- Joined
- Jan 27, 2010
- Posts
- 71,573
- Reaction score
- 1,221
- Points
- 2,125
- Location
- State Of Confusion
- Website
- wober.net
Mother who killed three disabled children given indefinite hospital order
Do you think her sentence is appropriate for this crime? Why/Why not?
A mother who smothered her three disabled children has been given an indefinite hospital order.
Tania Clarence, 43, wept in the dock at the Old Bailey as the court heard how she smothered her disabled three-year-old twin sons Ben and Max with a nappy before killing their sister Olivia, four, and then attempting suicide.
Clarence, who admitted to manslaughter by diminished responsibility for the killings, was sentenced today to an indefinite hospital order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act, meaning she will not be released from hospital until she has recovered from mental illness.
‘You devoted yourself to providing optimal care for your children, suppressing your feelings of distress and sadness by focusing on their needs,’ said Mr Sweeney.
‘Your increasing distress when witnessing the various medical interventions required, and the constant demands placed upon you in the absence of emotional support from others, entirely overwhelmed your psychological resources.
‘As a result, you suffered a major depressive episode.’
She had given up her job as a graphic designer to care for her children, who suffered from the muscle-weakening condition SMA type 2, and had repeatedly clashed with medical experts on their treatment.
Her investment banker husband Gary had taken their eight-year-old daughter on holiday to South Africa for the Easter holidays when his wife carried out the killings at the family home in New Malden, and said in a statement issued by his solicitor outside the court that ‘lessons need to be learnt’ from the tragedy.
‘Tania’s depression was certainly not assisted by the constant pressure placed on the family by some individuals within the medical profession and social services who could not agree with Tania and Gary Clarence’s stance of prioritising quality of life for their children,’ the solicitor said.
Mr Justice Sweeney stressed that Clarence ‘remains vulnerable to a significant deterioration in her mental health’ and ‘further treatment is going to be required for the foreseeable future.’
Do you think her sentence is appropriate for this crime? Why/Why not?