A jury in Division 22 is hearing a felony criminal case, State v. Michael Fullilove and State v. Sionya Haley, involving alleged child abuse where the both defendant-parents are accused of having abused their very young children by feeding them only vegetables. No sugar or fast food. Only vegetables. The kids were restricted to such an extreme vegan diet that it resulted in severe undernourishment and permanent injuries to the kids.
They are both now charged with class B felonies. Charges that carry from 5 to 15 years in prison.
The defendant-parents are representing themselves and have claimed sovereign-citizenship (which the court properly rejected).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
That demonstrates the “mindset,” cognitive abilities, and/or mental health of the parents. In other words, they have significant mental issues. And that is the crux of this case: how do we treat the mentally ill?
The parents weren’t neglectful or abusive in the normal sense. They wrongfully believed, due to their mental issues, that their extreme veganism was actually healthy for their kids. It’s a case of the sovereign-citizen mindset applied to child rearing. Sincere but crazy. And their sincere actions permanently damaged their kids.
The best analogy I can come up with is a parent who learns that drinking water is good for your kids and so they force them to drink so much water they become water-intoxicated, a serious medical condition that can kill you.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318619#water-intoxication-
Fortunately for the children, the state intervened. The children are now in DFS custody, and until the parents demonstrate an understanding and ability to properly nourish their children — which likely may be never — the kids will remain in DFS care.
With the children now safe, it makes one wonder what the goal of the CAO is with prosecuting the parents? These parents were trying to do what is best for their kids. They, due to their own serious mental limitations, hurt their kids. Were these the actions of criminals? Should they go to prison for 5 to 15 years?
The CAO must think so because they brought and unrelentingly continue with this prosecution. And, as a prosecutors ethical duty is to seek justice and not convictions, the CAO must believe that is proper justice to convict the parents. Harsh. Legalistic.
I thought “reform prosecutors” promised something different.
ADDENDUM:
I received blow back from this post by several prosecutors who had all sorts of sound reasons why these parents should be prosecuted and should go to prison.
I think they missed the point of my post.
An “old school” prosecutor, like Jennifer Joyce or Bob McCullough, would certainly believe the solution would be to prosecute and lock up the parents, to both punish them for severely and permanently injuring their kids and to prevent them from further procreation (and potential injury to more children). I get it. And that’s a valid viewpoint.
However, it’s not the “reform prosecutor” viewpoint.
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/FJP_21Principles_FINAL.pdf
https://www.vera.org/projects/reshaping-prosecution-program/learn-more
And that’s the point of my post: is this prosecution consistent with the goals and values of reform prosecution?