Wednesday, January 18, 2012
News Give birth? You're in trouble
Posted by Deanna Isaacs on 01.18.12 at 09:00 AM
The Sun-Times is reporting that a DuPage County judge yesterday declared Nunu Sung an unfit mother. Sung delivered a child alone outside a Wheaton apartment building in June 2009, and left him under bushes where he was found an hour and a half later by a neighbor walking a dog.
A refugee from Myanmar who spoke little or no English, Sung went back to the apartment where she was staying with relatives and passed out. She later said she had hidden her pregnancy because it was not permissible in her culture for an unmarried woman. She was taken to a hospital and treated for blood loss. The baby, suffering hypothermia when found, was placed with foster parents.
Prosecutors cut a plea deal with Sung in which she admitted to initially lying to police about giving birth and they agreed not to attempt to terminate her parental rights. She's been in prison for two and a half years for her initial postpartum denial—offered before she was taken to the hospital. Now, with her three-year sentence nearly complete, prosecutors, in apparent violation of the plea deal, are arguing that she's not a fit parent. She may or may not be, but something's wrong with serving prison time for anything uttered in the midst of a postpartum hemorrhage.
Sung's attorney, Terra Costa Howard, says they "absolutely will appeal."
Also yesterday, the Tribune reported that a 19-year-old woman took her six-month-old son to a Chicago fire station Monday and tearfully handed him over, saying she couldn't take care of him anymore. According to the Tribune, "police said that the woman wouldn't necessarily be charged with a crime for abandoning her baby."
Not necessarily? Abandoning?
Huh?
Also: Women don't get pregnant alone; why does our legal system act as if they do?
Comments (10)
Showing 1-10 of 10
Is this it? Can you elaborate more? What's Safe Haven Law? What are its grounds? What does one thing has to do with the other?
like
dislike
I'd say there is a big difference between hiding a newborn in the bushes and taking a 6month old to a fire department asking for help.
The first is not in trouble because she gave birth, she's in trouble for trying to get rid of it like a piece of trash.
A Safe Haven law allows overwhelmed parents to hand children to the cops rather than beating the shit out of them or leaving them to freeze and starve to death under bushes. The cops then turn the kids over to child protective services, which aren't always much better. It's essentially amnesty for abandoning your kids. In Nebraska they ran into trouble by failing to be specific enough: they got parents dropping off teenagers and saying, "We're done. You take 'em."
Deanna, this is the very least of it. You're in trouble whether or not the cops come for you, because men are not judged responsible for children. Go have a look at what happens when there's a disabled or chronically ill child in the family and the guy decides he just can't hack it anymore, or doesn't want to, or likes some other lady better. You've got cases all up and down the economic ladder to choose from in IL. Then have a read through the "how motherhood screws you" shelf, with exclamation-point-casserole lady Ann Crittenden on one end and the haymaker Joan Williams on the other. The take-home: You will pay for the rest of your life and be expected to take your compensation in love (not, of course, guaranteed, esp. if you're a bitch), while the father will likely be substantially better off.
"You're in trouble whether or not the cops come for you, because men are not judged responsible for children."
Utter bullshit, but at least you didn't regale us with any racial theories this time. And just for future reference, the six-month-old boy is too old to be covered under the IL Save Haven Law.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-08…
The purpose of the statute is to provide a haven for newborns believed to be 30 days old or less.
I don't even know what to say after reading this article. I thought it would have been obvious but I guess I need to explain that the purpose of the safe haven law is to encourage mothers who are at the state where they want to abandon their baby to at least do it in a safe manner. The drafters of the law, I'm sure, did not believe that abandoning a baby was an O.K. thing to do or that the mothers didn't deserve punishment. But I think they realized there were too many incidents where parents were abandoning their babies in unsafe situations where they could have died (and in some instances, I'm sure, did) that they rightly decided that the safety of the child was more important than making sure the woman (or man, I think the safe haven law covers both parents) gets the proper punishment. Sometimes you have to be practical when enacting and enforcing laws. Prosecutors sometimes make deals with cold-blooded murderers in criminal organizations, for example, if they will give the authorities information about higher ups.
That is the difference between the two cases. One abandoned their baby in a safe place. As deplorable as that act is it didn't put the child in danger. The other basically threw the baby away where he or her could have easily died. Luckily, someone encountered the baby before that happened. There is a HUGE difference. Sung is lucky she was not charged with attempted murder. Obviously, prosecutors pleaded down to a reduced charge because they were worried she might escape punishment entirely if they went for something more serious. If anything, they were being too cautious. But in any case, when a plea deal is offered on a very minor charge of all the things the person could potentially be found guilty of it is sometimes the case that this charge, looked at in isolation, might not be totally logical (even if it clearly fits within the meaning of the crime). That is where you are going wrong with your "something's wrong with serving prison time for anything uttered in the midst of a postpartum hemorrhage" comment.
"Also: Women don't get pregnant alone; why does our legal system act as if they do?"
Not sure what you mean with regard to any of the instances discussed here. Is there any evidence that the father of Sung's baby was involved in the abandonment? If not, I don't know what any law could do with him. And someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but like I said earlier I think the safe haven law covers fathers as well as mothers. So that law wouldn't be treating the two parents differently. I don't understand what you are trying to get at with that sentence.
"One abandoned their baby in a safe place. As deplorable as that act is it didn't put the child in danger. The other basically threw the baby away where he or her could have easily died. Luckily, someone encountered the baby before that happened. There is a HUGE difference."
Thank you, Captain Obvious. I guess that's why they sent the one to prison.
Of course what I said was obvious. But it was in response to Deanna Issac's entire post which was basically arguing the reverse. Her point was (or at seems to be) that the 19-year-old got off easy compared with Sung, who she seems to think was treated unfairly. She appears to view both cases as morally equivalent and therefore deserving of the same punishment. That's just ludicrous, as you clearly recognize yourself. I don't know why you think it is strange for me to bring up something obvious when it is in response to someone who just stated the exact opposite. You seem to think you do that with people here all the time.
No one should go to prison.
No one should be punished.
Everyone involved in both situations should be helped.
The responsibility for children falls almost exclusively on women.
I'm literally speechless. Wow! Someone should not go to prison if they take their newborn baby (a reminder that although small, this is an actual person) and hide him or her, naked, in a dangerous place where he or she may or may not be found before dying (from starvation or whatever)?!! Oh wait. Not only should this person not go to prison but she shouldn't even be punished at all?!!!!! A $50 fine even would be too much apparently. This baby could have EASILY died. There was no guarantee that someone would find him or her before it was too late. This was underneath bushes outside an apartment complex in a suburb. Suburbs are not like the city. It's unlikely that there are pedestrians walking around an entrance to an apartment complex on a regular basis. Most people probably drive past this area without looking at the spot where the baby was.
There is no excuse whatsoever for putting any defenseless human being's life in danger like this. I don't care how overwhelmed or how many life issues one may have that may cause the person not to think clearly. Everybody at all times should know that it is incredibly wrong to place their newborn (or anyone) in a life threatening situation. In this case, it appears to me from reading the articles (though admittedly its not 100% conclusive) that the crime wasn't even motivated from any mental health issues or any other extraordinary type of factors. It seems that she abandoned her baby to avoid disdain from members of her family. The cold-blooded nature of this motive just makes her crime even more reprehensible.
