4 year old left untreated for burns by parents

Story found here

Quote :

PARENTS who left their four-year-old daughter's severe burns untreated for up to three weeks have been jailed in what a judge described as a gross breach of parental trust, The Daily Telegraph reports.

A jury heard how the little girl's "full thickness" burns to 80 per cent of her body surface area became so infected she required almost a month in hospital, two general anaesthetic operations and skin grafts to recover.

The couple, who cannot be named, were found guilty in the District Court at Wollongong in New South Wales of failing to provide the necessities of life after a jury heard they had treated her wounds with Panadol, Neurofen Plus and some pharmacy-bought ointments.

"As part of the treatment the little girl was made to lie in the sun on the patio to dry out the burns," the court was told.

"The burns to her legs restricted her movement and she was forced to urinate in her bed or standing up."

Judge Paul Conlon sentenced the pair to a minimum 15 months full-time jail, with a maximum term of two-and-a-half years.

The court heard she was burned when petrol that spilled on her legs caught fire in September last year, as she played with her father in the garage of their West Wollongong home.

When the little girl, who is now six, screamed in pain, the couple put her in the shower and laid her in bed - and photos tendered to the court exhibited the "truly horrific nature of the wounds", Judge Conlon said.

"No responsible parent could have failed to appreciate the excruciating pain that she was experiencing," he said in his sentencing remarks.

"It was not merely the failure to provide the necessities of life for days on end, but that negligence was potentially life-threatening."

The court heard that the girl's mother had not taken her daughter to hospital out of fear that DOCS would take her away, as another child had been removed from the home.

The girl had only been returned to her parents' care four months earlier.

A paediatric burns surgeon described the parent's efforts to treat the severe burns as "totally inadequate".

I'm completely shocked by this - the selfishness of these parents is terrible. They'd rather their child have died a painful death rather than have her treated. Considering what they did, it would have been better if DOCS took the kid away.

Good grief, it's a friggin' miracle the kid even survived with burns like that.

Quote :

The couple, who cannot be named, were found guilty...

"Mr. and Mrs. Voldemort, the jury has found you guilty. We'll be turning you over to the Wizengamot for sentencing."

Quote :

The court heard that the girl's mother had not taken her daughter
to hospital out of fear that DOCS would take her away

It would be criminally negligent for the DOCS not to.

Quote :

as another child
had been removed from the home.The girl had only been returned to her parents' care four months earlier.

I'm seeing a pattern here...

Why can't they be named? Because their kids are involved?

Quote :

The court heard that the girl's mother had not taken her daughter to hospital out of fear that DOCS would take her away, as another child had been removed from the home.

I wonder why they did that?

Thanos6 wrote:

Why can't they be named? Because their kids are involved?

Yes. It's to protect the little girl's identity.

Oh hell no! That poor little girl.
When my neice was 16 months old, she poured a hot cup of coffee on herself and had second degree burns from her chin to her navel. She's always had sensitive skin. She had whirlpool treatments for a week and was not allowed to be in direct sunlight to prevent scarring.
Throughout the whole ordeal, there was never any mention of the burns being caused by neglect.
If it was an accident, then the doctors would understand. But these idiots turned it into abuse.
Hang 'em!

karmyn31 wrote:

If it was an accident, then the doctors would understand. But these idiots turned it into abuse.

Not disputing the 'it's abuse' part, but these parents have already had one child removed from their home (presumably for abuse or neglect); it was entirely logical to believe that the first thing that would be assumed was that it was a similar case, particularly if they tried to use the 'it was an accident!' defense before.