Dis4jb

Neonaticide in a Young Immigrant Woman

Nancy Kaser-Boyd

Jane arrived in the United States from a Pacific Island at the age of 16, some 2 years before she became the focus of a criminal investigation. Her father had immigrated several years before and wished to give his youngest children the educational opportunities that the US provides. Jane grew up in a rural village, far from a city. She only began to learn English when she arrived in the US. She had been attending high school in the Los Angeles area, where she met a boy and fell in love. Her father was her sponsor for immigration, but he had remarried and his new wife did not want his two children living in their crowded apartment. Jane’s father rented a room in a boarding house some 15 miles away. She and her brother were to share one room in the house full of immigrants from their country. The bathroom was down the hall. Jane had little access to her mother, who had stayed behind in their home country. She could text her, and she could call home about twice a month.

No one in Jane’s family knew that she and her boyfriend had begun a sexual relationship, and in her culture this was a violation of religious and social norms. Within months, Jane became pregnant. She told her boyfriend of the pregnancy, and together they began to discuss what they would do when the baby came. Jane thought of names for the baby, and talked excitedly to her boyfriend and to one girlfriend, but she did not get prenatal care. Fearful of her father’s reaction, she hid the pregnancy, wearing big shirts and ignoring questions about why she seemed to be gaining weight.

On a school day at 5 a.m., Jane awoke with excruciating pain in her abdomen. She called her boyfriend, crying. He told her he thought she was having the baby. She said that couldn’t be the case because it wasn’t time. She went to the bathroom and got in the shower. Suddenly she saw the baby’s head emerge from her body.

The whole story of what transpired in that bathroom would not emerge until the forensic evaluation. Jane came to the attention of authorities after her boyfriend’s mother rushed her to the hospital. Her boyfriend had found Jane on the bus, headed toward school, bleeding heavily. He could see she was no longer pregnant, but she seemed too distraught and too weak to answer questions. Once at the hospital, it was quickly apparent to doctors that she had been pregnant and had given birth. Jane was interrogated while still in her hospital bed. The search for the baby then began.

There are many teen pregnancies with children who are unplanned and for whom the mother is ill prepared. However, neonaticide—the killing of a newborn—is quite rare. Neonaticide should be distinguished from infanticide and the killing of older children. Neonaticide is the killing of a child within 24 hours of birth, whereas infanticide is the killing of a child up to 18 months of age. Filicide is all other child-killing. Neonaticide can be further divided into two categories: active neonaticide, or the killing of a newborn as a direct result of violence; and passive neonaticide, the result of negligence directly following the birth (Bonnet, 1993). The incidence of neonaticide is estimated, as there are likely cases that are never discovered. In the United States its prevalence is estimated to be less than 8.0 per 100,000. The incidence is somewhat lower in Europe (Porter & Gavin, 2010). The dynamics of neonaticide are different from those of other forms of child-killing. The typical mother who kills her newborn is young, single, and is a person for whom the pregnancy and birth is shameful or unacceptable (Meyer & Oberman, 2001). This implies that the killing is the result of a purposeful plan. This may not necessarily be the case.

The forensic mental health examination is a necessary step in understanding the specific mental state of a woman who kills her newborn. The first section of this chapter will walk the reader through the forensic examination. The second section will present the prosecution’s case. Although it is presented out of sequence here, it is crucial to hear the challenges to a defense expert’s opinion. The final section will address the issues that became crucial at trial.

The Forensic Psychological Examination

The forensic psychological examination begins with knowledge of forensic psychology ethics. Division 41 of the American Psychological Association has codified rules regarding informed consent, data collection, the weighing of arguments for and against an opinion, and the communication of results and limitations of opinions (Heilbrun, Grisso, & Goldstein, 2009; Heilbrun, Marczyk, & DeMatteo, 2002). The process of data collection starts with a review of the materials accumulated in the police investigation. This usually includes the first call to authorities, the investigation at the scene, the doctors’ reports, and, if the woman allowed herself to be interviewed, a taped interview. Relatives or housemates of the woman may also be interviewed. A review of this information indicated that Jane had told her boyfriend that the baby was born dead. He noted that she was crying, pale, and bleeding heavily. Jane told doctors at the hospital that the baby was born dead. The intake nurse described Jane as very emotional, crying, scared, and impaired. Her emotions seemed labile; she would cry at times, but also smiled and laughed at times with her boyfriend at her bedside.

Police investigators conducted their first interview of Jane from her bedside. They interviewed her in English. She was not given a Miranda Warning because she was not formally “in custody,” a regular practice in the United States. In broken English, Jane told the police that she had not told her father about the pregnancy and that she felt scared about being pregnant. As soon as the coroner completed his examination of the dead baby and told investigators that the baby had died from asphyxia, the police returned to the hospital and questioned her more vigorously, again in English. The interviews are taped, and the forensic psychologist can hear the extent to which Jane can communicate in English. In the second interview with police, Jane admitted that she smothered the baby by putting her hand on the baby’s face. She believed the baby was dead, wrapped it in several plastic bags, and threw it in a dumpster at her residence. The following is the entire section from the police interview that led to her indictment:

Detective:	Was she going to start crying?
Jane:	I was just looking at her. I didn’t know what I’m going to do, and I’m still studying [that is, she is still in school].
Detective:	You have a report to do?
Jane:	No. I can’t care for her.
Detective:	You still have to go to school and you can’t care for her?
Jane:	Yeah, and my dad is going to kick me out, and then what am I going to do?
Detective:	You didn’t think she was going to come that soon, did you?
Jane:	No.
Detective:	Did you put your hand over her mouth?
Jane:	Yeah.
Detective:	So, after the baby was born, you put the hand. How long you think you sat there in the bathtub?
Jane:	I don’t remember because I take [sic] a shower. I don’t know what coming [sic]. I’m trying to stand up, but it very hurts. When I see the baby’s going go out, I sit like just kind of go out and then I see the baby’s just going out, and then I pull it out.
Detective:	And then you started holding her? And then you started thinking about how you’re going to take care of her and that you can’t take care of her?
Jane:	Yeah.
Detective:	And then you put your hand over her mouth?
Jane:	Yeah.
Detective:	Did you think about doing that before she came out?
Jane:	No, I did not. When the baby was going out I was happy. Then I think “What am I going to do? I can’t care her.”
Detective:	Did you know you could bring her to a hospital and just leave her?
Jane:	I can’t, ’cause I’m still in the bathroom with the blood.

Jane also said that she thought she was only 4 months along in her pregnancy and felt shocked when she saw the baby’s head emerging from her body. Jane was charged with first degree murder.

A competent forensic psychologist in this case would need two or three bodies of knowledge. She should know the empirical literature on neonaticide. Not all neonaticides are the result of an unwanted baby, deliberately tossed in the trash. The evaluator should know what the research says about the mental state of mothers who have committed neonaticide who have been carefully evaluated. She should know, or learn about, the Island culture from which this woman came. Why is this important? There may be cultural factors that are relevant to her mental state, her ability to make a decision, or to her behavior at the hospital, or with the police. The evaluator must know the legal standards for various exculpatory mental states. While Jane’s account to the police sounded like a deliberate act, even a planned act, this isn’t a “given” until a defendant has participated in a more in-depth psychological examination. If Jane provides information that indicates she had a mental disorder, or a relevant mental state at the time of the act, the forensic evaluator will also need to be proficient at evaluating the possibility of malingering.

Interviewing Jane with an interpreter would be critical. Though Jane had resided in America for 2 years and had been learning English, her English was not good. A criminal conviction can turn on the use of a word. Also, it is often the case that some cultural experiences are not easily described in English, and the native language may have specific words for certain experiences. For example, “running amok” has a very specific meaning that is hard to translate. The interpreter said, at the end of the interview: “Her English is not that good. Also, she can hardly say a whole sentence in Cebuano (her native language). There were quite a few words she would ask me. Simple conversation in English she can do.”

The full forensic mental health assessment of this case included:

· (1) multiple interviews of Jane;

· (2) interviews of her boyfriend [the baby’s father], her father, her brother, and her mother and sister;

· (3) a review of the Discovery in the case. “Discovery” includes materials that rise from the investigation and which are available to both prosecution and defense. In this case, the following were relevant to the forensic mental health examination:

· (a) two police interviews of Jane at the hospital, both conducted in English;

· (b) police interview with the doctor treating Jane;

· (c) police interview with Jane’s high school health teacher;

· (d) police interview with Jane’s best friend;

· (e) police interview with Jane’s boyfriend;

· (f) police interviews with medical personnel at the hospital.

· (4) a review of the literature on neonaticide;

· (5) a review of the literature on Acute Stress Disorder;

· (6) consultation with an expert on the cultural values and beliefs of individuals from Jane’s culture;

· (7) an analysis of the question of malingering.

The last item proved to be the most challenging because Jane could not be given psychological tests that are of significant assistance in evaluating possible malingering. She did not speak and read English, nor possess the degree of acculturation that is necessary to generate a valid Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989), Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991), Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI; Millon, Millon, & Davis, 1994), or other standardized test instruments. Interpreting the items of the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS; Rogers, 1992) into Jane’s native language is not acceptable in a forensic case as an interpreter might lose the intended meaning of the questions and skew the results. An equally important issue was the lack of research with any of these instruments with individuals from her cultural background. This meant that the issue of malingering had to be examined from a rational and practical perspective.