Adoptive Mother Accused of Abusing, Starving 11 Foster Kids
When a woman does something terrible, the media often tries to explain or excuse it, usually by trying to blame the man in her life. A few examples:
When Gilberta Estrada hung her four small daughters, three of whom died, media focused attention on her allegedly abusive ex-boyfriend. To learn more, click here.
When Andrea Yates drowned her five children, media focused blame on her husband, Russell Yates. I appeared on many Texas radio shows at the time to defend Russell, and was so vilified that I often felt as if I were defending the person who had committed the murders. To learn more, see my co-authored column In Defense of a Flawed but Decent Russell Yates (Houston Chronicle, 3/11/02)
Clara Harris repeatedly ran over her husband and killed him, as the dying man’s daughter sat in the front seat next to Clara and begged Clara not to kill her father. Many, including Oprah and CBS in its movie Suburban Madness, sympathetically portrayed Harris as a loving, loyal wife who “snapped” when her husband cheated on her. To learn more, see my co-authored column Suppose roles had been reversed in Harris case–Murdered dad deserves sympathy being shown Clara (Houston Chronicle, 1/27/07).
Terry Barton, a Colorado Forest Service worker, intentionally set a forest fire which destroyed over 100,000 acres and led to the deaths of five firemen in June of 2002. Barton tried to pin her crime on a male camper, and later said she did it because her estranged husband sent her a mean letter. Some in the media bought it. To learn more, see Lisa Nowak, Clara Harris, Terry Barton, and an Incredible Omission.
In the incredible case below, Judith Leekin (pictured) allegedly abused and starved her nine foster children for decades. According to authorities, “Leekin was unemployed and lived off the monthly stipends provided by child welfare authorities in New York. She owned at least two homes and several cars. The adopted children said they had never seen a doctor or a dentist and had not been allowed to attend school or even leave the house.”
I’m looking forward to seeing how this is really a man’s fault, too. Anybody have any predictions?
Adoptive Mom Accused of Abusing, Starving Foster Kids for Decades
Associated Press, 7/30/07
PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. — They were often handcuffed, tethered together with plastic ties and allowed to soil themselves, investigators say. They had scars on their wrists. Some had burns.
None appeared to have more than a fourth-grade education, not even the adults in their 20s. All were starving.
In all, nine teenagers and young adults were held like prisoners in Judith Leekin’s home in what appeared to be a decades-long scheme to line her pockets with the government payments she received for adopting and raising them, police say.
From the outside, Leekin’s home appeared to be as ordinary as the others in this well-kept working-class neighborhood on the outskirts of this Atlantic coast town, 120 miles north of Miami. But its pink and white stucco exterior hid the horrors inside, authorities say.
“Horrible, I think, would be the best word used to describe what was going on in that house,” said police Capt. Scott Bartal. (more…)
|
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
August 4th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
She didn’t have an ex who wasn’t paying child support or a boyfriend who wasn’t supporting her and the children, even after the breakup? In all those years, there was no contact with any man who didn’t blow the alarm after the abuse he had to have seen?
How about giving us a hard question.
August 4th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Rusty was vilified because as a villian Rusty deserved it; however, what Rusty also deserves is a FAIR accounting of what his role in his children’s deaths was.
As my screen name suggests, I was deceived by the same cult leader Rusty was infatuated with at one time. However, that is not exactly why Rusty deserves his portion of blame for why his wife went filicidal with their kids. But when a man patterns his life after a pathological nut, it’s not surprising to me at all that his life would bear fruit commensurate to a life belonging to a pathological nut.
Where Rusty went wrong is clear. He was so infatuated with the idea of having a large family that he neglected all the warnings from friends, family and medical authority regarding Andrea’s health and how she endangered the safety of her children. Although no one suspected Andrea would intentionally become violent with her children, Rusty was warned time and time again, not to allow his wife to drive, to take her to get psychiatric attention, and not to leave Andrea unsupervised. Indeed, his negligence to follow doctor’s orders not only set up her final postpartum swing that led to her psychosis, but he left her alone providing her with the opportunity to kill the children.
Dr. Starbranch specifically warned him that more pregnancies would guarantee future psychotic depression, and Dr. Saeed questioned Rusty in order to assure someone was with her around the clock. Andrea’s mother warned him not to leave the kids alone with her because she nearly accidentally choked her infant Mary feeding her solid food when she had no teeth yet. It was Rusty’s stated belief that all depressed people needed was a “swift kick in the pants” to get motivated, that led him to force Andrea to be alone with the kids so that she would not become dependent on those taking up her slack.
People can be really stupid, but where it becomes criminal, in my mind at least, is when people deny their blatant irresponsibility, and Rusty is a seriously committed denier. A close lady friend of his mentioned this to Suzanne O’Malley in the book about Andrea Yates.
Rusty knew Andrea was suicidal the last time she was ill. Remarkably, he defends himself saying if he knew she was a danger to the kids, he would have never gotten Andrea pregnant again. You would think a caring man would regard his wife with equal concern. To him it would seem, she was just a means to an end, a prop in a fairy tale play catering to his fantasy.
Although Rusty promised Dr. Starbranch the next time Andrea became ill, he would “nip it in the bud,” he neglected her descent into depression for weeks, even to the point she was completely incapacitated before he and her brother forcefully took her to the hospital in 2001. Dr. Albritton, the attending physician on duty when Andrea was finally brought in to her ward, was shocked at the level she was allowed to descend before she was given medical attention. Rusty seems to think he is excused from neglecting her because her descent was very rapid. (??)
Rusty can be quite a charmer with the ladies it would seem. He did a good job on Suzanne O’Malley who wrote “Are You Alone?” about the Andrea Yates tragedy. To her credit, she did get to a lot of details that balanced the accusations of Rusty’s worst detractors, but she seemed to overlook or miss the crucial details of how seriously to blame Rusty was for this tragedy. It’s my opinion as well as the opinion of Andrea’s mother that Rusty used O’Malley to create a facade covering up his true nature. When asked what might be holding back Rusty from divorcing Andrea, her mother responded, “he’s waiting for you to finish your book.”
I agree. That’s exactly the way it happened.
I don’t think anyone should be vilified in torch, shovel and pitchfork fashion. But I also don’t believe that once the facts come to light, such a person should be allowed to get away with their portion of responsibility.
The irrationality of mob mentality unchecked is truly outrageous. It doesn’t justify anyone either, though.
That’s all.
August 4th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
I’m sure there is a quest going on to find a man to blame for this horrible woman’s apparent actions, and it’s likely feminists are hard at work coming up with an angle to portray her as a victim, or at least an angle to preserve, protect, and defend other child-abusing-for-profit women, as the media impatiently awaits word of the spin to be used.
My guess is because she looks so much like a man, she will be prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced, albeit without quite the same aggressiveness, vilification, and harsh sentencing she would receive were it a penis between her legs instead of a vagina.
Along with the level of abuse and her manly appearance, what also distinguishes her from your typical child support whore is that she was abusing children to get taxpayer money instead of from a father or two or three. Just like paternity fraud is rewarded when perpetrated against a man but prosecuted when it is to get taxpayer money, such as military benefits and social security, abusing children for taxpayer money will be treated more harshly than if it were simply the earnings of a particular male who had his children taken away for her financial empowerment.
So, assuming the facts are roughly as alleged, my guess is Judith Leekin might just as well be male. Just don’t hold your breath awaiting massive publicity of the fact that most child abusers are in fact female.
August 4th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Quite so DcFather, but which “judicial education seminar” graduate is
going to pull the lever? Is it going to be put upon a traditionally
conservative judge, YET AGAIN- to preside over a jury of her peers, in an astoundingly
expensive two year long trial, to determine if the astounding amount of socialist “For the children” budget legislature was swindled from the incompetent humanities graduate administered tax pool?
August 4th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
If a tree falls in the forest and no-one hears it, that bastard in the hardware shop next to the barber’s in town is to blame. And the barber. And the Police Chief. The Fire Chief, fortunately, is a woman, so she’s off the hook.