Everyday Victim Blaming

challenging institutional disbelief around domestic & sexual violence and abuse

“good and loving fathers” do not kill their children

Paul Thomas has been convicted of manslaughter in the death of his 11 month old son Oliver Sargent who died in 2012. Thomas's wife Ashlea was convicted of "causing or allowing the death of her child" and given a two year suspended sentence.

Oliver died in hospital after suffering a severe skull fracture. He also had 13 separate marks on his body. Oliver was also found to have suffered previous injuries including two fractured ribs and a broken collar bone.

Despite the fact that medical evidence clearly demonstrated a pattern of physical violence throughout Oliver's life, Mr Justice Nicholas Green sentencing statements suggested that Thomas killed Oliver "in a moment of unthinking madness" and "that at times, Thomas could be a good and loving father".

Apparently, it's now possible to be a "good and loving" father despite causing your son numerous painful physical injuries and then killing him. One wonders what exactly Oliver, at the age of 11 months, managed to do to cause his father to lose his "temper" due to "a short fuse".

Or, what Justice Nicholas Green definition of a "bad father" would be if he can class a violent man who brutally killed his son as a "good and loving father".

Download this post as PDF? Click here Download PDF

, , , , , , ,

Comments are currently closed.

3 thoughts on ““good and loving fathers” do not kill their children

  • Suzi says:

    Poor child never a chance with parents like these. He was failed in life and failed in death too, poor baby, RIP x

  • Hannah says:

    I note that no commentary is offered regarding Ashlea. However, it would be highly unlikely she would be described as a good and loving mother.

    Yet a man can be convicted of these barbaric, heinous acts and still be “good and loving”

    Something really, truly broken somewhere.

  • Hecuba says:

    Not only do violent men have their premeditated violence perpetrated against their biological children minimalised/excused/justified by mens’ male supremacist but mothers continue to be held partially accountable for the actions/behaviour of their male/ex male partners.

    Mothers are expected to prevent their violent male partner/ex male partner from subjecting her children to violence because mothers supposedly have so much structural power they can magically police their violent male/ex male partner’s behaviour!

    Violent men however continue to have their actions excused/condoned/minimalised because men must on no account be held to blame for their choice and agency when they subject women’s children to violence.

    Women are not responsible for male behaviour -men are the ones accountable.