No, you are negligent. That's still shirking your parental responsibilities, I'm not suggesting it isn't. But it's not equivalent to starving your kid or wrapping them up in barbes wire and keeping them in a closet, for example, which are also not beatings but are abuse. Clearly.
Yes the parents are reaponsible, but because they broke the law in buying him that gun and letting him walk around in public with it unsupervised, as per MI state law.
I'm not convinced the failure to get him mental help is a significant factor here any more than the mom's affairs.
I say that on two fronts.
Firstly, I think Patsy is right, if there was no help to be had, they're not responsible for failing tonprivide something that is not available. In line with that, even if it was available, could they access it? Do they have insurance? If you don't you can still be held legally responsible to provide care, but the way I'm reading this, that was all on the same day. If you don't have insurance, that's not happening. You're going to have to come up with the money. Then you're going to have to find one that will take you without the "guaranteed payment" of insurance. Lot of providers will not take the uninsured, even if they show up cash in hand. And shrinks aren't cheap.
My second problem with the commentary around mental illness is legal in nature. He was found competent to stand trial and aid in his defense. There's a difference between mental illness like Patsy's son and someone who has, through their own actions and choices fallen down a rabbit hole or condition of mental decline. Right? For example, we still hold drug addicts responsible for murders they commit even if they were out of their head high when they did it. We still hold terrorists responsible for their murders even though they were radicalized around political motivations. Doesn't matter if they got bamboozled by some radical group or not.
Isn't that the case here? Rather than something like schizophrenia?
So if mental illness is not a factor in his defense (or the jury didn't buy it), then why should his mental state have any sway here in the parents' trials? How can it be used against them and not be used for him?
