Angela Gay, 'female actuary' -- 5 years in prison
Posted on 01/14/2005 12:34:21 PM PST by Rutles4Ever
A wealthy couple who killed their three-year-old adopted son because he was not the "perfect child" they craved were jailed for five years yesterday.
Ian and Angela Gay became incensed that Christian Blewitt didn't live up to their expectations of the ideal family.
Five weeks into an adoption trial period, as their frustration grew, they force-fed him more than four teaspoons of salt as a punishment for refusing his food before dumping him in a cot, where he collapsed. He suffered severe brain injuries, a heart attack and died in hospital four days later.
The prosecution alleged that he had also been either beaten or shaken after doctors found that he had 11 areas of bruising around the brain.
The couple, who had also adopted Christian's younger brother and sister, were cleared of murder but convicted of manslaughter.
Sentencing them at Worcester Crown Court, Mr Justice Pitchers said Christian's behaviour was "hardly out of the ordinary" for a three-year-old, even one that hadn't had Christian's "difficult start" in life. He was taken into care shortly after his first birthday and then spent time with foster parents.
He said the Gays, from Halesowen, West Midlands, were "intelligent people" and had made "a deliberate choice in cold blood" how to punish Christian.
He accepted that it was a single episode of abuse and that they were unaware the dose would prove fatal.
He accused Angela Gay, 37, of being "entirely selfish". Her return to work as Christian lay critically ill showed "where her priorities lay". He added: "You were interested only in what was best for you, not what was best for him.''
As sentence was passed, the Gays held hands and showed no emotion. Having left the dock they embraced before being led away separately.
Mrs Gay's parents, Margaret and Royston Swain, both 61, said they were "completely devastated" by the verdicts. Mr Swain said: "Angela has worked hard all her life and was one of the few actuaries in the UK. She would have been the perfect mother.'' Christian's natural mother, Tracey Osik, 23, said: "I was furious when I heard that they only got five years. It should have been life after what they did to Christian. I might not have been the best mother but they had all the advantages."
Christian Blewitt with his natural mother Tracey Osik Christian's maternal grandmother, Susan Osik, said her daughter "didn't give a damn" about her son or what happened to him, preferring to spend her time nightclubbing.
She said: "Tracey wasn't looking after him properly. All his clothes were wet. I was concerned about his health. He started losing a lot of weight. He had to go to hospital on a drip.
"He didn't have much but that couple had everything. They should have been able to give Christian, his brother and sister a far better life.
"They should have looked after him properly. Five years isn't enough. It was very cruel, and they should throw away the key."
Det Ch Insp Steve Cullen, from West Mercia police, said: "Christian led a brief life and we can at least be thankful that the period he spent with his foster carers were happy times. We are pleased that justice has been done for Christian today."
Publishers wishing to reproduce
OMG! Come quickly, Lord Jesus.
This is horrible. Yet another case of little life, little time spent in jail, small life, small sentence. It happens all the time here in the US too, and it's so wrong. Children are the only ones deserving of special protection under the law.
In Springfield MA a woman has been arrested for murder. She had a three year old boy in her care. Her own son, 12 year old, raped and murdred the boy, she was aware of the abuse by her son and did nothing.
A. This 12 year old is the direct product of the gay agenda forcing the teaching of this crap in school, on TV, and trying to make us accept it as normal. Where did he learn this stuff??
B. What do you wanna bet she gets 5 years or even less? Disgraceful!! I am frankly surprised she was even charged, in this state.
"How can we know exactly why they did it?"
"Perfect child" is in quotes in the article...means something.
Your question is a really good one, and the answer involves the psychological state of people who are infertile but have not really accepted that fact. When people like that adopt, they go into it with unrecognized
expectations about what their adopted child will be. Most often, the "perfect" child is fantasized to be a child very like that which the adopting couple would have biologically.
Adopting couples need to grieve for and resolve the psychological aftermath of infertility BEFORE they adopt.
And it really is the responsibility of the professionals working with adopting couples to determine how far along in the process they are.
Unfortunately, when you have for-profit adoption , either of newborns or out of foster care, money becomes the motive, and good practice goes out the window. Who pays? Children. And in the long run, all of us pay. Society pays.
Adoption should not be about replacing one child ( the one you can not have) with another ( the adopted child.) No human being is replacable.
More on CAPTA
http://www.geocities.com/fathersmanifesto/dhhsabus.htm
I don't know you, so please don't take this personally. However, I think that statement is just a bunch of baloney! Nobody knows what their "perfect" natural child is going to be like. Certainly every natural mother and father have been driven to distraction by the antics of their natural children from time to time. The perfect child at 2 sometimes becomes the rowdy, sullen teen at 13, or 18.
It is the job of the parent to be a nurturing, caring adult, even if the child is being a little monster at the moment. It is the job of the parent to adapt and to work with the child -- not shove salt down his throat. Who would ever think of such a punishment, anyway? No, this woman was unsuited to be an adoptive mother from the get go. Who knows what fantasy she was trying to fulfill by adopting these children? I don't think any amount of "working through her psychological state" would have helped this case. She certainly wasn't planning to stay home and raise them, was she?
She should have been sentenced to 10 times what she got.
"Nobody knows what their "perfect" natural child is going to be like."
You and I know that, but childless people focused on getting a child may not. Infertility involves grief, loss and - yes- fantasies of what might have been, what yet might be.
http://www.bensoc.asn.au/parc_resources/papers_loss.html
Section on grief of adoptive parents
http://www.comeunity.com/adoption/infertility/ivf.html
But let's run with your pov for a moment.
What does that quote mean, then?
I agree with you about the sentence, btw. ANY child killer, whether adoptive, biological, or unrelated should get an automatic life sentence at the least.
AFA taking it personally, no problem. :D
To cross-link a couple posts in my ping list:
These are the kinds of stories that homosexual rights activists love to throw in our face. They say we won't let a loving homosexual couple adopt children, but we'll put them into homes like this.
I don't buy that line because it's bogus. A kid could just as easily wind up in the home of perverted child molesters. You can ask if putting a child in a homosexual household is better than in a home with the "parents" in this story. You should also ask if putting the kid in the home a loving mother and father would be better yet. The first may be better for the child, but the second is certainly more in the best interest of the child.
A professor of infanticide at Princeton
http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- LAST YEAR, while I was teaching at Princeton University on the politics of journalism, a lot of class time was devoted to a debate on the appointment of Princeton's very first full-time tenured professor of bioethics, Peter Singer.
An Australian, Singer was a principal founder of the animal-liberation movement and is a former president of the International Association of Bioethics. What led to our discussion in class -- and to various protests outside the university against his appointment, which starts this month -- is that he is also an advocate of infanticide. Not of any infant, but of severely disabled infants.
In class, nearly all of us agreed that in a university, a credentialed scholar should not be banned, no matter how controversial his views.
But some of us wondered why Princeton chose this renowned apostle of infanticide and certain forms of euthanasia for so influential an endowed seat at, of all places, the university's Center for Human Values.
Professor Singer often claims that his views have been misquoted, so I am quoting directly from his books.
From "Practical Ethics": "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." But animals are self-aware, and therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."
How awful! These two sound like Joel Steinberg and his live-in girlfriend, Hedda. Vile animals.
And out in five years, to adopt again, no doubt.
It's going to get much worse before it gets better, but He's coming, hon.
These people related to Teddy Kennedy?
Poor little baby. Child abusers need the death penalty --- nothing less.
No comment is necessary... :(
I didn't know about the shooting in the back. Thanks for straightening me out.
Why didn't they just take hin back to the agency and state it wasn't working out or something. Why MURDER him? Someone else would love to adopt him.
This child happened to escape the birth canal and take a breath. That and the MD peforming the procedure.
If the child had been shown to have brown eyes instead of blue, and the parents aborted, it would have been acceptable.
"How in the name of God do social workers and adoption agencies look at themselves in the mirror every morning?"
MONEY. POWER. MONEY. Why in the name of God have we allowed children to become commodities? Why do we continue to allow the for profit business of infant adoption, and the unbridled actions of CPS across the nation go, without calling these people to account?
Logan is one among other children that have died in the care of their adoptive parents, btw. There are others - Candace,
http://www.rickross.com/reference/rebirthing/rebirthing9.html
and
Alex,
http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/AP_Boy_Adopted_Last_Month_Death_22DEC03.htm
for two.
You know about these folks already I bet:
http://www.fightcps.com/oldsite/general.htm
Do you know about these women who work to draw attention to the abuses in infant adoption ( including not notifying men of their impending fatherhood, moving women out of state to avoid putative father registries, and the like?)
http://www.originsusa.org
http://www.exiledmothers.com
http://www.suziekidnap.com/fog
http://www.cubirthparents.org/infant.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.