Canada - April Halkett for abandoning newborn, Prince Albert, Sask, 2007

WhyaDuck?

Inactive
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
16,776
Reaction score
94
In a relatively quick result, Dawn Halkett, 22, has been found not guilty of child abandonment in a Canadian court after leaving her newborn son in a Wal~Mart toilet after she gave birth suddenly. She claims that she did not know she was pregnant, and thought it was a miscarriage.

I can understand the verdict - I am sure the judge followed the case 100% closer than I did. However, I am rather disappointed that the mother is in frequent contact with the child, and, therefore, I assume, is on track to getting custody of him. Frankly, I think that the child would be better adopted out after such an event, so he can go on to a normal life. Still, I am not privy to all the details - just concerned for the baby.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2009/06/24/halkett-decision.html

(Not sure if there is already a thread on this or not - I searched the forum for "walmart" and, holy hannah, there was a lot. If there is, please let me know, and/or move the thread. TIA.)
 
An article on the original charges and the event:

Saskatchewan woman charged with abandoning baby in toilet
Prince Albert Daily Herald
Published: Friday, August 31 2007

A 21-year-old has been charged with child abandonment in the case of a newborn infant found head-first in a department store toilet.

Police are not releasing the name of the accused until her first court appearance on Sept. 13.

On May 21, staff at the Prince Albert Wal-Mart were alerted by a customer to a "mess" in one of the washroom stalls.

Staff entered the stall and saw a tiny foot sticking out of the toilet, which had been covered in paper towels.

The baby boy was rushed to a hospital and released eight days later. He is now in the care of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band child and family services.

Meanwhile, the woman - believed to be the boy's mother - is facing a single charge of abandoning a child.

More at:
http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=9c55ef41-7951-4315-af14-20233dcf3496
 
It's probably all the law will allow TO charge her with.

There is no law against just being stupid, and a liar.
 
It's probably all the law will allow TO charge her with.

There is no law against just being stupid, and a liar.

How many times have I wished there were?!

However, I really think even leaving a baby you thought was dead lying in a public toilet should be illegal!
 
Isn't there a law against improperly disposing of human remains? If she truly thought the baby was dead, that would be what she was doing.
 
Isn't there a law against improperly disposing of human remains? If she truly thought the baby was dead, that would be what she was doing.

That's what I thought! I guess they decided to let the lesser charges slide.
 
Right! You can't even legally dispose of a family pet on your own property, but I guess you can leave a newborn baby in a toilet in a public place.

Great mother material, there. Can you imagine being that kid, googling yourself as a teen, and finding out this?
 
Right! You can't even legally dispose of a family pet on your own property, but I guess you can leave a newborn baby in a toilet in a public place.

Great mother material, there. Can you imagine being that kid, googling yourself as a teen, and finding out this?

What really concerns me, though, is all the issues this child is likely to have - born months premature to a woman who didn't know she was pregnant (so continued to smoke, drink, do drugs, etc), and then left unconscious in toilet water for a while... I think he needs a real, stable, permanent family with the emotional and financial resources to help him out.

And, yes, finding this out would be a killer. I wonder at what point you'd have this talk with your child - about the time you left them for dead in a toilet.

Awful, all around.
 
I haven't read the article so I apologize in advance but is there anyone who doesn't think this kid will be adopted out under an entirely different name? Although if in 20 years' time they do do a search on their birth mother.. :O
 
I haven't read the article so I apologize in advance but is there anyone who doesn't think this kid will be adopted out under an entirely different name? Although if in 20 years' time they do do a search on their birth mother.. :O

Well, since she was not found guilty of anything, and has had a lot of contact with him while he's been in foster care, I do think she will get him back.

But, yes, if they adopt him out, he'll likely get a whole new name - not that she bothered to name him at all in the first place before running from the bathroom. :(
 
She took the time to cover the toilet with paper towels. I wonder if she even bothered to see if it was a boy or a girl.
 
She took the time to cover the toilet with paper towels. I wonder if she even bothered to see if it was a boy or a girl.

BBM

That line is so sad. She likely didn't.

One thing that bothers me so much with this case: The woman who gave birth to him left him for dead. The Wal~Mart employee, a complete stranger, stopped to pull him out of the bloody, messy toilet to see if he was still alive, and to attempt a resuscitation. A STRANGER did that - his own mother just ditched him. It frankly makes me ill.

I would never, ever leave a baby in such a state, especially without even checking for signs of life.

IMO, she was just hoping he was dead, and figured if she left him, he soon would be anyway.
 
I haven't read the article so I apologize in advance but is there anyone who doesn't think this kid will be adopted out under an entirely different name? Although if in 20 years' time they do do a search on their birth mother.. :O

Finding out as an adult with adult coping skills to frame it in would be much much better than living the life of a child with that label. Kids can be horribly cruel.
 
BBM

That line is so sad. She likely didn't.

One thing that bothers me so much with this case: The woman who gave birth to him left him for dead. The Wal~Mart employee, a complete stranger, stopped to pull him out of the bloody, messy toilet to see if he was still alive, and to attempt a resuscitation. A STRANGER did that - his own mother just ditched him. It frankly makes me ill.

I would never, ever leave a baby in such a state, especially without even checking for signs of life.

IMO, she was just hoping he was dead, and figured if she left him, he soon would be anyway.

Respectfully BBM

I agree. That makes me so sick. I don't CARE if you don't know your pregnant, what you have the baby and decide to just leave??? OBviously she didn't check, she could have done something, and didn't. She's a in my book, sorry.
 
Respectfully BBM

I agree. That makes me so sick. I don't CARE if you don't know your pregnant, what you have the baby and decide to just leave??? OBviously she didn't check, she could have done something, and didn't. She's a in my book, sorry.

Absolutely! Anyone who does something like this should be examined closely for mental problems (or drug abuse, whatever), and never be able to get the child back.
 
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hC39JFNANHgNIjLi-MsUExv33eiwD99CC35O0

The Crown filed an appeal Friday in the case against April Dawn Halkett, 22, who was acquitted on June 24 of one count of child abandonment. Her trial was held in May at Prince Albert Court of Queen's Bench.

In filing the appeal, the Crown said the judge in the case misinterpreted "essential elements" of the charge of child abandonment. Dean Sinclair, the director of appeals with the public prosecutions branch of the Ministry of Justice, said the Crown argued throughout the case that Halkett should have done more to ensure the baby she delivered in the Walmart washroom on May 21, 2007, was alive before she walked out of the store
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
207
Guests online
1,753
Total visitors
1,960

Forum statistics

Threads
589,949
Messages
17,928,072
Members
228,011
Latest member
legalpyro74
Back
Top