Andrea Yates-Not guilty due to insanity

[lookingforward]

This is what I don't get - he didn't lay a hand on those kids, and people want his head on a platter. She came up with a plan and executed it, ending in the death of the children, but she should be excused with no punishment.

Here is a long term psychotic women (previously hopitalized and medicated) and her mentally sound husband allows her to go off her medications (that keep her sane) to have another baby. He allows his psychotic wife to live in a bus with four children and home school them. He KNOWS she suffers form post partum depression in addition to her psychosis and KNOWS she has thoughts that she is evil and as such her children are EVIL. He has found her skaking and chewing on her fingers and having delusions of evil BEFORE the murders. STILL, he allows her to go off her meds and allows her to be alone with the chidlren. She is being punished,every day, and will be for the rest of her life by mental illness, incareration in a mental hospital. He is remarried and planning a new family. Maybe you still don't get it and don't agree. But come on, I am not asking for his head on a platter...but he had accountability and his actions or non actions resulted in five deaths. She DID it but he did not act to protect his children. He is guilty. And he in NOT mentally ill. Just cold and heartless. My opinion.

 

[DVC Sadie]

Here is a long term psychotic women (previously hopitalized and medicated) and her mentally sound husband allows her to go off her medications (that keep her sane) to have another baby. He allows his psychotic wife to live in a bus with four children and home school them. He KNOWS she suffers form post partum depression in addition to her psychosis and KNOWS she has thoughts that she is evil and as such her children are EVIL. He has found her skaking and chewing on her fingers and having delusions of evil BEFORE the murders. STILL, he allows her to go off her meds and allows her to be alone with the chidlren. She is being punished,every day, and will be for the rest of her life by mental illness, incareration in a mental hospital. He is remarried and planning a new family. Maybe you still don't get it and don't agree. But come on, I am not asking for his head on a platter...but he had accountability and his actions or non actions resulted in five deaths. She DID it but he did not act to protect his children. He is guilty. And he in NOT mentally ill. Just cold and heartless. My opinion.

Thank you for putting into words what I am having difficulty doing, since I am on painkillers right now. ITA with your post!

Instead of being prosecuted, her husband is free to have another family and possibly be causing more problems for his current wife and future children.

 

[poohandwendy]

Here is a long term psychotic women (previously hopitalized and medicated) and her mentally sound husband allows her to go off her medications (that keep her sane) to have another baby. He allows his psychotic wife to live in a bus with four children and home school them. He KNOWS she suffers form post partum depression in addition to her psychosis and KNOWS she has thoughts that she is evil and as such her children are EVIL. He has found her skaking and chewing on her fingers and having delusions of evil BEFORE the murders. STILL, he allows her to go off her meds and allows her to be alone with the chidlren. She is being punished,every day, and will be for the rest of her life by mental illness, incareration in a mental hospital. He is remarried and planning a new family. Maybe you still don't get it and don't agree. But come on, I am not asking for his head on a platter...but he had accountability and his actions or non actions resulted in five deaths. She DID it but he did not act to protect his children. He is guilty. And he in NOT mentally ill. Just cold and heartless. My opinion.

While I can agree that his actions (actually inaction) also are partially responsible for the resulting deaths of the children, I cannot say I think his actions were cold and heartless.

I think it is very, very common for close family members, particularly those in the thick of it, to be in a denial and not see how truly severe/dangerous the situation could be. Seriously, it takes a very big leap to believe that the woman you chose to love and have children with would UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES kill her babies. I know most people would have a hard time believing that would happen. He was not a professional and most likely felt that she would get better if she just put her mind to it. That is a very typical reaction to mental illness. I will say it does surprise me that after multiple suicide threats/attempts that he was seemingly still in denial of how seriously ill she was.

But, I really think it is highly unlikely that Rusty thought she was going to harm the kids. He would have to just not care that they were harmed and that is not the impression I get. (misled, misinformed maybe...but calculating? I don't think so) If anything, I think he is guilty of underestimating the seriousness of her illness. I think he let Andrea and the kids down by leaving a very sick person in charge of them. (he will have to live with that for the rest of his life) But unless there is some proof that he knew that she planned on (or threatened) hurting the kids, I do not think it is fair to say that he is as or more responsible for what happened.

On the other hand, I think her doctor was grossly negligent in her care. From what I have read, it was obvious that she should not have been taken off the antipsychotic meds she was taking and her doctor should have at least realized that it was not in HER best interests to stop taking them. (even if you take her being responsible for 5 young children out of the equation, he still should not have made that error in professional judgement) No, he could not predict that she would drown her kids. But, he should have known (because he is a trained professional) that she was severely ill to the point where she would not only not function without the meds, but that her condition would rapidly deteriorate.

 

[poohandwendy]

Instead of being prosecuted, her husband is free to have another family and possibly be causing more problems for his current wife and future children.

The thing is, is there really a precidence for his being prosecuted? The only thing I can think of is negligence. However, to prove negligence you have to show that a reasonable person would assume a dangerous outcome due to the inaction. I am not sure there has been a precidence set with mental illness yet. How do you get a jury to come to the conclusion that Rusty should have known that the woman he loved and had children with would turn around and methodically kill them? Even with her history of mental illness, how do you prove that he should have expected a bad outcome when there haven't been very many cases of this happening with mentlly ill people? Many people do not even understand mental illness, in the first place. Secondly, there are more cases of mentally ill people NOT harming their children than not. So, it's not like you can say it should have been obvious to him. Obvious enough that he would be considered legally negligent.

By the way, I am not saying that I do not think he was negligent. I do. In a moral way. But, I am not sure it could be proven legally.

(there may be more to the story, she may have made threats (I dunno)...if so, there would be more reason to say he could be found guilty of negligence)

 

[DVC Sadie]

The thing is, is there really a precidence for his being prosecuted? The only thing I can think of is negligence. However, to prove negligence you have to show that a reasonable person would assume a dangerous outcome due to the inaction. I am not sure there has been a precidence set with mental illness yet. How do you get a jury to come to the conclusion that Rusty should have known that the woman he loved and had children with would turn around and methodically kill them? Even with her history of mental illness, how do you prove that he should have expected a bad outcome when there haven't been very many cases of this happening with mentlly ill people? Many people do not even understand mental illness, in the first place. Secondly, there are more cases of mentally ill people NOT harming their children than not. So, it's not like you can say it should have been obvious to him. Obvious enough that he would be considered legally negligent.

By the way, I am not saying that I do not think he was negligent. I do. In a moral way. But, I am not sure it could be proven legally.

(there may be more to the story, she may have made threats (I dunno)...if so, there would be more reason to say he could be found guilty of negligence)

By insisting that his wife have another child and knowing his wife would have to stop taking her anti-psychotic medication while pregnant, he should have been found negligent or aiding to the demise of his children. He knew she was very unstable and had suffered for years from post partum psychosis with delusional tendancies. Having her live on a bus with all those children and also having her homeschool could have been another contributing factor of her disease.

I only wish he could have been prosecuted for at least negligence and let the jury deceide whether or not he was guilty of harming his children either by neglect or for not removing them from a dangerous situation.

 

[poohandwendy]

By insisting that his wife have another child and knowing his wife would have to stop taking her anti-psychotic medication while pregnant, he should have been found negligent or aiding to the demise of his children.

She would not have had to stop taking her antipsychotic meds while pregnant. My sister did not. She continued to take those meds as well as others during pregnancy and was monitored closely. (even though it scared the hell out of us. Abortion was not an option and she would not have made it through the pregnancy with out them. She was suicidal at the time~ we are very fortunate that the twins have shown no ill effects at this time- they are now 15) Also, I am not sure it could be proven that AY became pregnant without consent.

Listen, I am in total agreement that he did the wrong thing. And I am in total agreement that his actions contributed to the horrible end result. I even disagree with the way they were living even if she weren't sick.

I am only saying I am not sure there were sufficient legal grounds to try him. Maybe that will change in the future, I don't know.

 

[lookingforward]

The thing is, is there really a precidence for his being prosecuted? The only thing I can think of is negligence. However, to prove negligence you have to show that a reasonable person would assume a dangerous outcome due to the inaction. I am not sure there has been a precidence set with mental illness yet. How do you get a jury to come to the conclusion that Rusty should have known that the woman he loved and had children with would turn around and methodically kill them? Even with her history of mental illness, how do you prove that he should have expected a bad outcome when there haven't been very many cases of this happening with mentlly ill people? Many people do not even understand mental illness, in the first place. Secondly, there are more cases of mentally ill people NOT harming their children than not. So, it's not like you can say it should have been obvious to him. Obvious enough that he would be considered legally negligent.

By the way, I am not saying that I do not think he was negligent. I do. In a moral way. But, I am not sure it could be proven legally.

(there may be more to the story, she may have made threats (I dunno)...if so, there would be more reason to say he could be found guilty of negligence)

I am a social worker and have seen mothers and fathers prosecuted for failing to protect their children from harm. Most of the cases were when they left their children with spouses or partners they knew were abusing the children. I am not sure she ever abused her kids. However, I have also seen parents prosecuted for leaving their kids with parents who were substance addicted. One instance in particular was when a mother left her kids with dad who was using crack cocaine and he passed out, the kids started a fire, and severe injury resulted. She was held liable and lost her kids to the system for a while.

Your point is a good one, I don't know how this would apply to Mr. Yates. I did attend a crimes against children conference where Andrea's forensic psych talked about the case. I can't remember if he mentioned any abuse, but it was obvious that he felt that Mr. Yates was negligent in her care. I know he was fighting hard to get her determined not guilty by reason of insanity because she was so far gone. Truly gone. You do not decompensate that much overnight and Mr. Yates was the only other adult there night and day, for the whole fall, that had the power to do anything.

 

[DVC Sadie]

She would not have had to stop taking her antipsychotic meds while pregnant. My sister did not. She continued to take those meds as well as others during pregnancy and was monitored closely. (even though it scared the hell out of us. Abortion was not an option and she would not have made it through the pregnancy with out them. She was suicidal at the time~ we are very fortunate that the twins have shown no ill effects at this time- they are now 15) Also, I am not sure it could be proven that AY became pregnant without consent.

Listen, I am in total agreement that he did the wrong thing. And I am in total agreement that his actions contributed to the horrible end result. I even disagree with the way they were living even if she weren't sick.

I am only saying I am not sure there were sufficient legal grounds to try him. Maybe that will change in the future, I don't know.

It's been many years since I have practiced in mental health but back in the 1970s and 1980s we did not have female patients on psychotropic medicine while pregnant because we did not know if they could cause birth defects.

I do see your point of view and I agree with you!

I wish that they could/would have taken legal action against the husband. Maybe, for some reason they couldn't but I would have loved to see them try. It could have possibly been a landmark case.

 

[wendyl]

A Guilty but Insane isn't available in TX. Maybe this case will inspire someone in the Legislature to change that since it would have been a good option in cases like this. Only 12 states have laws that allow that type of verdict. Insanity Defense

Thank you so much for posting this. I have wondered why on earth, they didn't just say she Guilty, but have her sentenced to Life in a Mental Hospital with no parole, than have her sentenced in Jail with no parole. Now I know. I don't understand WHY all states don't allow this.