of a happy and healthy life was cut tragically short and the punishment should reflect that.
Australian Childhood Foundation chief executive Joe Tucci has urged the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal the case and I sincerely hope they do so. Little William may not have had a voice to change his fate, but somebody needs to have one for him, to ensure he is never put in harms way again.
What do you think about the case? Comment on Amity's blog.
As reported in The Advertiser on July 19,
‘In May, a District Court jury found Philip Edward Clarke, 29, of Ingle Farm, guilty of the criminal neglect of his 12-week-old son William in 2006.
In sentencing today, Judge Wayne Chivell said Clarke had lost his temper and either shaken his son, or thrown him onto a soft surface with a hard base like a couch.
William suffered bleeding in the space between his brain and skull, extensive brain damage and was blinded in both eyes.
Judge Chivell said a doctor who examined William's eyes said she had "never seen anything as bad in her entire career".
But obviously that doctors opinion meant nothing to Judge Chivell, who felt that Clarke deserved a chance to build a relationship with his now severely incapacitated son. He suspended Clarke’s three-year prison sentence on condition of a $1000, two-year good-behaviour bond because he felt that it was more "constructive" for Clarke to be a father figure to his son.
I really don’t have words to explain how dumbfounded I am that a court of law could find that a father capable of inflicting such harm to his 12 WEEK OLD BABY should not be sitting in a jail cell, let alone have the right to care for that child. What is the point of having laws anyway, if there is absolutely no punishment for breaking them?
Sadly, if this story wasn’t heartbreaking enough, it was reported that William’s mother has not seen him for the last three years, due to her “unresolved grief for what has happened."
I’m sure she has enormous grief. It is a tragedy beyond measure that her previously healthy son is now brain damaged and blind due to the violent actions of his own father. But it is devastating to think that this child, who has lost so much already, has also lost his mother when he needs her love and care now more than ever.
Little William, who will require full-time care for the rest of his life, now resides with Clarke's parents, with the judge agreeing that his father should be able to visit him as often as allowed. Because obviously a person who is capable of violently assaulting their own child should have the right to hang out with them whenever they are in the mood.
It is just unfathomable.
It’s not like Clarke could claim he didn’t know that shaking could cause serious harm, seeing as it’s widely publicised these days. When I received my baby book recently one of the flyers was information on shaking and the damage it can do. In fact, Clarke even admitted that he was “aware his actions could cause serious harm to the child.”
So he knew he was potentially harming his child but did so anyway because his crying was disturbing him watching the TV, yet a judge decides he can continue to be part of that child’s life. How could he get it so wrong?
Look, I am all for helping parents who are struggling to care for their children, as I have written about before. As an ambassador for the family support charity Good Beginnings I understand the cycle of abuse and neglect that causes parents to mistreat their children. And I believe, with the right help and support, most of these parents can turn their lives around and continue to care for their kids. But I also believe that, no matter how bad your childhood was, if you physically harm your child to this degree you forfeit the right to be part of their life.
William never got a second chance, so why on earth should his father get one? His promise of a happy and healthy life was cut tragically short and the punishment should reflect that.
Australian Childhood Foundation chief executive Joe Tucci has urged the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal the case and I sincerely hope they do so. Little William may not have had a voice to change his fate, but somebody needs to have one for him, to ensure he is never put in harms way again.
What do you think about the case? Comment on Amity's blog.
