Foster mother jailed for ill-treatment

Press, 12 February 1983, Page 4

Foster mother jailed for ill-treatment

A former foster mother of four children, who struck a foster daughter, aged 11. with a rolling pin and broke an arm by twisting it behind the girl's back, was jailed for six months when she appeared for sentence in the District Court yesterday. The defendant. Maria Murphy, aged 29. had been found guilty by a jury at her trial late last month, of a charge of wilfully ill-treating the foster child, between .January 1 and June 30 last vear.

Judge Pain, imposing sentence yesterday, told the defendant who has four children of her own that there were no retributive considerations in sentencing but it should reflect the gravity of the offence and the community's denunciation of her conduct.

In addition to the prison sentence the Judge imposed a year's probation to follow, with a special condition that the defendant undertake medical psychological or psychiatric counselling or treatment directed by the probation officer. Prosecution evidence at the trial had been that the defendant had beaten the girl with a rolling pin on the evening of June 8. after seeing her at a fish and chip shop during the school lunch hour that day. She had also twisted the girl's arm behind her back and broken it early next morning because the girl had been slow with her housework duties, according to evidence. The foster children asserted that the defendant had told them to say the girl had been beaten up by boys in a park for stealing from a sports club’s honesty box.

The defendant denied striking the girl, and said she would not hit a child, even as a last resort. She said she had had to correct the children many times for dishonesty and had been sharp and direct to them. The defendant said she had asked the girl and her brother what had happened to the girl’s arm, as it appeared to be broken, and was told she had been beaten up by boys for stealing monev out of an honesty box.

Mr W. F. Morgan, counsel for the defendant, submitted in mitigation of penalty yesterday that the defendant had led a blameless life, and still could not accept that she had committed the offence. t

Mr Morgan referred to the defendant’s work in fostering

children and said she had had a good upbringing and was a deeply religious person.

He said it was a case in which punishment was not really warranted. The circumstances which had been found to be proved against the defendant indicated a heed for her to be helped.

He submitted that a term of probation should be imposed. with conditions, for medical and psychological treatment "to remedy any problems which led to this unfortunate situation. "

The Judge said the delivery sentence in a case, such as this was an unenviable task. Any form of child abuse was totally reprehensible and deserving of a salutary penalty.

He said that, in this case, the ill-treatment was done by a person of good qualities, and who would not normally appear in a court. The Judge said the particular actions which the jury apparently found proved was the defendant's thrashing the girl with a rolling pin. causing considerable bruising to her body, and the next morning, “without any real cause." twisting her arm behind her back with such force that it broke. He said the defendant was fostercaring for the girl who accepted her as her mother. A psychiatric report presumed a loss of control by the defendant; there was no suggestion of any depression or psychotic, reason.

He said an elder foster child's evidence was that she was a person who "gets angry and lashes out." The Judge said he was acutely aware of the defendant’s general good character and personal achievements and standing.

However, there were no mitigrating factors in the offence, and she was entirely responsible for her actions.

It was a case where the gravity of the offence must have a considerable influence on sentences.

A prison term was not lightly imposed, but in all the circumstances it was the only appropriate sentence in this case.

In many instances prison might have little reformative value, but it could bring home the seriousness of the offence which the defendant had refused to accept.

It could serve as a deterrent for the future, and would indicate the gravity with which the offence was viewed, the Judge said.