I have previously written columns about Herbert and Catherine Schaible, who allowed their child to die pursuant to their religious beliefs of faith healing. They received probation for the death of Kent Schaible, 2, who died of bacterial pneumonia. They were convicted of involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment. Now, after being given 10 years probation conditioned on maintaining medical treatment for their children, they have allegedly killed another child through neglect in refusing basic medical care.
The 8-month-old boy died last week after suffering with diarrhea and breathing problems for days.
I previously wrote how courts are endangering children by handing out comparatively light sentences for deaths caused by religious beliefs. This tragic death reportedly occurred because the parents were allowed to avoid jail and to continue to raise children based on the promise of medical attention. These children are not given a say in such beliefs imposed by parents to their peril. Seven remaining children were placed back in the care of these parents and it is now down to six.
Source: Thv11
Again occurs to me what Justice Holmes said: “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.” Seems to me your religious practices end when it puts another in danger. This has nothing to do with religious beliefs but how one lives in a society and cares fro others including one’s own children.
Sentencing would be a great time to send a message.
Probation officers screw up sometimes. In the 1970’s, when I worked @ Leavenworth Penitentiary, there was an inmate named Phillip Garrido. I had no specific recollections of him. However, a few years back in Ca., one of the worst probation malpractices was discovered. This involved Garrido and his equally despicable wife being arrested for having kept Jaycee Duugard as a sex slave in their backyard tent for a decade. The probation officer did make home visits, but never walked into the back yard!! When I saw this animals picture when the story broke I said to my wife..”I know this guy.” When it came out he was @ Leavenworth in the 70’s, I knew that was where I knew him. I’m really good w/ faces. This anecdote can be corroborated by news accounts, and my prior comments about working @ The Hot House[the nickname for Leavenworth and a great book about bit].
This case is different, @ least from what I’ve read to date. It seems this poor child died from a sickness that probably was ongoing for maybe a week, almost certainly not a month. Probation supervision, except in rare circumstance, is predicated on monthly visits. First degree sexual predators have more frequent visits. I am not saying the probation officer was not culpable. I am saying there’s @ least an even chance that the timing was just bad for the visit. How the hell could the PO know the kid had diarrhea?
The point made by Mr. Turley about light sentences in these circumstances is absolutely correct. The courts are usually very reluctant to sever parental rights..as they should be. Hindsight shows they should have the last time. The MUST get it right this time.
Life begins at perception. There two need to be sterilized and possibly sterilize their kids. Mom and dad need to do some more time. At least until the youngest kid is 21 or so. Somebody needs to say a prayer. A prayer that the suggestions that I just made are implemented. As Dog is my witness.
“A double systemic failure.”
Most of our institutions have failed us primarily due to meeting illegal acts with blind eyes.
raff/AY,
I think this problem narrows down to a prime function our government should serve but often does a poor job of serving for a variety of reasons: the duty of society to protect its weakest members. In this particular instance the duty to protect minors from abuse by adults. Given their past? You bet CPS should have been all over the Schaibles. It’s not as if they hadn’t been previously convicted involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment and given 10 years probation conditioned on maintaining medical treatment for their children. Speaking of which, where in Hell was their PO on this? He/she should have been keeping an eye on them so long as they had minor children under their control for the duration of the probation considering said probation was conditional. A double systemic failure.
Since they were on probation….This I call a failure of the system…. The Agent should have made house calls as well as have Child Protective Services involved closely monitoring this situation…..Yes, raff….this is one of those situations where an eye for an eye should be meted out….But, I am caught in a quandary where I think the government that governs least governs best…..
“Where is the line?”
Between belief and practice. See Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878).
I find all the comments against the parents quite interesting on a web site that normally holds civil liberties to such a high regard. It is easy to throw out examples of abuse (in the guise of religion) and say prosecute. But life is not always so tidy. There are plenty of cases that are on the edge where the state takes control and (IMHO) should not have. Be careful what you wish for. Do you really want an all powerful state that neglects your religious beliefs? Where is the line?
Surely all parents have the right to raise their children their way. With that right an obligation is borne. The obligation to nurture and protect.
When a parent abuses their child in any way it is time for society (Child Protective Services) to step in. They should have been closely monitored by CPS, right?
Frankly 1, April 24, 2013 at 6:28 am
I do not know how one can call for less government interference in ones private life and then demand that the government take parenting rights away from people based on their firmly held personal beliefs.
================================
The issue is not “parenting rights” it is “parenting wrongs.”
“Frankly, I do not know how one can call for less government interference in ones private life and then demand that the government take parenting rights away from people based on their firmly held personal beliefs.” What if they firmly believe that their children should be naked and unkept at all times? What if they firmly believe that their children should eat only grass? What if they firmly believe that their children be sold for sex? Religion is no excuse for being inhuman…..
I do not know how one can call for less government interference in ones private life and then demand that the government take parenting rights away from people based on their firmly held personal beliefs. Where would you draw the line? Even if you think it is clear in this case it may only be clear because you already know the outcome.
This bit from Tim Minchin is a bit long, the first 5 minutes are the set up for the song that follows. But it does put a good job of evaluating the worth of mumbling to an invisible sky wizard:
I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness and as much as I wanted to be a good witness, I lived in mortal fear that I would need blood one day and not get it because of my mom’s religious convictions and my dad’s passivity in the face of it.
Children should not have to live in fear that they will get a simple medical issue that they can die from-and those babies-they didn’t even have the chance to get old enough to speak up for themselves. I could and I eventually left of my own accord, but children should not be subject to religious practice that endangers them-no matter what. EVER.
Religion shouldn’t get special exemptions. Sure the US constitution prohibits the state from passing laws specific to religions but all other laws should still apply regardless. It sickens me that the religious keep getting special dispensation for believing in nonsense.
This whole affair about allowing a parent the right to withhold medical care that would have otherwise saved the life of a moribund child on account of some wacko religious beliefs is totally unacceptable and akin to state sponsored infanticide.
What ever happened to In Loco Parentis? If we make religious honour killings illegal why do we allow children such as in this article to die? It is for the same reason, death by religion.
Cut out the religious aspect of it. If a parent doesn’t reasonably provide for the basic health requirements, especially life threatening, the state should remove the child and provide the care needed.
If the state found a child near death from starvation due to a neglectful parent, it would almost be reflexive in how fast the child would be taken into medical care / foster care. But, a medical condition that is equally exigent, and religion seems to smooth things over.
But look in this example, another dead child, totally preventable. I wouldn’t be surprised if somewhere there is some Child Protective Service wonk that allowed this to happen.
Justice Holmes,
Religious belief is protected. Religious practice not so much. While we have laws in place for child endangerment, I think a law specifically tailored to such forms of abuse hiding behind the mask of religious belief could be done in a Constitutionally permissible way. The time for it is now.
too bad their parents weren’t into faith healing.
Believe what you want but when those beliefs put other people in danger that is where freedom of religion ends. When your religion allows your children to die get another religion.
I do not believe in capital punishment, but these two animals just might make me reconsider.