This just shows how little concern our culture has for children. A judge just said it’s all okey dokey if two kids live with a…child killer. Oh don’t freak out, she only killed the kids because she was stressed out at the time.
The LA Times reports:
She was a Brownie troop leader, a room mother, a Sunday school teacher and almost the definition of an Orange County soccer mom — until she shot her two small daughters to death in 1991 while they slept in their home in Laguna Niguel, Calif.
Kristine Cushing, then 39, said she was the victim of anti-depression medication, a debilitating heart condition and worry over the impending dissolution of her 17-year marriage to former Marine Corps fighter pilot John Cushing Jr. when she shot her daughters, ages 4 and 8, and then attempted to kill herself.
She was found not guilty by reason of insanity and spent four years in a mental hospital. In 2005, California authorities concluded that she posed no risk and granted her an unconditional release.
Fast forward to now: The Cushings are back together, living on Vashon Island in Washington state, and an Oregon woman who married John Cushing four years after the killings has temporarily lost her legal bid to prevent her own teenage sons from living with the couple.
In his ruling, King County Superior Court Judge William Downing said Trisha Conlon, who only recently discovered that Kristine was living in the home, has not proved that Kristine Cushing poses an immediate threat to Conlon’s two boys, ages 13 and 14, though he called for a full investigation to determine an appropriate final order.
So it’s ok if children go live with a child killer? What?
Here’s the thing. I guess the judge’s perspective is that the woman served her time and you can’t hold her past crimes against her. Or something. But how about the fact that she spent just four years inside an institution for killing her kids. Shouldn’t killing your kids be a pretty important crime? Kind of a big deal?
If she was spending her life behind bars we wouldn’t have some moronic judge allowing children to live with her. Lunacy. Absolute lunacy.
August 31, 2011 at 4:54 pm
But nowadays it isn't about what is best for the children but what the parents want.
August 31, 2011 at 4:56 pm
So many cases of completely normal Mom's killing their kids. I'm starting to think it is the anti-depressent meds so many women (and men) are taking. Just wacked out violence from people who never had a violent act in 30/40 years. Doesn't add up. That being said, if someone drugged you up and you did something crazy, should that be held against you for life? Without knowing more details on this case, I'm definitely reserving judement.
August 31, 2011 at 5:16 pm
I have friends and relatives who have suffered from mental illnesses. Some are real nice people, some mean as a snake. Medicines do help to control the illnesses, but the attitudes the suffers had before their illness kicked in are important too. If a person was a nice guy/gal before the disorder kicked in, chances are, he/she will be one when the affliction is brought under control. However, if a person is mean and nasty before his illness kicks in, guess what? He'll still be the same rotten jerk he/she was before.
Another concern of mine is, does this woman have any insight into her illness? Many mentally ill people don't understand that they are sick. These kind of folks tend to ditch their meds and as a result, tragedies that harm the patient and the people around him/her happen.
Is she under any court supervision? Most mental patients who commit a crime like this are usually under court supervision to insure that they stay on some sort of treatment plan. If she isn't on one, the state of Washington have better make sure she gets on one for her sake and the sake of those two boys!
But even if the preceding guildlines are followed, it's no guarantee that this woman won't have a relapse. Even if a patient is on the best medical plan in the world, a relapse can happen. And a relapse, in her case, could be deadly! Absolute lunacy indeed! Scotju
August 31, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Also, step-families are stressful, and step parents are MORE likely to abuse the kids than the natural parents. So if she killed her OWN kids…. why would she be BETTER around step kids? And why is the guy back together with his ex-wife? He doesn't sound like much of a prize either…..
August 31, 2011 at 5:49 pm
I don't understand how they received custody of the boys at all. Neither Cushing is their biological parent.
August 31, 2011 at 5:54 pm
What kind of a man willingly reconnects with the murderess of his children anyway?
August 31, 2011 at 5:55 pm
If she killed her own babies in cold blood and with clear premeditation (she waited for them to fall asleep), it seems clear to me that she didn't just 'snap' out of anger or anxiety or whatever. How can a court rule against the biological mother of those teens? Those kids need to be out of that house yesterday.
August 31, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Trisha Conlon needs to leave the state immediately and not tell anyone where she is going.
August 31, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Well there is a precedent, sort of… After all, abortionists can have children.
August 31, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Well, if she was a man, wore a roman collar and just patted the kid's backs instead of killing them, the judge probably would have ruled that she wasn't allowed to be anywhere near children for the rest of her life.
September 1, 2011 at 4:27 am
Their actual mom's concerns don't mean a thing in light to the murderer´s desires? crazy
September 1, 2011 at 4:37 pm
The article doesn't say that Mr. Cushing is not the biological father of the boys. The Cushings were splitting up in 1991, so the boys could be his. The story doesn't say why the boys' mom doesn't have custody. It could very well be that she is a greater threat to their safety than the murderess, who was drugged up at the time of the crime. There's got to be some reason that she doesn't have custody; most moms don't willingly give up thier kids without a fight.
September 1, 2011 at 5:05 pm
THE GENERATION OF PREDATORS
From the judge who sent the children back to the woman who murdered her children, to the judge who told the child abuser: “I understand you attraction to minors” and sent the abuser back to his job with access to minors, to the judge who accepted the child-rapist’s argument that: “She wanted it”, all are negligent in their duty as persons, citizens and public authorities to protect innocent and virgin children’s civil rights endowed by our Creator, to their life, liberty and their pursuit of Happiness, which is our destiny. As persons, these enablers, accomplices, before and after the fact of a crime, repudiate their civil rights when they reject other’s, especially minor children’s rights. As citizens, they disrespect their own citizenship when they refuse to defend everyone unalienable rights as citizens. As public officials, neglecting their authorized power to promote the common good and defend the general welfare of the public, they are in dereliction of duty and ought to be replaced with persons capable of discharging the duties of representatives, Judges, and caretakers of the laws and statues inscribed in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and its Bill of Rights and of fulfilling the response to the will of the people.
The questions to be asked and to be answered in no evasive way are: Why do you rely upon your own judgment instead of adhering to our founding principles? Why can’t you hear the voice of the people and respond to it in objective service as a public servant, instead of monolith?
The judge who sent the children into harm’s way to a person who it is proven cannot hold her medication, responded only to the litigants in the court case, but not to the general welfare of the community including the minor children who are captives in the situation without recourse to escape and any avenues of safety, because the judge does not know the founding principles of our nation and the law and has no business administering a law to which they are foreign. These judges and administrators must be called to account by the people whom they are appointed to serve.
Mary de Voe