I was reading the other thread, and the majority (if not all)of the posters believe that Andrea Yates's mental illness caused the death of her kids. My question is: If she were a man with a mental illness, one as devastating as Postpartum Psychosis , would you feel the same way? Would you still hold the spouse responsible, too? Or, does the diagnosis of PPP change how you feel about what happened?

By Melanie on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 03:22 pm:

A couple of years ago, my BIL was dating a girl with Bipolar Disorder. She was on medication and from time to time she got the urge to try to control it without medication. The results were never good.

One day dh and I were having a discussion. I told him that if they were to ever get married, we could never leave our children in their care because of this. He whole-heartedly agreed.

So, yes, my opinion would be the same. I would still hold the spouse to be partially responsible.

By Kim on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 03:43 pm:

I agree totally, yes I would feel the same way.

By Jann on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 04:21 pm:

Melanie, I can see why you wouldn't leave your children with her, but why would you hold you bil responsible for her behavior if she was the one that chose to go off her meds?

By Melanie on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 04:30 pm:

Jann, if I am aware that her condition makes her a danger to my children, it is my responsibility to make sure she is never in a position where she can possibly hurt them. If my BIL and her were to have children, he would need to make sure that his children are not in danger. She had a tendency towards violence when she went off her medication. And she would stop taking her medication without telling anyone. She would be responsible for her actions but my BIL, knowing her history, would be responsible for taking precautions. If he failed to do that, I would hold him accountable.

Does that make sense?

By Jujubee9752 on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 05:58 pm:

Perfect sense, Melanie. This one is a toughy, I think that it would be the same either way for me. If you absolutely switched this case around, and everything was the same except he was the one on trial, and she was not. I'd feel the same way. Because we as parent's have the responsibility to make sure that our children are safe. And if that means "watching" our spouse for things we know are there (i.e. phsycotic tendencies if not on meds) then so be it. Our children depend on us. If a man leaves and a mother is left to raise the kids on her own, she can't just say "Well, I tried. But there was nothing I could do. The kid's starved to death because we didn't have any food" No, she gets a job, and does the best she can for her children. And you have to do the same if your in a marriage with someone who is, for whatever reason, at times incapable of caring for your children. You take whatever steps necessary to do your job.

Now, did that make sense?

By Debbie on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 06:41 pm:

Yes, Melanie and Julie, you both made perfect sense and I completely agree with you. It is our responsibility as parents to care for our children until they are able to take care of themselves. I wonder what prompted Andrea Yates to stop taking her medication. I would think that she would have realized that she could be a danger to her children and herself without it??? Also, her husband knew that she was suffering from depression, knew she wasn't on medication, knew she was having a difficult time coping, knew she had tried to take her own life before. However, he still left their children, alone in her care. So how can he not also be somewhat responsible for their deaths. I also found it interesting that when she called him to come home the first question he asked her was "are the kids okay"

By Sandie on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 08:38 pm:

Look, the woman was flicted in the head, I don't care what illness she had, She chased ALL of her kids down to drown them, ALL OF THEM. She and her husband should be punished. If he knew she was having problems, (how could he not??) There is NO WAY that those children should have been left alone in her care. I would love to chase both of them down and drown them. They both deserve the death penalty, but thats another thread huh?

By Melanie on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 09:15 pm:

Sandie, just so we are clear as I did not post on the other thread, I, too, believe she should be liable for her actions. I agree 100% with you: She is a murderer. I am not arguing at all that she should have been found not guilty. I am saying, like you, that they are both guilty.

By Ginnyk on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 09:17 pm:

I would feel the same way - guilty but insane. The children were killed. And she killed them.

I am one of those who hold the marriage partner almost equally responsible if the "well" parent gos blithely off to wherever leaving the children with the "sick" parent. Our responsibility to our children is to protect them, even (or perhaps especially) from the other parent if the other parent presents a risk of harm. Which is why when one parent abuses a child prosecutors frequently charge the other parent with similar crimes if s/he knew what was going on and did not try to stop it or call the authorities.

And it is usually the father who harms his children. A trial just finished here where a man kidnapped his less than three year old daughter from her daycare after his wife got court assistance in getting him out of the house. He disappeared with the child and when found by the police the child was gone - no one knows where. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to live without parole. He has never said what happened to his child.

By Sunny on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 09:33 pm:

Ginny, I know which kidnapping you are talking about (my youngest was a day old when it happened), but in that case, he knew exactly what he was doing. He forcefully took his daughter from her daycare and told the police so many stories that, intially, they didn't know where to look for her. I have always thought his attitude was "If I can't have my daughter, no one will". I believe he killed the little girl within 24 hours after she was taken.

I only asked the question because I do believe that men and women think differently in regards to this case. I have talked a little with a few men about this case, and while they agree she is mentally ill, they don't feel as passionately about the husband's guilt as do so many women I've talked to. I wondered if the roles were reversed would anyone feel any differently.

By Jann on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 10:53 am:

Ginny, in your example and if I am understanding your correctly, you are holding the wife culpable also? Didn't she do the right thing in getting him removed from the house? Was she not supposed to send her child to daycare?

By Ginnyk on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 11:32 am:

Jann, no, in the case I wrote of, I don't hold the wife culpable. I should have been clearer in my writing. She did everything she could - she got him out of the house, got the courts involved, got a protection order, and the teachers and school were alerted to not release the child to him. He forced his way into the school and took the child by force.

What I was trying to say (and obviously didn't very well) was that in similar circumstances, I would hold the other spouse culpable whether it was the husband or wife. BUT, in most cases of child murder it is the father who does the murdering, not the mother. I have read several commentators who wonder if one of the reasons we are so much more upset about the Yates case and why it has gotten so much more publicity than other child murder cases is because it was the mother who killed the children, which is (a) very unusual and (b) counter to our ideas of mothering, motherly instincts, and so on.

I find our discussions on the board have caused me to do a lot of thinking. For example, I am more sympathetic and less condemning of a mother whose husband abuses or kills their children if the mother was also a victim of abuse, than I would be if the mother was not being abused but chose to ignore what was going on and failed to try to stop it or involve the authorities.

And I would be less condemning of Mr. Yates if her condition had been less obvious, less well known to him, and if he had made efforts to not only get help for her but also to take away the stress of home-schooling, etc. I truly think he deliberately chose not to see what was going on because his vision was of a helpmate who would homeschool their children and be a "good wife" and he was blind to anything that didn't fit that vision.

By Jann on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 11:47 am:

Thanks for the clarification.
It's funny, the reason you state for this case upsetting people is the exact reason why I think people are so mad at him. NO ONE wants to think a mother could do something this awful so the husband had to have messed up.
We can round and round on this one, can't we!