The Broward County Sun-Sentinel published their report of that news earlier today .. however, they included some additional information from Ellis Rubin, the parents' attorney ..
>>He also said he would seek to have the Andressohns tried separately.<<


?????

More unanswered questions.


Doreen

A Medea/Jason conflict, perhaps?

In Greek mythology, the temptress Medea helped Jason obtain the Golden Fleece. Later, after Jason abandoned her, she killed their sons in order to take revenge on Jason.

We do know the parents did have disagreements over the diet - mommy was a purist; daddy liked steaks and tobacco, too. In separate trials, they can try to shift the blame onto each other.

He can paint her as an extremist; she can paint him as faithless and an abuser.

Once situation may clear up a bit when she kills the child she is pregnant with now.

Hmmm, that's a rather harsh speculation.

I still feel that there are more issues that haven't been explored ... Such as the botched investigations by Dade County child welfare workers in the months and weeks before Woyah's death. Neighbours reported their concerns about the older children not being adequately nourished .. yet the case worker(s) did not do a thorough investigation and did not file a report, even though such a report is required. The case worker and immediate supervisor ended up being fired over this.

It seems to me that a whole lot o' support systems that should've been in place to protect the well-being of the Andressohn children did not work, and they were allowed to fall through the cracks. Who is responsible for that?


Doreen

There have been other cases of "falling through the cracks" and it seems the one's I've read about are mainly in Florida! The recent case of the couple who starved and tortured their adopted children, a case of a 2-yr-old left home alone for days while the mother sat in jail... what gives, I wonder?

Um, Ellis Rubin is defending the parents. How would having them testify against each other help him win his case, which is to prove their innocence?




Doreen

True enough But I for one do not believe anything I read in the news anymore. I've seen how the media twists the facts too often to trust them anymore. I don't trust the courts all that much either, but at least their (official) purpose is to dig out the truth. The media, for the most part, have long since given up on journalistic integrity.

His goal is to have them found not guilty, not to have them found to be innocent.

If they are tried separately:

When mom is tried, she testifies against the dad, who is not defended. 1st jury, packed with moms and feminists, blames dad (who is not on trial) and acquits mom.

When dad is tried, he testifies against the mom, who is not defended. 2nd jury, packed with dads and conservative men, blames mom (who is not on trial) and acquits dad.

from the Miami Herald, Posted on Wed, Sep. 24, 2003

Report faults DCF in baby's death

A call was made to a state abuse hotline four days before the Homestead infant died.

By CAROL MARBIN MILLER

cmarbin~herald.com

Child welfare workers in Miami botched two investigations into reports that the children of Joseph and Lamoy Andressohn were chronically malnourished on a raw-foods diet, including a complaint to the state's abuse hotline received only four days before infant Woyah Andressohn died.

A nine-page internal review of the Department of Children & Families' handling of Woyah's case was obtained at the request of The Herald and other media Tuesday.

The actions of the investigator assigned the case, as well as her supervisor, to ensure the family's ''immediate child safety, were not appropriate,'' the report concludes.

Woyah's parents, facing manslaughter charges, were released on bond Tuesday. They will be allowed only supervised visits with four surviving children, all under 7 years of age, now in the department's care.

''The children are doing very well,'' said Peter D. Coats, an agency spokesman. ``They are eating a wide variety of foods, and they are gaining weight.''

David Howard, a Miami attorney who represents Lamoy Andressohn, reviewed some of the DCF's internal records for the first time Tuesday. He said the reports confirm his client's claim that the Andressohns were unaware their ''live foods'' diet left their children at risk.

''On the prior occasions when DCF was called out [to the Andressohn home], they [DCF] essentially gave the diet a stamp of approval,'' Howard said.

Woyah Andressohn and her four siblings had never been to a doctor.

In their apartment in Homestead, records show, the children witnessed domestic violence between their parents and received physical punishment for bad behavior. One of the children said he watched his parents engage in sexual acts ``all the time.''

Woyah was taken to Homestead Hospital on May 15 after her parents reported she was wheezing and then stopped breathing. At six months, Woyah weighed six pounds, nine ounces, only a few ounces more than her birth weight.

''She was too weak to lift her head, sit without help and in the last three days of her life would roll back her eyes,'' an autopsy report states.

DCF's first contact with the family occurred in February 2002. The death review faults investigators for failing to follow procedure in the case, but all references to the investigation were deleted from the report released Tuesday.

A second report was received on March 4, alleging ``the mother and father have neglected to provide the children with adequate food.''

Lamoy Andressohn told the investigator ``her children are healthy and happy. They never get sick because she has built up their immune system with the food they eat, which is all natural and fresh. . . .It is difficult for others to comprehend that their lifestyle is based on following the laws of nature.''

After consulting with a Child Protection Team official, the investigator concluded the children were at no risk and closed the case with no findings of neglect.

Records show the investigator did not speak to anyone but the family, however.

Two months later, on May 11, another report was received: ``The parents have not been feeding the children adequate food.''

The investigator visited the home the next day. She wrote this observation of one of the children:

``His stomach was bloated and [her extremities were] very skinny.''

Nevertheless, the investigator did not insist that Lamoy Andressohn take the children to a doctor and made no ''diligent attempts'' to see the child most at risk, Woyah.

The investigator, the report states, ``observed the children to be thin, and one had a bloated stomach, a classic sign of malnutrition. Immediate medical care should have been sought for the children.''

''Further,'' the report says, ``the [investigator] never saw the baby, who because of her age alone put her at the highest risk.''

The postmortem also faulted investigators for failing to learn quickly that the family had been the subject of two prior reports that the children were being neglected.

The May 11 hotline report included and address, but no family name. The prior reports would ``have been available if an address search . . . was conducted.''

The investigator and her supervisor were fired by DCF in June.


http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...dressohn&hl=en]


.

Doreen T, an interesting article from September 2003 and we are now into 2005 and the case has not reached a court hearing? This does raise suspicion. Additionally, through sacking those children's caseworkers the department could have 'shot itself in the foot'! Those dismissed caseworkers may, indeed, be loyal to their old employer but they don't have to be, and could become a better witness to the defence. It is all very intriguing!

Duparc, if you go back and read those documents again, you will also discover that parents who fail to obtain necessary medical care for a child, when a reasonable person would have recongnized that there was a problem requiring medical attention, are subject to being charged with negligent homicide if that child dies as a result of their lack of seeking such attention and, in fact, this has happened historically more than once in that state.
In this case, the mother recognized that something was wrong with the child (her stated reason for administering wheat grass enemas was because she believed the child to be 'toxic') and did not seek medical care until it was too late.
So...knowing something is seriously wrong + failing to seek reasonable medical attention + child dies = negligent homicide.

Okay Lisa N, you are clearly not going to rest your case until you are proved right. You say that the law makes reference to a 'reasonable' person but how is 'reasonable' defined? We differ, but, which one of us is the 'reasonable' one? If you are likely to suggest that you are, then I will take issue with you, but, all that serves to do, is to question the term 'reasonable'.

I also happened to note the term, 'common sense' was used but what defines 'common'? Those terms are too general and too ambiguous and are best avoided but, as they are used, it then provides licence to others to make their own interpretation which is hardly good law, and hence the reason for our differences.

Clearly, if this case was referred to the children's welfare department and was investigated and allegations of neglect dismissed then how can those parents be accused of neglect when the professionals dismissed it? Inevitably this will weaken the case for the prosecution.

It does appear that the parents may not have intentionally caused the death of their child and the indication is that the mother, in particular, believed in the health benefit of the diet she was administering. How then can we, as adherents of a not dissimilar style of dieting, condemn those parents? While we are able to discuss aspects of the case we are clearly not in the position to determine guilt or its likelihood. My interest lies in how the case is managed. History does not necessarily create a precedence. Its relevance to this case may be doubtful.

Now, what's the biblical saying that goes something like, 'They who are without guilt may throw the first stone'?

Just because the caseworker was inept and negligent in HER duties, it doesn't mean the parents were innocent.

Exactly, potatofree. Even though the investigator reported, in writing, that at least one of the children appeared to be thin and malnourished (exactly what the family was reported for), she dropped the ball and nothing was done. These observations were made just a few days prior to the infant's death.
3 separate reports that the children appeared malnourished and were not being fed adequate food should not have been taken lightly.



Common sense (which doesn't seem to be all that common any more) would recognize that by 6 months of age a baby should weigh more than a few ounces above its birth weight. Any child development book (widely available at local libraries) will outline normal weight gain and developmental milestones that infants should achieve (and at what ages) if everything is going well. Typically, by 6 months of age a child has doubled their birth weight. By a year, average weight is triple that of the birth weight. Based on that, this child should have weighed in the range of 13 pounds.

Should not the investigator(s) have also been charged with at least being an accessory to the neglect?

Another possibility: the case workers were scapegoats for some larger flaw in Florida's DCF (ie. mismanaged/overworked/underfunded).

Wyv