GUILTY IA - Gabriel McFarland, 4 mos, dies of head trauma, Des Moines, 22 April 2014

  • #301
It is not subjective to insinuate that she should have been in the system because she had a baby young.

And again, this is not about the case but about the adoption. We are not talking about that in this thread.

There is no blame on this mother so it does not matter what might have, could have possibly happen. The only thing that matters in this sad case is that a father murdered his baby son.

It is horrible that people want to keep looking for some reason to blame this mother and it is horrible. This is a victim site. She did nothing wrong here. To insinuate that she did or was responsible in some way is just wrong.
 
  • #302
What would it have helped if she'd been in "the system"? They'd have given her assistance... you know, medical care, food, maybe rent, maybe job training or schooling. That's cool, but it wouldn't have stopped that man from doing what he did. There's no indication that mom or baby were hungry or cold or anything.

I know it's comforting to think to yourself, "This could have been prevented; therefore if I do all the right things it will never happen to me," but that's not the case. Bad things do happen to people who did nothing to deserve them. We have to live with that. We can never be 100% safe.
 
  • #303
I still can not find an obituary for this baby. [modsnip] Would they keep the baby this long at the ME? I can not find a death notice or anything.

[modsnip] I am just waiting for official msm so that we can make sure this child is remembered by his name.
 
  • #304
MOO it is not fact that this child slipped through any cracks, except for maybe the one left there by the lawyer involved in the case prior to this tragic event. But it may be public opinion.

MOO it is not fact that this child was not neglected but MSM reports and the actions of LE thus far seem to indicate they do not feel there was, until the day the child's father killed him and that young man has been charged.

MOO there is a lot of tossing around of opinions termed as fact in this thread.

MOO I am frustrated beyond frustrated.
 
  • #305
What would it have helped if she'd been in "the system"? They'd have given her assistance... you know, medical care, food, maybe rent, maybe job training or schooling. That's cool, but it wouldn't have stopped that man from doing what he did. There's no indication that mom or baby were hungry or cold or anything.

I know it's comforting to think to yourself, "This could have been prevented; therefore if I do all the right things it will never happen to me," but that's not the case. Bad things do happen to people who did nothing to deserve them. We have to live with that. We can never be 100% safe.

Actually, if social services had been involved it may have prevented what happened because we don't know what happened. We do know the baby is dead from child abuse at the hands of a boy, not a man. At a minimum, the mother's judgment was affected by her immaturity. I don't know of too many adult mothers who would leave a newborn totally alone in the care of a 17-year-old boy who was just visiting. Social services also pays for licensed child care. We don't know who else lived in the household and why nobody more responsible was available to help her so she could run errands.

Our granddaughter wasn't allowed to be dismissed from the hospital after her birth until the staff examined her car seat and made sure it was properly installed. Both parents--adults married for two years--were required by the doctor to take parenting classes on food, bathing, proper care. It blows me away that anyone believes a hospital is going to allow a minor to give birth and pay no other attention to either child. There is no question Gabriel fell through the cracks because of the circumstances that seem to be unique to Iowa statutes.


JMO
 
  • #306
MOO it is not fact that this child slipped through any cracks, except for maybe the one left there by the lawyer involved in the case prior to this tragic event. But it may be public opinion.

MOO it is not fact that this child was not neglected but MSM reports and the actions of LE thus far seem to indicate they do not feel there was, until the day the child's father killed him and that young man has been charged.

MOO there is a lot of tossing around of opinions termed as fact in this thread.

MOO I am frustrated beyond frustrated.

BBM. I agree and always try to either post a link or state it is JMO.

The young man has not been arraigned, meaning a Judge has not determined whether probable cause exists. What I find frustrating is the leap to a conclusion of guilt....

At a felony arraignment, a defendant is informed of the charges against him, including the substance and details of the charges. Typically, a defendant is given a copy of an indictment and/or the details of all charges against him.


http://crime-punishment.yoexpert.co...ens-at-a-felony-arraignment-hearing-1807.html

JMO
 
  • #307
  • #308
I don't know of too many adult mothers who would leave a newborn totally alone in the care of a 17-year-old boy who was just visiting.
Didn't you ever earn money babysitting as a teenager? Besides, this little guy was four months old; he was not a fragile newborn. I mightn't leave an infant with a fourteen-year-old babysitter, but 16 is routine, and 17 is practically an adult. 16-17 is old enough to drive, old enough to work. Taking care of a baby for a few hours requires about the same level of responsibility as driving or holding a job. And he was the boy's father, who had helped care for the child before.

Is it really so scary that some deaths are not predictable, or that ordinary people can decide to kill? Because those are the facts. Killers aren't a separate species that we can somehow weed out of our society.

Our children will never be perfectly safe and we should not try to make them perfectly safe, because there's always a tradeoff. Taking a child of a teenage parent merely because they are barely below 18 is ridiculous. Age is not enough of a risk factor. The average parent who kills their infant is not a teenager; they are in their mid-twenties.

Yes. Taking this child away from that mother would have saved his life by removing him from the reach of her homicidal boyfriend. However, in order to take that child, they would also have had to take thousands or tens of thousands of other children who were in similar situations, and practically all of those children would have been perfectly safe where they were.

Additionally, those children have to go somewhere, and now with the huge influx of babies into the system there would be more and more poorly-supervised, poorly-qualified foster parents, more and more children living in institutions of various sorts. Some of those children would die because of institutional and foster-care abuse.

To save this particular child by being overly cautious and removing all children from 17-year-old parents would have indirectly killed multiple children. It would have created danger, not safety.
 
  • #309
Didn't you ever earn money babysitting as a teenager? Besides, this little guy was four months old; he was not a fragile newborn. I mightn't leave an infant with a fourteen-year-old babysitter, but 16 is routine, and 17 is practically an adult. 16-17 is old enough to drive, old enough to work. Taking care of a baby for a few hours requires about the same level of responsibility as driving or holding a job. And he was the boy's father, who had helped care for the child before.

Is it really so scary that some deaths are not predictable, or that ordinary people can decide to kill? Because those are the facts. Killers aren't a separate species that we can somehow weed out of our society.

Our children will never be perfectly safe and we should not try to make them perfectly safe, because there's always a tradeoff. Taking a child of a teenage parent merely because they are barely below 18 is ridiculous. Age is not enough of a risk factor. The average parent who kills their infant is not a teenager; they are in their mid-twenties.

Yes. Taking this child away from that mother would have saved his life by removing him from the reach of her homicidal boyfriend. However, in order to take that child, they would also have had to take thousands or tens of thousands of other children who were in similar situations, and practically all of those children would have been perfectly safe where they were.

Additionally, those children have to go somewhere, and now with the huge influx of babies into the system there would be more and more poorly-supervised, poorly-qualified foster parents, more and more children living in institutions of various sorts. Some of those children would die because of institutional and foster-care abuse.

To save this particular child by being overly cautious and removing all children from 17-year-old parents would have indirectly killed multiple children. It would have created danger, not safety.

And lets not forget. The mother was taking care of him. She did nothing.
There is no way to know this would happen. None. People are killed every day by people that they know or don't know. We cannot protect everyone from everything.
 
  • #310
Didn't you ever earn money babysitting as a teenager? Besides, this little guy was four months old; he was not a fragile newborn. I mightn't leave an infant with a fourteen-year-old babysitter, but 16 is routine, and 17 is practically an adult. 16-17 is old enough to drive, old enough to work. Taking care of a baby for a few hours requires about the same level of responsibility as driving or holding a job. And he was the boy's father, who had helped care for the child before.

Is it really so scary that some deaths are not predictable, or that ordinary people can decide to kill? Because those are the facts. Killers aren't a separate species that we can somehow weed out of our society.

Our children will never be perfectly safe and we should not try to make them perfectly safe, because there's always a tradeoff. Taking a child of a teenage parent merely because they are barely below 18 is ridiculous. Age is not enough of a risk factor. The average parent who kills their infant is not a teenager; they are in their mid-twenties.

Yes. Taking this child away from that mother would have saved his life by removing him from the reach of her homicidal boyfriend. However, in order to take that child, they would also have had to take thousands or tens of thousands of other children who were in similar situations, and practically all of those children would have been perfectly safe where they were.

Additionally, those children have to go somewhere, and now with the huge influx of babies into the system there would be more and more poorly-supervised, poorly-qualified foster parents, more and more children living in institutions of various sorts. Some of those children would die because of institutional and foster-care abuse.

To save this particular child by being overly cautious and removing all children from 17-year-old parents would have indirectly killed multiple children. It would have created danger, not safety.

I have never suggested Gabriel should have been removed from his mother's home. What I suggested was that her decisions needed adult oversight. We'll have to agree to disagree with your definition of fragile. The "little guy" in this case was dead in under an hour.

I sure didn't suggest the removal of ALL children from 17-year-old parents. I suggested oversight by social service agencies is necessary when there are minors caring for newborns and no responsible adult is in the home. We are a nation that provides FREE education to all children. Hospitals in Iowa provide FREE education to new parents. Hospitals are also mandatory reporters and they will report it if they believe a newborn baby will not have adult oversight and supervision.

Age doesn't automatically confer a driver's license in Iowa. Like parenting, it is an ADULT responsibility that requires, some skill, training and maturity to perform it safely.

Below is information about the different types of licenses for drivers under age 18. Driving is an adult responsibility that you need to take seriously to keep you and others safe and protect your privilege to drive.

http://www.iowadot.gov/mvd/ods/under18.html
 
  • #311
I mentioned driving as part of explaining why I don't think the mother showed poor judgment leaving the baby with her boyfriend. We license drivers at 16--we assume they are competent, at that age, to get behind the wheel of a car, which is a potentially deadly activity. If a 16-year-old is assumed to have the responsibility to get their driver's license just by demonstrating they can handle a car, then I don't think that it is irresponsible to leave a 16- or 17-year-old to take care of a baby while you're out running errands.
 
  • #312
I mentioned driving as part of explaining why I don't think the mother showed poor judgment leaving the baby with her boyfriend. We license drivers at 16--we assume they are competent, at that age, to get behind the wheel of a car, which is a potentially deadly activity. If a 16-year-old is assumed to have the responsibility to get their driver's license just by demonstrating they can handle a car, then I don't think that it is irresponsible to leave a 16- or 17-year-old to take care of a baby while you're out running errands.

I got your reference.. :)

I think the problem here is age bias. I babysat for 4 kids at 14-15. Babies, older kids whatever.
<modsnip>
 
  • #313
There is a LOT of misinformation and outright wrong information about minors on this thread being presented as "fact". Posting the same wrong thing over and over doesn't make it "true", and bullying other posters doesn't make wrong information any more "true" either.

Let's just start with one simple issue-- minors birthing children.

Nearly every state that I'm aware of has very detailed statutes, as well as policies within their Department of Human Services division that deal with teen pregnancies, and minors who give birth. Teen pregnancies and births are tracked very closely in all states-- not just that they "did" give birth, but lots of separate categories of services offered, and many subcategories. Minors are not automatically emancipated at the birth of a child, although they may be emancipated for medical decision making for the infant.

In most states, minors giving birth under age 17 ARE reported by the hospital by law, to the local county social services division for referral and supervision. Here are a few snippets from statutes in my state.

Minor Mother: A person who is 17 years of age or younger and is pregnant, or who has given birth to a child. The criteria include a minor who is married and who is otherwise considered emancipated. Adapted from Part 9555.9200

Adult-supervised Supportive Living Arrangement: A private family setting which assumes responsibility for care and control of the minor parent and minor child, or other living arrangement, not including a public institution, licensed by the commissioner of human services which ensures that the minor parent receives adult supervision and supportive services, such as counseling, guidance, independent living skills training, or supervision.

Services to Mothers and Pregnant Women XIII-3120

The local social services agency must offer appropriate services to the following groups of mothers and pregnant women:

1. Minors who are pregnant or already have a child;
2. Mothers who did not have prenatal care;
3. Mothers who request assistance in establishing paternity for their children;
4. Women who request assistance in deciding whether they want to parent their child; or
5. Mothers who are referred to the local agency because they have physical, mental, or emotional problems which that the care they are able to provide for their children. Adapted from Part 9555.9200

Responsibilities to Minors Who are Pregnant or Already Have A Child XIII-3130

Referral to Local Social Services Agency XIII-3131

Hospitals must report all births to minors to the local social services agency in the county in which the minor mother resides and must notify the minor that the birth has been reported. Adapted from Minn. Stat. 257.33, subd. 2

Births are to be reported within three working days after the birth on the 72-Hour Report of Birth to a Minor form (DHS-2518) and sent to the local social services agency in the county where the mother has residence. (See SSM XIII-3181) Adapted from Minn. Stat. 257.33, subd. 2

The local agency’s income maintenance unit must refer an MFIP parent under 18 to social services, or if the minor parent is 18 or 19, to a job counselor or at county option, to the social services agency for an educational progress assessment and an employment plan (school plan) when the minor parent is not exempt from meeting the school attendance requirement. The local agency’s income maintenance unit will send the Notice of Requirement To Attend School form (DHS-2961) to the minor parent with a copy to the social services unit when the school attendance requirement must be met. (See SSM XIII-3183) Adapted from Minn. Stat. 256J.

Responsibility of Local Social Services Agency for All Minor Mothers XIII-3132

The local social services agency must contact each minor mother reported to the local agency by a hospital or referred by the income maintenance unit of the agency. The social services unit must first determine if the minor parent has a plan for herself and her child. If a plan is already in lace at the time of the report or referral, the plan must be reviewed by the minor mother and the social services unit to update and ensure that all of the requirements are being met. The social services unit must provide the services needed to support the minor mother’s school attendance. If the minor mother is living independently, the social services unit must also assist the minor mother with a social service plan. If the minor mother does not have a plan, the social services unit should work with her to develop a plan and should provide case management services as needed to assure that resources and services are available to meet the plan’s requirements.

The plan must consider:
1. the age of the minor parent;
2. the degree of involvement of the minor's parents or other adults who provide active, ongoing guidance, support, and supervision;
3. the degree of involvement of the father of the child, including steps being taken to establish paternity, if appropriate;
4. whether the minor intends to parent her child or place the child for adoption;
5. completion of high school or GED;
6. current economic support for the minor parent and child and plans for economic self-sufficiency;
7. parenting skills of the minor parent;
8. living arrangement of the minor parent and child;
9. child care and transportation needed for education, training, or employment;
10. ongoing health care; and
11. other services as needed to address personal or family problems or to facilitate the personal growth and development and economic self-sufficiency of the minor parent and child.

If a minor mother refuses to plan for the above, or fails without good cause to follow through on an agreed upon plan, the local agency may file a petition in Juvenile Court alleging that the minor parent and/or child of minor parent is dependent and in need of protection or services.

http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/groups/county_access/documents/pub/dhs_id_018747.pdf

There actually IS a huge hole in the Iowa statutes that I would anticipate will be addressed soon by the Iowa legislature. If a minor gives birth in a hospital, there is social services involvement. If a minor disrupts an adoption plan (NOT a "failed adoption"-- that is a completely different term for a different situation), there is no statute that mandates social services involvement. (That I can find.)

One thing that should be considered by posters who have shared that they themselves were young teen parents is that laws regarding minor parents have changed significantly in the past 20 years, BECAUSE so many problems have been encountered with ill supported and unprepared young teen mothers.

Modern hospitals no longer just wrap the baby in a blanket, hand it to a young teen mother, and say "good luck" as the teen walks out the door. There are always going to be stories of good outcomes with young teens, but the reality of the situation is that for every good outcome, there are many dozens of horrible outcomes. This is why legislatures have mandated social services involvement.

We don't know if social services was involved with MA once she took custody of Gabriel. But from the evidence, it does not appear they were.

We have NO idea what the relationship between MA and DWS was. We cannot assume it was all roses and sunshine. We don't know what his thoughts were about fathering this baby, or to what degree he was involved and in agreement with the plan for the baby during and after the birth. This was not a random stranger abuse/ killing of a baby-- it was filicide. That may not matter at all to some posters, but the full context of a death or murder is very important to authorities and juries, IMO.
 
  • #314
WE do know that he had been there and helping her with the baby before according to her. She apparently had no reason to believe that he would ever harm the baby and I think her actions in asking her friend to go right back when friend was alarmed shows that she had no idea he would ever hurt his son.

It is a shame. It is just heartbreaking.
 
  • #315
Drew Wheeler-Smith, 17, was charged with first-degree murder Monday, police said. He's the father of Gabriel King McFarland.
Autopsy results indicate that Gabriel died from abusive head trauma, police said.
Read more: http://www.kcci.com/news/teen-father-now-charged-in-babys-death/25702974#ixzz31kAhLiXL

Recent Topic Related Articles
The most common cause of death in babies is abusive head trauma &#8211; the injuries that are caused when a baby is shaken, hit or thrown.
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2014/05/12/five-simple-steps-save-babies-lives/#.U3QYtCimWRM
Each year nearly 200 babies suffer "non-accidental head injuries" &#8211; the leading cause of death and long-term disability in infants who are abused. Medically termed as "abusive head trauma", the injuries are often caused by adults shaking or hitting a baby. One in four children will die as a result of such injuries, and most &#8211; between 50 and 80 per cent &#8211; of those who survive suffer disabilities such as cerebral palsy and blindness.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...r-killed--by-abuse-and-ignorance-9321348.html
PUBLIC DEFENDER Tomas Rodriguez said the prosecution was trying to paint Smith as a monster.He quoted a child abuse expert the state called to the stand and testified &#8220;the majority of abusive head trauma doesn&#8217;t occur with the intention of hurting the child or killing the child.&#8221;
http://globegazette.com/news/local/...cle_ddb69b3e-e7b2-513e-8825-88c18362c63f.html
"The public is not aware. Most people, they don't come to the (pediatric intensive care unit) and see what we see. They don't go to the morgue and see the kids that are gone and dead," said Dr. Brian Nolan, clinical director of pediatrics for Hurley Children's Hospital.

The most common cause of death in babies is abusive head trauma, usually within the first six months of life, Nolan said. They could be shaken, struck with something or thrown against something. It usually is caused by stress of the baby continually crying. For toddlers, the most common cause of death is abdominal trauma or blows to the stomach that most commonly damage the liver.
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2014/05/littlest_victims_child_abuse_d.html


 
  • #316
  • #317
2013 Iowa Code
TITLE XVI CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
SUBTITLE 1 CRIME CONTROL AND CRIMINAL ACTS
CHAPTER 707 HOMICIDE AND RELATED CRIMES

707.2 Murder in the first degree.

[...]

5. The person kills a child while committing child endangerment under section 726.6, subsection 1, paragraph b , or while committing assault under section 708.1 upon the child, and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life.

[...]

726.6 Child endangerment.

1. A person who is the parent, guardian, or person having custody or control over a child or a minor under the age of eighteen with a mental or physical disability, or a person who is a member of the household in which a child or such a minor resides, commits child endangerment when the person does any of the following:

[...]

. By an intentional act or series of intentional acts, uses unreasonable force, torture or cruelty that results in bodily injury, or that is intended to cause serious injury.

[...]

708.1 Assault defined.

An assault as defined in this section is a general intent crime. A person commits an assault when, without justification, the person does any of the following:

1. Any act which is intended to cause pain or injury to, or which is intended to result in physical contact which will be insulting or offensive to another, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act.

2. Any act which is intended to place another in fear of immediate physical contact which will be painful, injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act.

3. Intentionally points any firearm toward another, or displays in a threatening manner any dangerous weapon toward another.

[...]
 
  • #318
I do believe given his age and circumstances that first degree murder is overcharging for this crime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JMO, but they want to get this out of juvenile court and into adult court, as AnaTeresa implied.

Depending on the evidence, there could be a plea offer to a lesser charge, still in adult court. And if it goes to trial, lesser charges can be part of what the jury may consider.

We have no idea what the ACTUAL evidence is, at this point. No one here has seen the autopsy report. We don't have police reports. We do not yet know the strength of the evidence against DWS.

It seems VERY odd to me that the arraignment is being delayed for such a long time, which make me wonder what is going on with the investigation. If it was so very "cut and dried", DWS would be arraigned at this point in time, and the case would be moving on, IMO. There is more to what is being considered by authorities, IMO, than the "one hour" or so (less, by some reports) that DWS was with the child. And more than the fight between keeping the case in juvie vs adult court. JMO.

There is more to the "back story" that we aren't privy to, IMO. The attorney for the McFarlands alluded to this when he discussed that there were complications in the completion of the paperwork for the adoption due to the birth parents being both minors.
 
  • #319
Thank you's to Bessie and K Z for the helpful documented info you two have given us!!
icon7.gif
 
  • #320
I mentioned driving as part of explaining why I don't think the mother showed poor judgment leaving the baby with her boyfriend. We license drivers at 16--we assume they are competent, at that age, to get behind the wheel of a car, which is a potentially deadly activity. If a 16-year-old is assumed to have the responsibility to get their driver's license just by demonstrating they can handle a car, then I don't think that it is irresponsible to leave a 16- or 17-year-old to take care of a baby while you're out running errands.

There are no assumptions made in obtaining a driver's license in Iowa. A test of knowledge of laws and driving skill must be passed and even then the license has significant restrictions.

[modsnip]. What is relevant is maturity and skill, education and especially judgment. All which can not be predicted solely on calendar age and everything to do with studies that have tracked the data. It is the reason why our justice system treats minors differently than adults.

JMO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
64
Guests online
2,760
Total visitors
2,824

Forum statistics

Threads
633,008
Messages
18,634,838
Members
243,375
Latest member
tt94
Back
Top