Posted on 04/30/2008 6:26:47 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3
Even though they thought their faith would heal their daughter, two Wisconsin parents now face criminal charges in the child's death.
Eleven-year-old Kara Neumann from untreated diabetes on Easter Sunday. Dale and Leilani Neumann are both charged with second-degree reckless homicide. The family lives in Weston, southeast of Wausau.
"By Saturday you have a child that is not eating, is not drinking, is really not moving, not walking, and isn't able to speak -- and I think any combination of one of all of those symptoms would have alerted any other parents to seek medical attention," Marathon County District Attorney Jill Falstad said in announcing the charges Monday.
The girl's mother has said the family believes in the Bible and that healing comes from God, but in the eyes of police, the Neumanns didn't get their daughter the medical treatment she needed to survive.
"This was a preventable death. Any action within the three weeks or days prior to her death, she would still be alive today," Everest Metro Police Chief Dan Vergin said.
Throughout the criminal complaint, the Neumanns repeatedly tell people Kara's illness is a test of their faith and that through prayer God will heal her.
The medical examiner ruled Kara died from "untreated juvenile diabetes."
The State reviewed 400 pages of material and more than ten hours of interviews before deciding the Neumanns' decision not to take their daughter to the doctor was a crime.
"She really was very vulnerable and helpless, and it seemed apparent that everybody knew that," Falstad said.
The D.A. said her decision to charge the parents was not an easy one. There is little case law -- and none from Wisconsin -- where a child died as a result of a parent's religious views. It comes down to weighing freedom of religion and parenting rights against the responsibility of the State to protect children.
"She is a vulnerable class of persons as children are considered in the law, and so I think our focus has been on Kara and her safety and what her medical needs were," Falstad said.
Action 2 News tried to contact both the Neumanns and their representatives. Our calls have not been returned.
Dale and Leilani have not been arrested. Police say they are cooperating with the investigation. Police say the couple will be in court on Wednesday for their first appearance.
Falstad knows this case is new territory and she faces a tough defense, but she wants to send a message.
"Our interest is really in the protection of children, and with this prosecution an attention to this case hopefully in the future we can prevent a similar situation," the D.A. said.
Is God an unindicted co-conspirator?
Doesn’t mention Christian Science specifically, but seems like a variation on that theme.
“Thou shalt be stupid” is not in the 10 commandments
If she hadn’t died, would they be charged? If they had treated her and she still died, would they be charged?
If they had treated her, how would it be gross negligence?
Perhaps this is not the popular opinion, but just how far will the ‘state” be allowed to go with this???
I fear we are once again letting the camel poke his nose into the tent, without considering the logical consequences of where this policy will lead. Especially in todays society where common sense, and self-restraint are not seen as desirable chareceristics,
When it comes to litigation, and controlling the power of the state over individuals, how far will we let it go, if we preface it with the obligatory “Its for the children”?
Would I have acted as these parents did?? I hope not, but last time I checked, true freedom includes the freedom to be wrong as long as you are willing to accept the consequences for being wrong.
But, call me just another man out of time.
That's why he appointed doctors for that task. God provides sustenance too... did these folks sit around the dining table praying for meals to materialize?
Sanctimonious stupidity.
I'm all for people following their faith, but human ability to grow food, build houses, and heal the sick is all of one piece for me. It's foolish to think that God is opposed to any of that.
Not when the consequence of being wrong is somebody else's death. There are plenty of Muslim extremists who are "willing to accept the consequences" of the 3000+ deaths of OTHER people on 9/11. These parents are "willing to accept the consequences" of the helpless young daughter's completely avoidable death. Neither of these positions is defensible via the perpetrators' claiming a right to "true freedom".
When you lose a child it is as if you had died. In fact you would trade places if it were possible. But what gives you the right to say that your values supersede the rights of others. Unless you are personally willing to intercede and take responsibility for the other person. then let the parents handle it.
If they are wrong, ultimately they will be punished. be it in this life, or the next.
What’s the old joke about the guy on his roof waiting for God to save him from the flood? After he refuses several rescue attempts he wonders why God hasn’t saved him, to which God replies, “I sent a couple of boats and a helicopter.” Something like that anyway.
Like all really good jokes, there is a great deal of truth in that one.
If she died, one could argue they didn’t treat her well enough. That’s the argument being made now, isn’t it?
You have a right to be wrong about your own life.
When the life isn't yours, you have much less of a right. Your children are yours to care for and tend. They are not yours to allow to die or to abuse due to your wacky ideas.
I’d have to go back and look for the source, but my understanding from other news articles is that the parents were urged by other family who saw the girl’s deteriorating condition to get medical help for her, but the parents refused to seek any treatment except prayer.
From reading about the case, prosecution seems very warranted. The girl was suffering and dying before the parents’ eyes, and they never pursued any medical intervention for her. I don’t believe religious freedom or parental rights should include the right to allow a child to die based on a completely misguided belief that her obviously worsening illness was spiritual in nature and refusal to seek any other relief.
There’s nothing wrong with praying for the health and recovery over others, or refusing medical treatment for one’s self based on religious belief, but preserving the life of a minor child trumps the parents’ rights to impose those moral beliefs when they become a virtual death sentence by precluding life-saving treatment.
Best comment I've read all day!!!
And if I think that the way you are “caring” for you child could cause them harm, or in some way be insufficient to meet my standards of “tending “ them, I then have the right to use the long arm of the great god gov’t to take those children from you??
Where does it end?? Once we let the do-gooders, social workers and “Mrs Grundy’s” into our homes, we will NOT be able to get them out again.
In times past, it was the community through various forms of peer pressure who assured some standard of conduct within the neighborhood. But as we have become more affluent, and “successful” we have become lazier and look more to the questionable auspices of an ever more intrusive “state” do do for us, that which we used to (and should still) do for ourselves.
Is your right to privacy a stronger right than your child's right not to die at your hand or because of your neglect? Could you answer that question directly, please?
Do your "standards of tending them" include allowing them to die?
Allowing a child to die when she did not have to die is abuse and it is a crime. I am surprised that you seem to want to argue otherwise.
Having a dead child that didn't have to be dead isn't meeting even a minimal standard of tending them", it is?
This isn't a tough case. The child is dead. She is dead today rather than having her whole life ahead of her, when a trip to the doctor for some insulin would have easily prevented her death.
Where does it end?? Once we let the do-gooders, social workers and “Mrs Grundy’s” into our homes, we will NOT be able to get them out again.
There is no right to pray your child into the grave.
Where does this overriding right to abuse children at will without government interference stem from, in your opinion?
“Is God an unindicted co-conspirator?”
No, the presiding judge and these two are getting an introduction to reality.
There is sound legal precedence for this case as a couple named the Twitchell’s had a similar thing happen and lost custody of their children. It may very well happen here as well.
WI law specifically excludes a parental decision to not seek medical treatment on religious grounds from neglect. The specific charges require that the parents be aware of the risks involved, which they clearly were not. This prosecution is simply an attempt to have the legislature overruled by the courts, to enable state agencies to control every aspect of family life.
I read in another article on this case that the mother believed her daughter was under spiritual attack to prevent the mother from pursuing her ministry (didn’t specify what that was).
The mother appears to be a bit self-focused. Her daughter’s illness is really an attack on her! It really all about ME!
What of the girl? Do her parents have a “right” to watch her die and prevent her from receiving medical attention? Does her right to life disappear because she’s a minor? Kids aren’t property.
That depends. Define neglect. Is it neglect if I choose to not have my child immunized for whooping cough, but my child dies of whooping cough?? Its a simple procedure to immunize. but do I, as a parent have the right not get the immunization because of my fear of side effects??
And, if I do not immunize my children, and they die from a disease they could have had protection from, am I deficient, (in your world) of my standards for tending them??? Am I to be hounded by the PTB because I have “Allowed them to die” when all it would have taken has a simple little shot to prevent it??
If that is not a direct enough answer for you, then I'm sorry. But I do not see what the parents did as "neglect" By all accounts, they loved their child very much and did for all they felt was right to do.. Their error is in that they chose a treatment (i.e. prayer and a belief in divine healing) that was unsuccessful when other treatment methods were available. At what point do we take away the parental responsibility? Faith healing? Non-immunization? Herbal or homeopathic medicine? Perhaps allowing experimental or unproven procedures? At what point do we remove a parents right to chose?? Or do require that parents must be held to a standard that allows them to only be right? No error allowed?? Sorry, but the world is NOT a risk free place, and sometimes mistakes are made, and children suffer. (as do their parents.) I only wonder what has happened to the faith of the child's parents now. “””There is no right to pray your child into the grave.”””
If that is the parents choice of therapy, then yes it is, for they did NOT believe they were praying their child into the grave. Now, the question becomes, should the parents be punished for making the wrong choice of treatment??
“””Where does this overriding right to abuse children at will without government interference stem from, in your opinion?”””
This is abuse by your definition, not mine. Wrong-headed? Yes. Not effective? Yes. But abusive? No. In a free society, we are free to make the choices we feel are right and justified. And we are also expected to accept the consequences of those choices.
If we wish to be protected from having to face the results of our freely made choices, are we truly free?
Who decides what method of treatment the parents can use for their daughter?? The state? The Community?? The Medical establishment?? Do we abrogate the rights of the parents simply because we disagree with their chosen method of treatment??( i.e prayer and a belief in divine intervention)
Do not forget, it is not the parents who took their daughter's life. it was the disease. The parents error was in the method of treatment. A method they believed was the one that they hoped would work.
It didn't, and its truly a pity. But if we condone the seizure of our children because we as parents do not follow the accepted path in all things, when will they come for our kids because we choose to not have them take what we believe to be a risky inoculation??, Or choose to school them in what is believed to be a harmful home-school environment?? Or raise them in substandard house in which lead paint, or asbestos, or even (GASP!!) smokers lives.
We have a right, and a duty to do our best to raise and protect our children. From hazard, as well as from complacency, and over bearing government intrusion among other things. Would that we could protect them from all things. But, alas, parents are not perfect, and sometimes bad things happen, and (in retrospect) wrong choices are made.
I disagree. That's like tossing your toddler in front of a moving vehicle and then claiming innocence because it was the car, not your actions that killed the child.
Sorry, I'm not buying that gross and disgusting cop out.
Sorry, I'm not buying that gross and disgusting cop out”””
Pity you did not look at the entire post. For the point was not that the girl died. (she did, and its a shame, but such is life in an imperfect world). But the question is about who decides when a parent loses their rights to their own offspring.
Would you consider it “throwing a toddler in front of a moving vehicle” if the parents choose to not have him/her inoculated for say MMR (measles, mumps, rubella)? Would you consider it “throwing an ‘adolescent’ in front of a moving vehicle” if a parent chose to forgo the “benefits” gov’t school socialization and home schooled their children?? There are those in many parts of society who do, and would be willing to hoist the battle flag.
Are you ready to have your children taken away because you wish to home school, or because you have serious reservations about side effects of some “mandatory” inoculations?? Or will you feel that you must adhere to there policies promulgated by the powers that be in order that you not “lose” you children.
The only free society in which that would happen, is only “free” in an Orwellian sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.