In today's headlines with Susie Nordqvist, a big day for survivors of abuse in this country and Greens looking at whether to force Darleen Tana out. Video / NZ Herald
A young solo mother who warned her former partner about her deteriorating mental health and potential for violence towards her children prior to the shaking death of her 4-week-old son was granted permanent name suppression today as a judge denied her request for home detention.
The 23-year-old had told a report writer prior to today’s sentencing hearing in the High Court at Auckland that she’s now in a new relationship and hasn’t told her partner about the charges.
She twisted her hands nervously and wiped away tears as Justice Geoffrey Venning reviewed the case, settling on an end sentence of three years and six months’ imprisonment.
“I accept your personal circumstances and background to be tragic,” the judge said, noting that the mother had herself been raised in turbulent foster care from the time she was 18 months old and had been abandoned by the fathers of both her children. “You were inadequately prepared for motherhood.”
Her infant son, who also cannot be named, was pronounced dead at Auckland’s Starship Hospital in January 2022 after she took him there by bus despite repeated seizures. It was approximately 12 hours after she had shaken him.
After searching her phone following the baby’s death, police found multiple messages in which the defendant hauntingly foreshadowed the danger both of her children were in.
“I can’t f***ing calm down right now,” she admitted in one text message to her estranged former partner. “The kids won’t shut the f*** up and are making me angry. I can wait [for help looking after them] but not long before my anger becomes too much for the kids’ safety.”
In another message she wrote: “I’m really struggling with the kids right now and I’m crying cuz I’m stressed out about it. Both of them are screaming and crying and both of them are refusing to eat. I’m having a panic attack.”
A young mother who was charged with murder one year after the death of her 4-week-old son at Starship appears in the High Court at Auckland. Photo / Jason Oxenham
The father responded: “Yu know we are not in relation anymore?”
The father visited the household once a week but the mother said she needed more support.
“I’m asking for to help with the kids and I’m sharing how I’m f***ing struggling mentally and with the kids too and you’re not even there as much support at all,” she said, adding a short time later: “I have literally nobody who I can talk to or who can help me out with the kid … I have nobody but myself … I’m really struggling mentally.”
In a series of messages one week later, the mother became even more explicit with her ex about how their children were at risk of violence if he didn’t step up participation in their lives.
“I’m about to show my anger with the kids crying and it’s not gonna be pretty if I let my anger out inside the apartment around or towards the kids,” she wrote. “Their constant crying and screaming that never f***ing stops is getting on my nerves.”
The father responded: “I’m at sumone’s. Will come back bit late.” But he clarified he could try to be there in about an hour to help.
“CANT DO THIS. IM ABOUT TO GET REALLY ANGRY WITH THE KIDS,” the mother wrote in all capital letters, before suggesting she leave the children alone in the apartment while she calmed down in the car. “Either way, they won’t be safe until you’re here.”
Messages of a similar vein continued the following afternoon.
“The kids won’t shut the f*** up and I’m angry with both of them,” she said. “Like really angry. I need to leave the apartment before I get too angry. If I get too angry it’s not going to be pretty. The kids are not safe at all when I’m angry ...
The father said he was driving to Pokeno to help someone else.
“I have no plan to coming tday,” he wrote.
“What am I supposed to do??” the mother responded. “How the f*** am I supposed to be able to be the mum I need to be for the boys if I am angry all the time and I don’t get a f***ing break????”
A young mother who was charged with murder one year after the death of her 4-week-old son at Starship appears in the High Court at Auckland. Photo / Jason Oxenham
The defendant initially claimed to medical staff at Starship Hospital that her son had been injured by his older brother, who she said had landed on the baby’s head a day earlier while jumping on the bed.
“She later provided a statement through the Police 105 website to the effect that she had often hit [her baby’s] head accidentally on door frames, walls, and the edge of his cot,” according to the agreed summary of facts for the case.
“[She] said that she had taken [her son] to hospital by bus because she could not afford an ambulance fee or an Uber fare.”
Despite medical intervention, the child died the next day.
“There was bleeding around the brain, severe retinal haemorrhages and a retinal tear,” court documents state. “These injuries were the result of [the defendant’s] actions.”
Other injuries, including a skull fracture, might have been the result of the infant’s brother falling on his head as the mother initially described to medical staff, lawyers conceded.
“The Crown cannot disprove that possibility,” the summary of facts states. “The paediatric evidence is that a parent may not appreciate the fact of, nor the severity of, a skull fracture at the time it is caused. In fact, isolated fractures in infants are often missed initially and only become apparent when swelling of the scalp overlying the fracture develops days later.”
But the defendant specifically pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter via assault, not manslaughter due to a failure to seek medical attention. The summary of facts also states that the defendant became frustrated with her infant “and momentarily lost control”.
“She shook [the baby] forcefully, causing severe brain injuries that were a substantial and operative cause of his death.”
During today’s hearing, defence lawyer Ian Brookie pointed to a psychological report for his client – the findings of which, he argued, reduced his client’s culpability for the killing. She was diagnosed with “reactive attachment disorder” as a result of her childhood, having been found severely neglected and undernourished as a baby “to the point she was catatonic”, he explained. The disorder, which can sometimes result in a limited capacity for empathy, is known to make parenting more difficult, he said.
She had a disabled 2-year-old son at the time of offending and was struggling with an infant who was difficult to soothe.
“Those text messages reflect a mother who genuinely wanted to care for her children but was becoming increasingly overwhelmed,” Brookie said, adding that his client didn’t tell her midwife because she was afraid her children would be taken away.
Crown prosecutor Robin McCoubrey acknowledged the woman’s psychosocial setbacks but said the diagnosis was “not in the same league” as post-partum depression resulting in a psychotic breakdown. A sentence of home detention, he argued, “would just be wrong in principle”. Justice Venning agreed, making it clear from the outset of the hearing that he wasn’t considering a non-custodial sentence.
In addition to the manslaughter sentence, the woman was ordered to serve two concurrent nine-month sentences for non-fatal assaults on both of her sons. The assault on her surviving son was the reason she was granted permanent name suppression today.
Surviving child victims and witnesses are not allowed to be identified under the law. The judge found that naming the mum or her infant son could lead to the identification of her other son, who shared the same surname.
In making the decision, Justice Venning noted that it was an unusual and complicated case. Most defendants seeking permanent name suppression do so with the argument that being identified would cause “extreme hardship”.
“She falls well short of that high standard,” the judge noted today.
Her surviving son, now 5, is under the care of an extended family member with supervision from Oranga Tamariki. The agency supported the bid for permanent suppression. The Crown also did not oppose.
Craig Kapitan is an Auckland-based journalist covering courts and justice. He joined the Herald in 2021 and has reported on courts since 2002 in three newsrooms in the US and New Zealand.
