I think the intent was strategic as well. However, I did see in an article several posts back that when asked by a reporter why she and the child were present, she said that even though they have not been together for 2 years, she did it for her child. I know that sounds ridiculous and doesn't make sense, but I think I know what she is trying to say. In that particular culture, women often have respect for their spouses or their babies fathers, even when that parent is in prison or has done bad things. In fact, it is not even necessarily unacceptable if a spouse has relationships outside of marriage, as long as they respect and support their family. I know that in itself is disrespectful and hard to understand, and certainly I don't want to generalize that is always the case, but in my experience I have seen this general attitude and it always amazes me that the women don't have a problem with this. The women rule over the home, the father is the provider.... having said that, I think what she meant by her statement was, He is the father of my child, and so I will respect that fact by being present. Of course it is blatantly obvious to us that it is horrible to allow your child to see such a thing. But we are not really talking about intelligent people. When I read her response I thought why in the world would she think it would be good for the child to attend? Then I realized what her reasoning might be. Here where I live we have a daycare ( playroom) at the court house where your child can play and never have an inkling of what's going on. Problem solved.