Commune parents guilty of wilful neglect of son

Press, 15 September 1976, Page 2

Commune parents guilty of wilful neglect of son

'Staff reporter Nelson ’ A four-month-old baby - found to have a fractured skull and seven I fractured ribs was ic.hronically ill and dangerously malnourished I when admitted to Nelson .Hospital. Mr K. 11. -J. iHeadifen. S.M., was told in the Nelson Magistrate's Court yesterday. The baby, the child of parents living in a Nelson commune. had been admitted to hospital after other members of the commune had insisted that advice be obtained on the reasons for the child's low growth-rate. The hospital admission led to the conviction in court of the baby's parents. Jennifer Mary Duke, aged 23, and Alwvn John Bell, aged 22. a timber worker (Mr E. P. McNabb), who had denied a charge that during June. Jtilv and August thev had wilfullv neelected a child in their custody in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering and injury to his health.

Indicating that he hoped to be in a position to help both -defendants in the future, the Magistrate remanded them to September 20 for a probation officer's report and sentence.

On a second charge of failing to register the birth of an un-named child, each defendant was convicted and discharged. The babv has since been registered. Sergeant R. E. Edie prosecuted for the police. Two pediatricians at the Nelson Hospital gave evidence on the child’s condition. Dr D. G. Carroll said that on admission, he weighed only 3.5 kg, his length was onlv 53cm. and his head circumference 38cm, all of which measurements were well below the norm for a four-months-old child.

Dr Carroll, the senior pediatrician, said the parents told him the child’s age was “four moons” and when he first saw him he was “chronically ill and dangerously malnourished.” He had a fractured skull, three fractured ribs on the right side and four on the left, and there was no evidence to suggest fragility of bones. . He had interviewed both parents and found them un-co-operative and unable to realise the seriousness of the situation and the dangerously ill state of the baby.

“They exhibited marked hostility, irrationality, immaturity, irresponsibility, and ignorance of child care,” he said. “Both seemed to think the Western world was’ encouraging weakness and hence it was important to toughen the baby. They seemed to think that even a baby of this age had the capacity to survive with an inadequate food intake. “My impression was that this baby had suffered serious neglect and that the parents are in no fit condition to take care of him,” said Dr Carroll.

A couple living at the commune, Sandra and Patricia Cree, also gave evidence. Sandra Cree said the defendants and the baby came to the commune about May. The baby seemed very small but healthy. Alter about two weeks she became concerned for it because it did not appear to be growing. After speaking to the parents she was told she could give the baby food but she was not to give it food from ? bottle since it was being breast-fed by the defendant, Duke, nor was the witness to breast feed it herself. The father displayed a'great love for the child, played with it and often threw it up into the air and caught it.

Once, said witness, the baby had rolled from a table outside and fell to the soft earth. She did not think its

I head had hit a concrete slab nearby, but she was not certain. It had cried but {stopped crying when cuddled for a time. More recently other members of the commune, ;alarmed at the slow growth Irate of the baby, had held a I meeting. The defendant, Duke, was told that the others felt she should seek home advice on child care iand the reasons for the low (growth rate. This led to a I visit from a Social Welfare • Department officer and eventually the admission of •the baby to hospital. Patrie Cronin, a social worker with the Social Welfare Department gave evidence on his visit to the commune and the events' leading up to the baby’s ad-j mission to hospital. The par-1 ents had revolutionary ideas! about how they should judge; the health of a baby, he; said.

Police Constables K. Luskiei and J. P. Haynes told of their visit to the commune and interviews with the defendants. From these emerged the fact that the defendant Bell was one of the few working at the commune and the money he earned was spent on food for the commune. The attitude was that nobody should have more than the other and as a result, as a nursing mother, the defendant Duke had insufficient sustenance to supply the baby’s milk needs. The defendants had admitted they knew the baby had a fractured skull but they had not sought medical treatment because’they did not believe doctors could do more for their child than they could. They also had an idea that the child’s ribs were cracked or fractured, because they had at times heard them “click and creak.” The defendants told the two police witnesses the baby had been born in Christchurch on April 10 without

> medical assistance and that -Ilater they had travelled to tlPicton. While there thev had i'"a hard time.” living on ’ bread, flour and pumpkin. . When they had arrived in Nelson both defendants were ( very low in health and the mother’s milk had almost gone. ” Both defendants gave evi- ; dence along these lines. They .admitted they had required '. more food, particularly pro- ( tein. so that the babv would ; have benefited. They knew (ithe baby had a fractured ((skull because they could feel it, but they had applied “energy" to it through their • hands and the swelling later • went down. In his judgment, the Mag-

istrate said it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove the neglect had been "wilful.'' Referring to Bell's evidence' on the lack of food, the Magistrate said that if he failed to see that his wife was pro-; perly fed so that she in turn; could provide sufficient nour-i ishment for the child, then he failed in his duty.

"It is quite clear that the; parties must have been aware of the condition of the child. They knew there was insuf-( ficient milk for it and yet they allowed the situation to con-j tinue. In my judgment, this! was wilful and neglectful,”, he said.