Skip to comments.De Soto mother gets 8 1/2 years for keeping starving boy in attic (6-year-old weighed 20 pounds)
Posted on 05/28/2011 5:55:53 AM PDT by Libloather
De Soto mother gets 8 1/2 years for keeping starving boy in attic
By JOE LAMBE
Friday, May. 27, 2011
A Johnson County judge sentenced a De Soto woman to more than eight years in prison Thursday for starving her 6-year-old son and confining him in her attic.
Rachel Perez, 27, pleaded guilty previously to child abuse and child endangerment and no contest to attempted second-degree murder.
Judge Peter Ruddick quickly sentenced her to the maximum possible 8 1/2 years after hearing arguments from the lawyers on Thursday.
It is not a terribly long sentence for what happened to (her son), he said, and that is frankly all there is to it.
On Aug. 17, deputies found Perezs son, who has Down syndrome, starved almost to death and covered with feces. They had gone to the home earlier that day, but Perez told them he was not there, and they arrested her on an outstanding traffic warrant.
Deputies went back late that evening after the boys great-grandmother asked them to check again.
They found him in the attic, so malnourished that his ribs showed, among broken wood, sheet rock, exposed nails and insulation.
(Excerpt) Read more at theolathenews.com ...
I don't know what to say.
Life wouldn’t be long enough for this scum bag.
Some people call it a sling blade. I call it a Kaiser blade.
She only got 8 1/2 years? Wow. So, does that mean she will be out in what? A year or two? I wonder if the sentence was so light simply because the child had Down’s Syndrome or if the judge was just very lenient.
looks like 8.5 was the max they could give this POS
” sentenced her to the maximum possible 8 1/2 years “
Obviously the maximum possible needs to change.
If I live to be 150 yrs. old, I’ll never understand these kinds of people.
My son was a preemie and I agonized over every 4 oz. of his weight. I used to put that poor kid through hell, trying to add ounces on his body.
I’m happy to report he is in his 20’s and eats like a horse.
I know Pete Ruddick and I know it would have rankled him to sentence her to only 8 1/2 years. I hope they can keep the older children together and adopt out the infant. I’m going to go check the ROA on this one.
Wow, the maximum. To starve, imprison a child almost to the point of death and that is the maximum. Words fail me on this one. What else fails me is that she will probably get custody of the kids again with a “parenting” class or something like that.
They probably should have charged her with a more serious crime. Then the maximum would have been higher.
What a despicable human being, if you can call her human. 8.5 years doesn’t seem long enough. She should be fixed so she can’t torture any more children and she should get 20 years at least. Oh and for several of those 20 years. I’d give her bread and water only, let her see how she likes it.
I think the judge is just as bad as she is. And should get a few years for his lack of compassion for the child. This is a horrific miscarriage of justice.
and no toilet paper
Sentencing can be limited by statute.
That depends on whether they put her on the same feeding schedule's that was good enough for her son.
Yes I suppose. It seems such a short time for what she did. And the children that were taken away. It’s very possible at some point down the road the state will give them back to her. Either that our the poor kids will stay in limbo the rest of their lives. Being shuffled around by the state from home to home.
In men’s prisons, child abusers tend to be targeted by other prisoners. One would think that in women’s prisons, a child abuser would be in even more danger.
These horrible stories are indirectly used by the left to rail against home schooling or any other scenario where a child is not monitored (”protected”) by the state. Here in NJ that is always the second line in these news stories - “The children weren’t registered in the school district” (and it never because they are really home-schooled by independent-minded folks; it is because the “parent” on welfare simply spends the child’s portion of the welfare check on itself instead of buying clothes, soap, or toothpaste).
WTF is wrong with people?!!! If you don’t like or want your kid, just admit it already and give him/her up for adoption!!!! SOMEONE will take them off your hands.
This woman’s actions are beyond my comprehension.
No mention of a husband or baby-daddy(s).
Those poor kids. After that pitiful sentence, the gov’t will prolly make a huge effort to reunite the ‘family’. The mind boggles.
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.