I find it amusing that you have to keep repeating that the water was cold and the baby already in it.... this child wasn't throwin into a bath of hot water, rather the baby was splashed by scalding hot water that ran out of the tap.
Having said that, the mother should have taken the kiddie out of the bath before she turned on the hot water tap. That, I think, is relatively obvious common sense.

in hind sight, you;re absolutely right


now commonsense:

when you are in the bathtub and the water seems a little cold. You of course get out of the bath, and then warm it up with some hot water, and then you get back in.

what she did was perfectly normal, every one does it.

"the bathwater was cold, and the baby was already in the bathtub. she went to warm up the bath, and scolding hot water came out and burned the baby."

if you pay attention, our "slumlord's lawyer" clearly says that this statement contradicts what she had reported earlier. i'm not a lawyer, but typically if the suspect changes their story, wouldn't that make them unreliable?

secondly, i do not believe the lawyer came on here looking to crucify the young lady in question. she just came on here asking for opinions on what makes a good mother, because, as she stated, she didn't have any kids and wanted to hear some opinions. she didn't come wielding pitchforks and torches wanting to burn this lady on the cross, just a simply inquiry. now, i do have to admit, the assumptions about her being a welfare-sucking mother were a bit harsh and could indeed be wrong. but that in no way means she wants to crucify this mother. it sounds to me like you have a personal vendetta against that assumption, so that's why you are retailating.

"the bathwater was cold, and the baby was already in the bathtub. she went to warm up the bath, and scolding hot water came out and burned the baby."

if you pay attention, our "slumlord's lawyer" clearly says that this statement contradicts what she had reported earlier. i'm not a lawyer, but typically if the suspect changes their story, wouldn't that make them unreliable?

secondly, i do not believe the lawyer came on here looking to crucify the young lady in question. she just came on here asking for opinions on what makes a good mother, because, as she stated, she didn't have any kids and wanted to hear some opinions. she didn't come wielding pitchforks and torches wanting to burn this lady on the cross, just a simply inquiry. now, i do have to admit, the assumptions about her being a welfare-sucking mother were a bit harsh and could indeed be wrong. but that in no way means she wants to crucify this mother. it sounds to me like you have a personal vendetta against that assumption, so that's why you are retailating.

what exactly was the first statement made?

I'd have to know what it was, in order for me to judge whether or not it's contradictory.


The lawyers job is to paint the mother as a bad mother. That's what she is getting paid to do.
(think rape cases that go to trail, and how the prosecuting attorney's job is to paint the victim as a slut that wanted it)
and you're right, when she said that about 3 kids and getting assistance, she kind of gave her intentions away

i'm not sure what the first statement was, i wasn't given that info to my knowledge, and i've just looked back to check again and the lawyer doesn't say, sorry. i was just given the information that it was contradictory. why don't you try asking the lawyer, maybe?

and again, i'll have to disagree with you about the bad mother thing. she didn't come onto this site, and make this thread bad mouthing the mother. she asked a simple question, waiting to get simple answers so she could be more informed. only when did she give some facts, did everyone start bad mouthing the mother. and only after everyone bad mouthed the mother did she start bad mouthing the mother. i assumed that was a result of everyone bad mouthing the mother, so she learned that this wasn't something that happens in everyday households with children. of course, the income comment is stretching it, but once we all start to bad mouth someone, its only a certain time before we will move from one subject of criticizing to another.

i could understand your argument if she immediately came onto this site and said how this mother was a horrible mother because she was young, and stupid and she need to know questions to break this mother down and get her to confess, but she didn't. she simply came on here, asking for a definition of a good mother, because the suspect kept muttering that she was "a good mother" and the lawyer needed a clearer view of what a good mother was to question this statement made by the suspect.

I disagree.
she did bad mouth her.
and she wanted ammo to paint the mother as a bad mother, which in her own opinion the girl is a bad mother, specifically of a lower class than the lawyer, in her mind that is. Its a mind that only looks at success as how much one can hoard (money/resources) in a world of abundance. It's a twisted ego filled world, of high class, low class nonsense. It's a job that does require critical thinking, sure, and she did that very well, she played bloop. and got the desired results. 'a good mother would never put her baby in harms way like that'
and true enough. but the mother is not on trial. The landlord is. Did he turn the water heater up to high, we dont know. neither does the lawyer. I explained how one can easily find this out. The lawyer chooses not to address that, maybe she is busy, and that's okay. I her asked plenty of questions. I'm not on trial either,lol
just said that to be cute ;D
I left a comment. it says "my theory" find that and read that please. It's a good theory as to what probably happened. (might be hard to read, so many typos, sorry) I kept spelling since as scince LOL

well, unless you have met this lawyer in person, you cannot exactly tell what her intentions are. unless she outright tells you exactly what she is planning to do, or you can read her mind via internet, it's impossible to find solid evidence on both accounts. it is possible that you are right, and that she only wants to paint this horrible picture of a mother, but it is also equally possible that i am right and that was not her original intentions. i like to give peopel the benefit of the doubt, but seeing that you are the exact opposite, you like to blame people and stereotype them before you actually know things for sure. you are free to think what you want, but when you start slander and mouth off unknown things, then it crosses the line. i could easily say that you are a bitter person who has nothing better to do with their time than argue pointlessly on an online diary, but since i do not know you and i do not know your intentions, it would be morally wrong for me to accuse you of these things, if you get what i'm saying.

and i don't mean to offend with my example, i don't think you are a bitter person..etc. just used as an example.

yes, I totally stereotype the "slumlord lawyer". I dont know her at all.
and i do apologize for that.
I was just having fun playing detective. I mean no harm.
thanks for the conversation :)

peace

same to you. healthy debates are needed, and i'm glad it didn't have to end in a yelling match.

I don't know about you guys but in my flat, I have my own boiler and I am in charge of my own water temp. I can turn it up mega high or freezing cold. I have problems with it as it is, it goes hot and cold like there is no tomorrow! So I have mine set really high. However, when I put Oscar in the bath I will run it before I put him in. Heck if I burned him I honestly don't know what I would do! I know I would have social services round here asap! (Not through my choice)

The other thing with my boiler and water is, usually I have to run it for a good 3/4 mins before it goes hot. It starts cold, 30seconds later the boiler kicks in, it goes warm, runs like that for 30seconds, goes cold again and finally it will come out at the temp it supposed to.

A good mother is someone who does as much as she can to protect her child. She takes her child out of a house with a father who doesn't want his son and hits her. She goes out and beyond to take her child out of that environment so she can give her child a healthy life style.

Yes, I am venting, but this is so true. I'm talking about my husbands idiot friend who is making me mad lately. I don't care what kind of mother you are, your not a good mother if you stay in a house with a guy like that!

1) when you turn on the hot water, it takes a bit (30 seconds or so?) for the hot water to really kick in. I believe it's a plumbing issue. (ARE THERE ANY PLUMBERS IN THE HOUSE??) Here: I'll draw a diagram!

|water heater| ----------------piping-----------------|faucet|

the piping is usually along the walls/in the walls/on the ceiling/etc. Either which way, they are rarely insulated---especially in a slummy apartment or old housing.

2) she's obviously a good mother because she's laying down the law! the child (obviously) screamed at the temperature and she showed that she didn't care/hear him. This is a great motherly tactic for small ones. Show that their crying doesn't matter and they won't be whiny bitches later.

3) you should TOTALLY listen to DBG---because he brings up really good points--err. point. and obviously, you should ask him for more advice, because he seems to have lots of experience in this sort of thing!

I've installed countless water heaters, I have my own turned up higher than the recommended. it does take time for the hot water to reach the faucet, you're right.

My theory: scince the baby was already in the tub, and the mother was right there the whole time, and never left. the water seemed to cold. and teh baby was already in the tub. My theory is that scince she just recently had both the cold and the hot water on. This brought the extra hot water in the hot water pipe to teh faucet already. So when she went to warm up the tub a little bit, she wouldn't do that by turning on the cold first, and then the hot water to make sure warmer water comes out, and not teh scolding extra hot water that is already to teh faucet. It's a common mistake. when one wants to make water warmer they would naturally go for the hot water faucet, before the cold. I do believe the mother shares blame, absolutely. However, i do not know teh extent of the injuries, knowing that can prove how high the tempt was set to. or if it was above normal or not.

we just dont know. the lawyer admitted she doesnt know either.

but I'm sorry, I didnt see any sound logic coming from the lawyer at all.
her job is to paint the mother as a bad mother. and she is doing this without even knowing what the facts are!

I'm not saying I condone what this mother did to her child, especially since I don't know the facts of the case. However, while I put my child first and do all that I can to protect him, I remember when I was a new mom last year (he's 16 months old now). And, for the record, let me state that I am 39 years old so it's not like I'm young and immature. lol There was 1 (maybe two?) occassion where I HAD checked the water (with my elbow or inner arm) and it felt fine. But as soon as I put him in, he started screaming. Apparently it was too hot for him...it did not burn his skin because I grabbed him out of it immediately! But, I made the mistake a lot of new parents make. It's hard to know just how sensitive their senses are. Anyway...good luck with the case.

I PRESUME IN THIS CASE THE MOTHER WOULD BE DEFINING GOOD MOTHER AS 'A MOTHER WHO NORMALLY IS VERY CAREFUL TO TAKE GOOD CARE OF HER KIDS AND PROTECT THEM FROM ANY HARM, AND THIS ACCIDENT WAS A ONE-OFF ERROR OF JUDGEMENT RATHER THAN EVIDENCE OF HABITUAL NEGLECT'.