TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 13 °C Monday 20 May, 2013

Sentence for mother in abuse case welcomed by support group

A 28-year-old woman was sentenced to 16-months for sexually assaulting and exploiting her four-year-old daughter.

THE CARI FOUNDATION, a counselling and therapy service for children affected by sexual abuse, has welcomed a 16-month sentence handed down to a mother for sexually assaulting and exploiting her four-year-old daughter.

Mary Flaherty, chief executive of the organisation, said the custodial sentence highlights that vulnerable children are often not safe in their own homes.

At Dublin’s Circuit Criminal Court yesterday, the 28-year-old mother pleaded guilty to offences which happened in March 2010. She was sentenced to three years but will be jailed for 16 months as the remainder was suspended. The details of the case came to light after a member of the public found a discarded mobile phone and reported its contents, including a video of the young girl with her father who was semi-naked.

“The kind of things that children experience in the family home are as disturbing and harrowing as this,” Flaherty told Morning Ireland. “I think that is why we have drawn attention to this case.”

A lot of people think, perhaps, that the problem has gone away with the closure of institutions…but, in the work we do in CARI, therapy for children affected by sexual abuse, over 60 to 70 per cent are abused by close family members.

She also noted that the incidence of women being involved in abuse cases is about 7 per cent internationally but the foundation believes that this figure is “seriously under-reported”.

According to recent figures from the HSE, the incidence of abuse reports are increasing dramatically and Flaherty hopes that yesterday’s custodial sentence will act “as some form of deterrent”. Although, she remains worried that many similar incidents go unreported

She added that children need to be protected from the ever-increasing sexualised and even pornographic society. “The sentence draws attention to this. We were concerned that it mightn’t be taken so seriously.”

“That is the most we can hope from this,” she continued. “There will always be the kind of person who will take advantage of a vulnerable child but hopefully this is a deterrent.”

Speaking after Judge Martin Nolan made his ruling, Dr Niall Muldoon from CARI said the fact that a mother could be involved in sexual abuse has been ignored for too long.

The family home has always been the greatest place of danger for children and now the added risks of fragmented families and new media in an increasingly sexualised society compound that for vulnerable children, according to Muldoon.

The Irish Times reports that the court heard the woman – who had a serious drink problem – is a low risk for committing sexual offences in the future. She has completed an alcoholic recovery programme, not drank in over 16 months and has lost custody of her daughter.

The judge also believed that she was remorseful for her actions after hearing from Gardaí that she was visibly sickened by the footage when she was shown it back later.

Read next:

Comments (42 Comments)

  • The law is sending out the wrong message..she should have got more and put on the sex offenders list for life..just like what you will give the men..i dont buy that poor woman crap..abuse is abuse..

    Reply
  • Ah, this is another case of madness by our justice system. If it was a male doing this, the sentance would be many times her sentance (& rightly so). Two Romanian lads rob change from parking meters and cause crimianl damage doing so and get 23 months each?????????? How can this woman be so leniently sentanced?? Farcical.

    Reply
  • 16 months?? thats it??

    Reply
  • Should get life in prison.

    Reply
  • 16 months is nothing….although in The Irish Times today they reported that the woman was ‘not the brightest’ had (thankfully) lost custody of the child and was heavily influenced by the child’s father and this had a bearing on the judges decision. I’m not condoning the sentence length in any way and I agree that regardless of gender the punishments should be the same for women and men who are sick enough to abuse children. 16 months is hardly a deterrent……

    Reply
  • Should be 16 years with no parole!, not 16 months!

    Reply
  • The current legislation doesn’t register females as Sex Offenders – this 7% and rising statistic that CARI quote suggests we should amend that ASAP.

    Reply
  • I hate to repeat the same old tired examples but garlic man, and Adam claytons pa…..?

    Reply
  • Irish legislation regarding the sentencing of woman dates as far back as 1908!!! Surely this case again highlights the leniency of sentences handed down to women. Mind you, ud of thought that such legislation would have been immediately changed (this point being highlighted by the trial judge) after the Mother in Roscommon Case was charged with only seven years for the litany of abuse she inflicted on her children. When will this government sit up and realise that children need to be protected at all costs?????

    Reply
  • Kim 17/07/12 #

    16months???? That’s a bloody joke. Shame on the justice system. That poor child.
    Why does it always seam that the law is on the criminals side and the victim is just that a victim of both the offence and the justice system. Disgraceful!!!!!

    Reply
  • Clergy were rightly targeted for their appalling abuse of children. But NINETY SIX per cent of sexual abuse of children is by other than clergy – family, ‘friends’, mentors etc. We kind of lost sight of that

    Reply
  • 16 months …………… 16 years is not long enough and I am tired about hearing about ‘drunk’ an excuse……….. She should be on sex offenders list.

    Reply
  • she should been on the sex offenders register forever, also should have her womb removed, the world doesnt need parents who neglect, abuse or allow others to abuse their children, and 3 years is too little for what was done…so what if she hasnt drank in 16 months, should have done that, and got her own life sorted before she had kids…

    Reply
    • It must be wonderful to live in a perfect world Laura Marie, where people do as they are supposed, don’t muck up their lives and follow a precise plan of action from birth to death. I’m not condoning what this woman did – she has been found guilty in a court of law and must always live with the memory of her actions. However, to suggest she should be sterilised because of it? What gives you the right? I’m not advocating pro-life here, but I am speaking out strongly against any type of enforced surgery – whether it be female circumcision or sertilisation – there are some things that are just wrong..

      Reply
    • Yeah have to agree with Catherine on this. Still feel she should see prison time exending to such a time where as the victim is an adult at least. She robbed this child of her childhood, she should loose 12 to 14yrs of her life in turn. Not 16 months.

      Reply
    • Catherine, i do not live in a perfect world, i have issues like everyone has, i could not nor would not put a child through anything of the sort. Are you seriously telling me that you would not try and sort out every aspect of your life once you found out you were pregnant?
      i dont think a woman who allows a man to sexually abuse, and tapes it being done should be allowed to ever be around kids…she has to live with the memory of it, but what about the child who has to live with the memory of it

      Reply
    • LAURA that’s totally inappropriate without knowing the facts. Indeed I would say that your suggestion is as disturbing as the case itself. The idea that as a punishment you would remove or wish the State to remove the woman’s womb is something that wouldn’t come from a fundamentalist society. You need to check yourself lady.

      Reply
  • Yet again – the judiciary letting everyone down on the sentencing ! ! !

    16 months – that’s a joke

    Reply
  • U need a licence to have a dog, or a tv. Sickening.

    Reply
  • 16 months is way too short but 16 years is probably too much, I’d give her 8 to 10 years.

    Reply
  • Jesus H Christ ! 16 months. What d hell is going on. Is it judges ,lawyers, barristers, social services, lack of prison spaces,appeals court the law or all of the above that’s broken cause this sentence of 16 mths is a f***ing disgrace and somebody needs to b held to account. Im sick to my stomach with this bull s**t.

    Reply
  • Did anyone hear of the 14 boy in England who raped a 4 year old girl and he got community service and nothing about sex offenders list. The whole system is wrong when it comes to sentencing for sexual abuse just look at previous cases you would get a longer sentence for robbing an item of clothing in a shop than you would for robbing a child of their innocence.

    Reply
  • The older I get the more disgusted I become about the world we live in and I will never understand a situation like this.
    Shame in our judicial system.
    Shame on those creatures that commit such disturbing crimes.

    Reply
    • Do we know what was in the footage? NO. So 16 months might be fair might not be.

      I’m of the view however that this time its not far. But I won’t know. Be interesting to hear if the guards were happy with the case or expected more time that would give indication as to the gravity of the footage

      Reply
  • GoGo99 17/07/12 #

    How do all of the “experts” here know if the sentence should be 6 months or six years without having seen or heard the video, or taking into account mitigating circumstances (which are a fundamental part of judicial decisions)?? The low IQ of mob mentality never ceases to amaze me.

    Reply
  • all I know is after seeing the sentence, I will be avoiding any columns by Kevin Myers for a while…..

    Reply
  • It’s hard to know if 16 months is too long or too short. At first glance you see child abuse and immediately want those who hurt a child to burn for it. I read in another few articles that the video was played in court but only the judge saw the actual video and everyone else only heard the audio. They heard adults having some sort of conversation and at some point a little girl laughs. I’m curious what the hell was going on,they didn’t seem to physically hurt the girl but rather play pretend and do things that might look bad on camera. Don’t get me wrong,this is still extremely sick,especially as they were her parents,it’s just that the girl wasn’t physically damaged as far as we know. The father,I’m hoping,is getting a lengthy sentence and removed from the child’s life as clearly,whatever was going on was exploitation and blaming alcohol is ridiculous I think,its trying to remove full responsibility for their actions.

    Reply
    • It is easier to recover from physical hurt than is it from mental hurt. That can live with you for life. 16 months is a disgracfull sentence, she will prob be out in about have that time. You can only imagine what kind of “pretend” play was going on. This poor child is way better off with out parents like them. I just hope she can have a happy life now.

      Reply
  • I do hope she wasn’t allowed to keep the child?….

    Reply
  • How can you say it’s too lenient or too harsh without knowing what happened. It simply said a video of the girl with her father who was partly naked. What does that mean? Not condoning sexual assault but nobody here has a clue whether or not the sentence was too lenient.

    Reply
    • A video in which she was visibly sickened by.
      Did you not read the whole article?
      I agree with the general consensus that it is not a long enough sentence. Also hope the Father is prosecuted.
      Sickening.

      Reply
    • Yes, what actually happened? It’s impossible to say if the sentence is lenient or harsh without knowing that.
      If the woman was sickened by the video afterwards it seems clear that some type of sexual assault took place, but if the crime was playing naked with your children then you’d have to arrest a few thousand Germans on the beaches of Majorca every summer, or trawl through the saunas in respectable health clubs where families and others sauna together, wouldn’t you?

      Reply
  • It was Dublin Circuit Criminal Court, not the Central.n

    Reply

Add New Comment