Mommy is getting a spanking for biting.

Just the Fax said:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/2044551/#/vid2044551


2nd birthday 3/2006
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/2044715/#/vid2044715

Click to expand...

What a horrible, horrible loss. For what? JLY's selfishness. His irrational anger. And his total and complete lack of care, concern, empathy for the needs of anyone but himself. Mama's boy cared not a whit about robbing his own child of *her* beloved mommy.

Stella5 said:

JMHO, but 2 1/2 year olds rarely have reached gender identification. In their world, everyone is the same and there is not two separate genders. Yes we know Mommy & Daddy, but that's just by words not by gender identification. It's not until much later in their early years that they discover that men and women have different looking sexual organs; and by age 7 they develop the understanding that men and women are infact a lot different physically. CY chose a doll that looked like her Mommy with dark hair, and then a doll that was bigger than mommy with grayish hair that happened to be a woman. In her 2 1/2 year old mind, the gender of the dolls didn't matter. It was the bigger doll giving mommy a spanking for biting that is important. Whoever did this to mommy was bigger & stronger. Whether CY assumed it was for biting, or told it was for biting we'll never know. But at 2 1/2 it's pretty typical to be in trouble for biting another person... so did her little 2 1/2 year old mind rationalize her mothers beating as that? Or was she told that? My only hope is that she will never remember that horrible night.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with this post and have thought this all along. The doll she chose as Mommy had a pony tail. And the other doll had very short puffy hair not much unlike her dads. Also wearing pants and a jacket. To me it was very clear and logical that she chose those two dolls and chose the male looking one as the one doing the hitting. jmo

What was most telling for me is, she never gave any sort of *name* to the second doll. She didn't display any fear or confusion over the second doll. It wasn't a monster or a bad man. Fearful children are usually found hiding under the bed or in a closet, not watching the bad man *spank* mommy.

Children that age also have a distinct understanding between the words 'hit & spank'. A *spank* comes from a parent. A *hit* comes from another child. Someone else. Our children/grandchildren don't come running to us and say 'so & so *spanked* me'. They come running and say Johnny HIT me. Emma HIT me. In all my years as a mother & grandmother, I have never heard any of my children or grandchildren, when one of their siblings or another child they are playing with HITS them, to come running and say they were *spanked*. They always use the word HIT in reference to being HIT. Now if one of them did something wrong, they might say 'Daddy's gonna *SPANK* you when he gets home.' They understand the difference. At school or at home they are told 'NO HITTING!' Not 'no spanking each other.' CY specifically used the term SPANKING. Not bad man was HITTING mommy.

CY used the word *daddy* in the 911 tape when asked by Meredith 'was anyone here last night?' Meredith herself stated, in testimony, CY made references to 'her father'. That fact was never disputed by the defense team. They didn't jump up and cross examine Meredith about that statement during the trial. They could have cross examined her right there on the spot about what CY said to her, but they didn't.

As far as CY not referencing the second doll as *daddy* to the daycare worker. Children that age, most times, will not acknowledge the person they see *hurting* either themselves or someone else. It often times takes years of therapy for them to identify, by name, who did the 'bad stuff'.

As to it being simple child play, the daycare workers testified that CY's behavior after the event had changed. She played by herself. She didn't interact with the other children as she had before the event. She stayed off to herself, remote, distanced.

The actual characteristics of the doll figures don't make much difference to me. Where I have some doubt it in the identification of the figures. One was distinctly identified as the mother figure, yet the other figure is unidentified. The two most prominent figures in a 2 year old's life are the mother and father. Why was the child only able to identify the mother?

Sorry, I don't believe CY was all up in the attack close enough to see any biting. I think that's what she was told by her daddy as to why mommy was getting a spanking. MOO

otto said:

The actual characteristics of the doll figures don't make much difference to me. Where I have some doubt it in the identification of the figures. One was distinctly identified as the mother figure, yet the other figure is unidentified. The two most prominent figures in a 2 year old's life are the mother and father. Why was the child only able to identify the mother?

Click to expand...

It might be a stretch and just a guess, but maybe she didn't want to 'tell on' whoever was hurting her mother and causing the red stuff all over her. She didn't want to be a tattle tale. And maybe in her own mind she didn't want it to be daddy. jmo

otto said:

The actual characteristics of the doll figures don't make much difference to me. Where I have some doubt it in the identification of the figures. One was distinctly identified as the mother figure, yet the other figure is unidentified. The two most prominent figures in a 2 year old's life are the mother and father. Why was the child only able to identify the mother?

Click to expand...

She witnessed an extremely violent event. Usually they don't identify the person who committed the violence *if* that person is someone close to them. The entire event is too traumatizing to them. Their little minds can't accept that someone they loved and trusted did a bad thing. So their minds shut down. Immediately after the event, CY told Meredith about her daddy. Days later....the person spanking mommy became no one. Not bad man, not monster, no one. Ask a child psychologist if that is not quite normal for a young child, to distance themselves from the person they loved, the person they saw. When I say 'distance themselves' I'm referring to emotionally accepting who and what they saw. I fear that CY did NOT get the proper care immediately afterwards, because she was taken away by the young family. Off to Brevard. Certainly not to a child psychologist who would be able to hear what she might have to say. The young family had an interest in keeping her child-chatter from outsiders, hence the extremely strict visitation rules the fisher family had to endure. Never being left alone with CY.

gracielee said:

What a horrible, horrible loss. For what? JLY's selfishness. His irrational anger. And his total and complete lack of care, concern, empathy for the needs of anyone but himself. Mama's boy cared not a whit about robbing his own child of *her* beloved mommy.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. He orphaned both his children right there in that one horrible, horrible act. There is nothing more to say.

gracielee said:

She witnessed an extremely violent event. Usually they don't identify the person who committed the violence *if* that person is someone close to them. The entire event is too traumatizing to them. Their little minds can't accept that someone they loved and trusted did a bad thing. So their minds shut down. Immediately after the event, CY told Meredith about her daddy. Days later....the person spanking mommy became no one. Not bad man, not monster, no one. Ask a child psychologist if that is not quite normal for a young child, to distance themselves from the person they loved, the person they saw. When I say 'distance themselves' I'm referring to emotionally accepting who and what they saw. I fear that CY did NOT get the proper care immediately afterwards, because she was taken away by the young family. Off to Brevard. Certainly not to a child psychologist who would be able to hear what she might have to say. The young family had an interest in keeping her child-chatter from outsiders, hence the extremely strict visitation rules the fisher family had to endure. Never being left alone with CY.

Click to expand...

Do you have some sort of link to support the statement that 2 year olds usually don't identify a person committing violence?

otto said:

Do you have some sort of link to support the statement that 2 year olds usually don't identify a person committing violence?

Click to expand...

No I don't. I have nothing but first hand knowledge and understanding of the psyche of children through years and years of therapy. I don't think I could find *one link* to post here. I would imagine if you would research 'childhood trauma' and 'child psychology' in general you might find an understanding as to how the minds of children in trauma work. One book that helped me a lot was 'Your Inner Child of the Past', but that book is more geared towards an adult's perspective of what happened to them as a child, how they 'stored it away in their mind' and how to deal with those memories now.

I think the general principal of 'children's minds being unable to cope with trauma committed by a person they trust' is a pretty common part of child psychology. If a stranger on the street 'hurts them', and they have a loving, solid, stable family around them, they are far more able to articulate and accept 'who did it'. Because it doesn't effect their security. They still have their secure family unit to fall back on for support. If it's someone who is supposed to love and support them, they become unable to acknowledge who it was *because* without that person, they have no security in their lives. It's why children who are abused often times cover for their abuser because without them, they are left with no one, in their minds, to care for them.

They don't understand the intricacies of custody battles, of extended family units. All they understand is mommy & daddy feed them, clothe them, etc. If mommy & daddy disappear, in their minds, they become ALONE. I remember making it clear to my children at a very early age, that if anything ever happens to mommy & daddy, exactly where they would go, what would happen. "you would go and live with aunt so and so and uncle so and so. Of course I didn't do it in a morbid way. Simply 'should mommy & daddy ever get sick for awhile, you don't have to be afraid because Auntie so & so would come and take care of you.'

gracielee said:

CY used the word *daddy* in the 911 tape when asked by Meredith 'was anyone here last night?' Meredith herself stated, in testimony, CY made references to 'her father'. That fact was never disputed by the defense team. They didn't jump up and cross examine Meredith about that statement during the trial. They could have cross examined her right there on the spot about what CY said to her, but they didn't.

As far as CY not referencing the second doll as *daddy* to the daycare worker. Children that age, most times, will not acknowledge the person they see *hurting* either themselves or someone else. It often times takes years of therapy for them to identify, by name, who did the 'bad stuff'.

As to it being simple child play, the daycare workers testified that CY's behavior after the event had changed. She played by herself. She didn't interact with the other children as she had before the event. She stayed off to herself, remote, distanced.

Click to expand...

As to the DT referencing any of that part of the 911-call testimony, I think they knew well that "Daddy" = dynamite. They absolutely had to stay away from that -- I think the "Daddy do" and/or "Daddy did it" in both places was certainly discernible by JY -- it was his own child; he had heard her speak and say his name hundreds of times, I'm sure. Don't touch that evidence with a 10-foot pole.

And, glee, I agree with your take on CY's acting differently at the Center -- I think the little girl was clearly trying to sort out what she saw that night. Was it a bad dream? Was it another one of her parents' shouting matches? Did Daddy have to spank Mommy for biting somebody?

I well remember when my son was little and we were talking about Daddy being sick with a stomach virus, I think, and my son clearly said, "Well, you're his mommy, too." And that little statement really hit me as to how he looked at the family dynamic at that young age. It gave me such an insight as to his very simple and loving view of his world.

As soon as I heard and saw the Daycare teacher's re-enactment testimony, that's exactly what I thought back on -- my being "his Mommy, too." Again, out of the mouths of babes -- "husband and wife" is not a concept that they can grasp at that age -- it's all "me, mommy, daddy, brother, sister."

Madeleine74 said:

My hope is that if she does remember all or part of that horrible night, she's believed and won't be subject to criticism or suggestions her memories have been planted by others. Bad enough she had to experience that night, it would compound the cruelty if she weren't believed.

Click to expand...

Two interesting research articles:

The Journal of American Academy of Children has a pdf study from 1986 of 16 children who witnessed parental homicide.

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/jacp/article/PIIS0002713809602533/abstract

Society of Research in Child Development report:
children who witness Domestic Violence: the Invisible Victims

http://www.srcd.org/documents/publications/SPR/spr9-3.pdf

borndem said:

As to the DT referencing any of that part of the 911-call testimony, I think they knew well that "Daddy" = dynamite. They absolutely had to stay away from that -- I think the "Daddy do" and/or "Daddy did it" in both places was certainly discernible by JY -- it was his own child; he had heard her speak and say his name hundreds of times, I'm sure. Don't touch that evidence with a 10-foot pole.

And, glee, I agree with your take on CY's acting differently at the Center -- I think the little girl was clearly trying to sort out what she saw that night. Was it a bad dream? Was it another one of her parents' shouting matches? Did Daddy have to spank Mommy for biting somebody?

I well remember when my son was little and we were talking about Daddy being sick with a stomach virus, I think, and my son clearly said, "Well, you're his mommy, too." And that little statement really hit me as to how he looked at the family dynamic at that young age. It gave me such an insight as to his very simple and loving view of his world.

As soon as I heard and saw the Daycare teacher's re-enactment testimony, that's exactly what I thought back on -- my being "his Mommy, too." Again, out of the mouths of babes -- "husband and wife" is not a concept that they can grasp at that age -- it's all "me, mommy, daddy, brother, sister."

Click to expand...

The way the minds of children work is so fascinating, isn't it? I've always been much more comfortable, and found it much more enjoying to work with children. Simply listen to the way their minds work. Your son's remarks are so 'right on'. I remember one of our daughters, when her dadddy's mother was down here staying with us. She was probably around 4 or 5 yrs old at the time. She wanted to do something, can't recall what it was anymore. But she asked her daddy if she could do such & such. And daddy told her NO, a number of times. It was just a low key conversation. No tension or arguing. Just "No, you can't do that right now.' So she finally went back in her bedroom for five or ten minutes. Come to discover, she was *thinking*. Her little mind was working away in an effort to find a way to do what she wanted to do. :fence: We adults were all sitting out in the living room, chatting, visiting, etc. So after that 5 or 10 minutes, daughter comes back out to the living room where the adults were. She went straight up to her visiting grandma and said "Grandma, can I do such & such?" Well, MIL was quite perplexed. She'd heard the whole first 'go-round' with daddy. Grandma said, 'honey, your daddy told you NO, you can't do such and such.' Well, daughter put her little hands on her hips, and in the most authorative voice made the statement "But you are HIS mommy!" Like she could go over daddy's head, to his mommy, and get her way! I mean, we all cracked up laughing. It was so ingenious for a child to figure out the order of authority in her mind. "Since daddy won't let me do it, I'll go to HIS BOSS.' I love kids, love listening to their own way of reasoning. Have my twin grandsons here with me right now in fact. They are six years old, and our conversations are fascinating. :seeya:

terminatrixator said:

Two interesting research articles:

The Journal of American Academy of Children has a pdf study from 1986 of 16 children who witnessed parental homicide.

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/jacp/article/PIIS0002713809602533/abstract

Society of Research in Child Development report:
children who witness Domestic Violence: the Invisible Victims

http://www.srcd.org/documents/publications/SPR/spr9-3.pdf

Click to expand...

From the link: "This study investigated 16 children between the ages of 5 and 10 who had witnessed a parental murder"

Thanks for the links, but there isn't any data in the linked article stating that children aged 2 (or any age) usually don't identify the person committing violence.

otto said:

From the link: "This study investigated 16 children between the ages of 5 and 10 who had witnessed a parental murder"

Thanks for the links, but there isn't any data in the linked article stating that children aged 2 (or any age) usually don't identify the person committing violence.

Click to expand...

Not to be difficult, but I'd prefer my remark to be kept in context. I did not say 'children that age usually don't identify the person committing the violence'.

My statement was:

Originally Posted by gracielee
She witnessed an extremely violent event. Usually they don't identify the person who committed the violence *if* that person is someone close to them. The entire event is too traumatizing to them. Their little minds can't accept that someone they loved and trusted did a bad thing. So their minds shut down. Immediately after the event, CY told Meredith about her daddy. Days later....the person spanking mommy became no one. Not bad man, not monster, no one.

*******

"if that person is someone close to them"

The younger a child is when experiencing trauma, the easier it becomes to dissociate. My own diagnosis, after extensive testing & therapy, is PTSD/DID. Dissociative Identity Disorder.

gracielee said:

Not to be difficult, but I'd prefer my remark to be kept in context. I did not say 'children that age usually don't identify the person committing the violence'.

My statement was:

Originally Posted by gracielee
She witnessed an extremely violent event. Usually they don't identify the person who committed the violence *if* that person is someone close to them. The entire event is too traumatizing to them. Their little minds can't accept that someone they loved and trusted did a bad thing. So their minds shut down. Immediately after the event, CY told Meredith about her daddy. Days later....the person spanking mommy became no one. Not bad man, not monster, no one.

*******

"if that person is someone close to them"

The younger a child is when experiencing trauma, the easier it becomes to dissociate. My own diagnosis, after extensive testing & therapy, is PTSD/DID. Dissociative Identity Disorder.

Click to expand...

The article doesn't say that children of any age (2, 5, or 10) usually don't identify the person committing violence if it is someone close to them, or if it is someone unknown to them.

otto said:

The article doesn't say that children of any age (2, 5, or 10) usually don't identify the person committing violence if it is someone close to them, or if it is someone unknown to them.

Click to expand...

Which is why I suggested to you that one link or one article would not be sufficient to gain an understanding of childhood trauma, the minds of young children, etc. The subject isn't on the same order as 'pop psychology' aka Men Are From Mars etc. The subject of child psychology is involved, intense, and surely a 'not one size fits all' field. The entire field of psychology is extremely diverse, depending upon ones speciality.

gracielee said:

Which is why I suggested to you that one link or one article would not be sufficient to gain an understanding of childhood trauma, the minds of young children, etc. The subject isn't on the same order as 'pop psychology' aka Men Are From Mars etc. The subject of child psychology is involved, intense, and surely a 'not one size fits all' field. The entire field of psychology is extremely diverse, depending upon ones speciality.

Click to expand...

Regardless of the scope of the study of psychology, I do not believe that there is any documentation supporting the claim that 2 year olds do not identify the perpetrator of violence if they have a familial connection to that person.

In fact, I would propose that there is no logical reason for a 2 year old to identify only one party in an altercation if the child had a familial connection to both the victim and the perpertrator of violence. I find it very unusual that only the mother figure was identified when, if the father was present, the father figure should also have been identified. I would go so far as to propose that the perpetrator of violence was not identified by the 2 year old because that person was unknown to the child.

otto said:

Regardless of the scope of the study of psychology, I do not believe that there is any documentation supporting the claim that 2 year olds do not identify the perpetrator of violence if they have a familial connection to that person.

In fact, I would propose that there is no logical reason for a 2 year old to identify only one party in an altercation if the child had a familial connection to both the victim and the perpertrator of violence. I find it very unusual that only the mother figure was identified when, if the father was present, the father figure should also have been identified. I would go so far as to propose that the perpetrator of violence was not identified by the 2 year old because that person was unknown to the child.

Click to expand...

I think the problem here is that it is being suggested or expected that a 2 yr old mind is going to be logical to the standards or comparison of an adult mind. It's been my experience with the children I raised that their thought process, or the way they expressed themselves at that age, is no where near what seemed logical to me. It was downright absurd, amusing, confounding and enlightening at times, but logical to a grown up's, not even close.

The fact of the matter is that CY mentioned in the play acting with the dolls that mommy was getting a spanking for biting. From what I recall, it was not testified to that she specifically pointed to the "mommy" doll and said "this is mommy". It was just understood that it was mommy because of which doll was being hit by the other doll in her playacting. We also know she had asked for the "mommy" doll and was given the bucket for her to pick out whatever she wanted on her own.

Kept within the context of what happened, I see no red flags at all that she did not specifically identify who the other doll represented in her playacting. It seems to me by listening to the testimony of what CY said to the daycare worker that her main focus of her playacting was what was happening to mommy, the spanking and the blood, boo boos everywhere. Her focus was not who was doing the act, thus the brief explanation that was given when asked what she was doing.

She was asked what are you doing, she answered the question. If she had been asked who is that you are playing with, I think at that point she would have introduced to the daycare worker who the two dolls were in her mind. However, that is not what she was ask. She was asked, what are you doing.

IMO