LAST week, a woman was found guilty of child endangerment under the Protection of Children Act. The case is interesting on many levels, and reviewing it is not intended to devalue the importance of the judiciary in society, but seeking to spark conversation on issues this society may not be comfortable talking openly about.

According to how the case was presented, last month, the woman was caught throwing her baby on the road and walking away. When a dog tried to grab the baby, who was wrapped in a blanket, the mother turned around and picked up her baby, then later threw the child on the road and walked away.

In the testimony, it was said that the woman has a habit of drinking. On her part, she admitted that she did not want the baby. Her countenance during the proceeding moved from fits of laughter on hearing the testimony against her to imploring the magistrate to “please see with me” when the verdict was announced.

It ought to be said that no child should be denied the right to live a normal life, and have the protection of loving parents or guardians. That being said, the surface examination of the case raises many questions deserving of answers. There is no denying that the woman was guilty of abandoning and endangering the baby, but this behavioural characteristic is inconsistent with what can be described as normal behaviour. And it begs the question: was any evaluation performed to determine the mental state of the accused?

Outside of shouldering responsibility for one’s action, it is also important to ascertain if such action occurred when the person knew better and was capable of doing better. Retributive justice is also designed to bring reform and reintegration in society, after doing the time to lead a normal and productive life. With apparent absence of a medical report or evaluation of the woman’s mental state, two things come to mind: substance abuse and/or postpartum depression.

Prolonged use of alcohol can lead to alcohol dependency, which is substance abuse/mental health, and is often seen in individuals who are trying to treat or mask depressive symptoms. If one is not being treated, such is known to impair judgement and decision-making over time. This needs to be ascertained, or ruled out in the particular case. Postpartum depression is considered a serious population health issue that is often overlooked. And mental illness is often the last thing one thinks of when another is operating outside the norms of behaviours we are accustomed to seeing.

Imagine feeling extremely sad and overwhelmed all by yourself, then add to it someone else who relies on you for everything and takes away your night’s sleep. What would any of us do? Giving up a child to a loved one; leaving them on the road, at a hospital, or in the trash is a phenomenon that has been in existence for ages. One would ask, before judging the mother, is it safer to keep the child in an environment where, for one reason or another, the child could receive adequate care? Or is it more appropriate to give the child to someone else, or place the child where he/she has a chance to be found and brought into a home to be loved and adequately cared for?

It is not the norm for a mother to even think of giving her child to someone else, much less discard that child on the road. When this behaviour is observed, it warrants further investigation as to the circumstances or emotions that led to that action. Where postpartum depression can lead to problematic parenting and potential harm to the infant, when it is identified after evaluation, the disorder has to be treated to restore wellness to the parent and ensure the protection and safety of the child.

Could signs/symptoms have been missed? And shouldn’t the mother be immediately referred for psychiatric evaluation and treatment? With our high suicide rate, couldn’t another approach be tried to ensure that the woman feels safe? Fining someone who may be unable to pay ($100,000 fine, or alternatively three months in jail) may not be the answer to the problem. Wouldn’t it be further traumatizing, if the woman cannot pay, by putting her in jail? This could have been a family member of one of us; and do we want to run the risk of sending a message that we are a community not supportive of our own, or not having an obligation to do the right thing?