It turns out that Haleigh Poutre‘s birth mother is trying to get back into her life.  As this Boston Globe story reports:

The birth mother of Haleigh Poutre, the brain-damaged girl at the
center of an end-of-life debate, is demanding that the state Department
of Social Services let her speak publicly about the girl’s condition
after seeing her in the hospital, her lawyer said yesterday.

Allison
Avrett, who gave up custody of Haleigh four years ago, has been allowed
by the DSS to visit Haleigh twice a month since September. At that
point the 11-year-old girl from Westfield, near Springfield, was
allegedly beaten into a coma by her adoptive mother and stepfather.

Wendy
Murphy, a Boston lawyer, said Avrett saw Haleigh on Tuesday at
Franciscan Hospital for Children in Brighton, but under a
”confidentiality agreement" she signed with the DSS last fall, Avrett
is barred from making public statements about the girl’s condition in
return for the privilege of visiting her.

   But let’s remember how Avrett failed Haleigh:

Based on her own admissions, Avrett, who now lives with her husband and
two younger children in Westfield, has had a history with DSS. She was
16 when she gave birth to Haleigh. She was accused of neglecting the
girl while coping with a substance abuse problem. She gave up custody
of Haleigh in 2001 after her former boyfriend was accused by the DSS of
sexually abusing the girl.

    So, she was apparently doing drugs while supposedly caring for her child and, then, put the child in a situation where her "former boyfriend" could sexually abuse her.  OK, there may be some mitigating factors here: Avrett was only 16 when Haleigh was born and, obviously, not well prepared or supported to care for a baby (where were Avrett’s parents in all of this?).  But, we must say that she failed Haleigh and failed seriously.  Indeed, at some level Avrett must recognize this, since she gave Haleigh up for adoption.

    We may never know the full story of Avrett, and we should preserve some compassion for her, but, given the circumstances, before she should be able to come back into Haleigh’s life and influence decisions about her care, she should demonstrate, in actions not simply in words, her commitment to the child.  She says she wants to "speak publicly" about Haleigh.  But before she is allowed to do so, she should take up regular, daily responsibilities for Haleigh’s care.  She should clean that tracheostomy tube (it’s not hard: I do it every day).  She should change her diapers.  She should prepare her food bag.  It is only through actually living our responsibilities, not just talking about them, that we live up to them.  And then we can talk about it. 

Adept Hsia asked about the noble-minded, and the Master said: "Such people act before they speak, then they speak according to their actions.    Analects 2.13

Sam Crane Avatar

Published by

Categories:

3 responses to “Should a Failed Parent get a Second Chance?”

  1. The Rambling Taoist Avatar

    I think you offer a good plan here. I too would want to know if the birth mother is being sincere or if she’s merely looking at a way to garner publicity. I realize that sounds rather cynical, but we live in the kind of world where people will eagerly debase themselves for 15 minutes of fame by going on the Jerry Springer Show.

    Like

  2. EphBlog Avatar

    Living Our Responsibilities

    Professor Sam Crane continues to write with sympathy and insight on the sad case of Haleigh Poutre, whose birth mother Avrett is seeking to regain custody. We may never know the full story of Avrett, and we should preserve some…

    Like

  3. readytovomit Avatar
    readytovomit

    Okay, lemme get this straight. If Haileigh’s mother cleans her trach tube, inserts her food bag and diapers her, she’s “proven” she’s a fit mother? Wow, you sure got some high standards.
    But at the same time, we have to be “cautious” in the critique of a state agency charged with her care who ignored reports of abuse, but rushed to get the legal power over the girl to kill her once the abuse took place? And the ONLY REASON they didn’t get the opportunity to pull the plug is because they were stopped by a court order.
    Mr. Tao, methinks you’ve been at the cooking sherry. Either that, or you get DSS checks.
    Sane people could care less if the reason for the court order was that the abuser sued to stop her from dying. She not only didn’t die (and the DSS didn’t get to murder her), but she GOT BETTER.
    The only thing you’ve proven, Mr. Tao, is that ax-grinders like you, DSS, and the whole host of strange characters in this drama should not EVER, EVER be allowed life-and-death powers over helpless people.
    And what the hell’s the freaking rush to pull the plug? I’ll pay the electric bill for the vent! Sheesh. Our brave new world…filled with relativistic death maniacs like you.
    Whadda douche.

    Like

Leave a comment