Andrea Yates hubby to remarry--what a low life

Just to address those who said that if the situation had been reversed the woman would be hailed as the "helpless victim".

I happen, unfortunately, to live in an area where it seems a lot of baby daddies beat (and sometimes kill) their children. You hear it on the news, and then you hear about all their prior offenses and how the kid had been brought to the ER numerous times before.

Every time I hear about this happening, EVERY TIME, I say to myself, WTH was the mother thinking letting this imbecile near her kids??? Why didn't she DO something??? You have all that prior knowledge and you leave this man alone with your kids anyway???

So I don't buy the gender inequality bit. And for the record, I think Rusty Yates has some culpability for what happened. JMHO, YMMV.
 
sgtdisney said:
My statement was meant somewhat rhetorically. However by your own admission, had Rusty gone throught the proper channels, it sounds like he could have had her committed and prevented the tragedy. Hey, let's blame him for that!

Considering she had recently been released from a mental hospital and was by everyone's admission "stable", I doubt the standards for an involuntary would have been met the morning that she killed the children. Like I said in a previous post, schizophrenic psychosis can come on quickly and without warning.

Anne
 
ducklite said:
Considering she had recently been released from a mental hospital and was by everyone's admission "stable", I doubt the standards for an involuntary would have been met the morning that she killed the children. Like I said in a previous post, schizophrenic psychosis can come on quickly and without warning.

Anne
Here is some info from a couple of sites
..
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,218445-4,00.html

Jurors took notes as Rusty testified about his life with Andrea, whom he had met when they were both 25 years old and living in the same apartment complex in Houston. He told them how their family had grown, and how they had moved from a house in suburbia to a camping trailer to a bus converted into a motor home, where Andrea focused on raising the toddlers. After the birth of their fourth child, Luke, in 1999, Andrea tried twice to commit suicide. She was hospitalized both times and was diagnosed with postpartum depression and psychosis.

The couple and their four sons moved from the bus into their house on Beachcomber Lane in a Houston suburb. She recovered while using Haldol, but eventually stopped taking the medication. Against the advice of her psychiatrist, Andrea soon became pregnant again with their fifth child, Mary. Within months, following the death of her ailing father, her psychosis returned. Instead of taking her back to the same doctor who'd treated her before, Rusty told jurors that he and Andrea went to the Devereux-Texas Treatment Network, where Mohammed Saeed became Andrea's psychiatrist. Rusty testified that he never knew that Andrea had visions and voices; he said he never knew she had considered killing the children. Neither did Dr. Saeed, even though the delusions could have been found in medical records from 1999. Andrea would not talk or eat.


After only slight improvement, Andrea was released from Devereux. A month later, she had another episode. Rusty took her back to Devereux. Again, she was released. Dr. Saeed reluctantly prescribed Haldol, the same drug that worked in a drug cocktail for her in 1999. But after a few weeks, he took her off the drug, citing his concerns about side effects. (For more on Saeed's response, see our previous examination of the Yates trial.) Though Andrea's condition seemed to be worsening two days before the drownings, when her husband drove her to Saeed's office, Rusty testified, the doctor refused to try Haldol longer or return her to the hospital. Rusty was frustrated, he told the jury, and he didn't know what else to do.


From the crime Library

When Andrea's father died a few months later, she stopped functioning. She wouldn't feed the baby, she became malnourished herself, and she drifted into a private world. Rusty forced her back into treatment at Devereux Texas Treatment Network in April under yet another doctor, Ellen Albritton, who put her on antidepressants.

Then psychiatrist Mohammed Saeed took over her care. He received scanty medical records from her previous treatment and no information from her, so he put Andrea on Risperdol, a new drug, rather than Haldol. He had not heard about hallucinations, and he observed no psychosis himself, so he felt Haldol was unnecessary. However, Suzy Spencer indicates that the notes kept on Andrea were disorganized and scribbled over someone else's chart. The descriptions of Andrea's condition, which was near catatonia, were vague. Saeed discharged Andrea into her husband's care, with a suggestion for partial hospitalization, and gave her a two-week prescription.

Rusty's mother came from Tennessee to help out with the children, but Andrea wound up back in the hospital. When she started to eat and shower, she was sent home, with the proviso that she continue outpatient therapy. One day she filled the tub and her mother-in-law asked why. She responded, "In case I need it."

It seemed a strange statement, and no one knew how to interpret it, so they let it pass. They did not see the forewarning except in hindsight.

Yet Rusty was worried, so he took Andrea back to the doctor, telling him that she was not doing well. According to Roche, Saeed reportedly assured him that Andrea did not need shock treatment or Haldol, but Spencer says that he did suggest shock treatments and did prescribe Haldol. Andrea was shuffled back and forth, and early in June, Dr. Saeed took her off the antipsychotic medication.

Then on June 18, Rusty was back. Andrea was having problems. Saeed supposedly told Andrea to "think positive thoughts," and to see a psychologist for therapy. However, he says that he did warn Rusty that she should not be left alone. Rusty told author Suzy Spencer that on that day Saeed had cut Andrea's medication—now it was Effexor--too drastically and he had protested, but the doctor had reassured him it was "fine." Rusty had filled the prescription, still confused as to why the doctor thought that an obviously sick woman was doing okay. That was two days before the fatal incident.

Andrea sat at home during those days in a near-catatonic state, and to Rusty she seemed nervous. However, he did not think that she was a danger to the children, so on June 20 he left her alone. Since his mother was coming, he felt sure everything would be fine. Andrea was eating cereal out of a box, which was uncharacteristic of her, but her demeanor seemed okay. He didn't think a few minutes alone would be a problem.

How wrong he was.
 
ducklite said:
schizophrenic psychosis can come on quickly and without warning.

Anne

Which is why we're saying she shouldn't have been left alone to care for 5 small children... At the very least Rusty should have been one hour late for work that day so that he could be there until his mother arrived.
 
so if you extrapolate the culpability of the father, let's apply it to susan smith. I guess if he hadn't driven her away in their marriage, she wouldn't have had an affair and drowned her kids. so david smith might have just as well pushed that car into the lake. please. if a man commits a crime and uses a mental illness defense, he's trying to beat the system. if a woman uses it, 'no one saw her cries for help'.
 
BeckyEsq said:
I believe Andrea Yates is fully culpable for her actions and I believe her sentence should stand. I do not believe her husband should be criminally or legally liable.---I would agree with this comment


However, I do think he is somewhat morally liable. He definitely could have done better than he did, and I think that is something for the public to learn from. Obviously we will never know exactly what went on between them, but I do believe it is irresponsible to leave a woman with such serious, chronic and current mental health problems home all day with five children. If nothing else, the children should not have been homeschooled. All mental illness is aggravated by stress, and while sending the kids to school for 8 hours a day may not have prevented this tragedy, it may have made it less likely. I fault htis man for having tunnel vision and believing that the lifestyle he believed in (as many children as possible, home schooled, etc) was adding unnecessary pressure to a woman who couldn't handle it. I believe he was at the very least negligent in his parental duties for not recognizing the situation and taking at least some practical steps to cure it.
I only partial agree with this


More importantly, this is the kind of response I like to read on controversial threads.Intelligent dialogue and comments. The poster states their comment in a respectful manner, not with nasty comments, name calling and condescending attitude. You don't have to agree, with others, but just be respectful to each other
 
Sylvester McBean said:
so if you extrapolate the culpability of the father, let's apply it to susan smith. I guess if he hadn't driven her away in their marriage, she wouldn't have had an affair and drowned her kids. so david smith might have just as well pushed that car into the lake. please. if a man commits a crime and uses a mental illness defense, he's trying to beat the system. if a woman uses it, 'no one saw her cries for help'.

Why do you think because we disagree with the way Rusty handled this whole sitaution that we're all men bashers in general? I love my DH! We're talking about one man here who didn't do EVERYTHING he could to ensure his wife & kids' safety beginning with not purposefully triggering her illness (more pregnancies) to the very least that he could do (never leave her alone with them).
I have never for one moment thought that David Smith did anything wrong in that situation. Marriages break up all the time. Difference is most people don't kill their kids over it. Susan Smith's motive was shown when police found the letter her lover had written her about not wanting children. Totally different scenario than we're talking about here.
 
Sylvester McBean said:
so if you extrapolate the culpability of the father, let's apply it to susan smith. I guess if he hadn't driven her away in their marriage, she wouldn't have had an affair and drowned her kids. so david smith might have just as well pushed that car into the lake. please. if a man commits a crime and uses a mental illness defense, he's trying to beat the system. if a woman uses it, 'no one saw her cries for help'.

Susan Smith was not mentally ill IMHO. She was a narcissistic b*tch who lotted to kill her children so she could be with the man she had fallen for. One could argue that the narcissism was a mental defect, however she killed her children with full knowledge that it was wrong and for no reason except her own selfishness. That in itself fails to prove mental defect.

The Smith and Yates cases are not at all similar in terms of mental state.

Anne
 
The fact that Andrea had thoughts of harming her children did not come out until the trial.
 
JennyMominRI said:

Interesting. I wasn't aware that she was that decompensated that morning. In that case, I'm not sure he should ahve left her alone, not out of fear for what she would do to the children, but rather to herself. It appears she had never shown any intention of harming the children, but rather her illness manifested itself in self-destruction.

I still believe that he was a man at his wits end an feeling frustrated trying to get help for his ill wife with doctors whose competence could certainly be questioned. I do'nt beleive that he bears any criminal or moral culpability. Like I said, unilt you've walked in teh shoes of dealing with mental illness on a very intimate level, you have no idea how difficult or frustrating it is to get appropriate help or often see clues that something terrible is about to happen, even though they might be right in front of your face.

Anne
 
Angela Kay said:
The fact that Andrea had thoughts of harming her children did not come out until the trial.

And that's I guess been my entire point. There was no warning that she would try to harm the children. Mental illness, particularly acute depression usually manifests in self-harm, not injury to others.

Anne
 
ducklite said:
It's incredibly difficult to get a person committed involuntarily...

It is in this state, as long as the person is a danger to themselves and/or others. And this is coming from the horse's mouth. I worked in an emergency dept. of a mental health agency and that's what we did. The person would go under a psych evaluation and sent involuntarily to the appropriate facility.
 
Maleficent13 said:
Just to address those who said that if the situation had been reversed the woman would be hailed as the "helpless victim".

I happen, unfortunately, to live in an area where it seems a lot of baby daddies beat (and sometimes kill) their children. You hear it on the news, and then you hear about all their prior offenses and how the kid had been brought to the ER numerous times before.

Every time I hear about this happening, EVERY TIME, I say to myself, WTH was the mother thinking letting this imbecile near her kids??? Why didn't she DO something??? You have all that prior knowledge and you leave this man alone with your kids anyway???

So I don't buy the gender inequality bit. And for the record, I think Rusty Yates has some culpability for what happened. JMHO, YMMV.

that is just your way of thinking, I was referencing the general public and the press... in the few cases that the press question the mother's actions, that quickly changes as soon as someone says, she was afraid to leave him,,,,or she thought he would change...
 
Liberated by the verdict against his wife, Rusty answered questions about why he did not find another doctor for her and why he risked the safety of his children by leaving her alone the morning of June 20. "We didn't see her as a danger," he said. "The real question to me is: How could she have been so ill and the medical community not diagnose her, not treat her, and obviously not protect our family from her."

sounds like a truly horrible, low -life person to me. it's all your fault, Rusty. :rolleyes:
 
ducklite said:
Susan Smith was not mentally ill IMHO. She was a narcissistic b*tch who lotted to kill her children so she could be with the man she had fallen for. One could argue that the narcissism was a mental defect, however she killed her children with full knowledge that it was wrong and for no reason except her own selfishness. That in itself fails to prove mental defect.

The Smith and Yates cases are not at all similar in terms of mental state.

Anne

I respectfully disagree, anyone who can kill their children, no matter what their motive...is not Mentally healthy....
 
I think he is just as responsible as she was. She was the one that was mentally ill and he should have done something about it. Instead he continued to have more children with her. If anyone should be in jail it should be him. She is better off in a mental health facility to get the help she truly needs.
 
ducklite said:
A lay person can not have someone committed to a mental hospital. but never is a spouse allowed to involuntarily committ someone.

Anne

In Pennsylvania, any adult can have another adult including spouses, involuntarilly commited with just cause, this commitment is only for 5 days, after 5 days of observation the person can then be committed for a longer period of time if the drs feel it is neccessary to prevent the person from harming themselves or others..
 
LindsayDunn228 said:
It is in this state, as long as the person is a danger to themselves and/or others. And this is coming from the horse's mouth. I worked in an emergency dept. of a mental health agency and that's what we did. The person would go under a psych evaluation and sent involuntarily to the appropriate facility.

She was sitting eating cereal out of a box. That's not a person in emminent danger to themselves as a prima facia case. It's not all that cut and dry. Even a person in danger of harming, but not killing themselves, such as a cutter, can not be involuntarily committed in most states.

Anne
 
Well after reading Jenny's post I think Rusty was doing as much as he could. I am more upset that any doctor would suddenly stop a anti-depreesant. I was on Effexor and you have to wean down, or it can cause a psychotic break.
 
MICKEY88 said:
I respectfully disagree, anyone who can kill their children, no matter what their motive...is not Mentally healthy....

The difference is the ability to interpret consequences of actions, and to deliberately and without psychosis take a life. Susan Smith murdered for opportunity. Andrea Yates murdered because the voices told her to. Susan Smith knew darn well what she as doing and did so in a caluculated manner. Andrea Yates was not mentally able to distinguish right from wrong, and visioned no benefit, perceived or otherwise, from her actions.

Anne
 



New Posts










Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE









DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top