Caregiver gets conditional sentence for boy's death

[SLM]

The sentence in this case is absolutely disgraceful.

How can she possibly be sorry when she breached a condition of her release and, through more stupidity and/or negligence, caused another death?!!?

Caregiver gets conditional sentence for boy's death
By Tony Blais, QMI Agency

EDMONTON - A charming disabled boy died after his overnight caregiver went to sleep and unplugged a machine monitoring his vital signs because it was “annoying” her.

And on Thursday, Renee Marie Boudreau, 32, was given a two-year conditional sentence to be served in the community after pleading guilty to failing to provide the necessaries of life, thereby endangering his life, and mischief.

A tearful Boudreau also pleaded guilty to breaching a condition of her release following her being charged in the Jan. 9, 2009, death by again working as a caregiver.

In that case, court heard that while she was illegally providing sole care to a quadriplegic man, he suffered severe hot water burns and died eight days later.


Caregiver gets conditional sentence for boy's death - Crime - Canoe.ca

 

[L Gilbert]

Holy crap. Someone needs to be kept away from kids, elderly, and disabled people. Sharp as a bowling ball this one, and the judge doesn't seem much different.

 

[SLM]

Holy crap. Someone needs to be kept away from kids, elderly, and disabled people.

All forms of life really.

Hey, you know a good place for that? Jail.

 

[damngrumpy]

There are people like this that repeat offend doing the same crime and they get almost
nothing, and some poor slob has a few pot plants in the basement and gets a year or
two in jail or under house arrest. I agree there are mitigating circumstances in many
cases that is a given. However the person kills someone and the breach an order doing
the same work they failed so miserably at in the first place. The courts must take into
account mitigating circumstances in cases, but at the end of the day the punishment
must still fit the crime. Some are entitled to another chance in life but not repeat offenders.
There should be a limit to the chances and a tightening up of the circumstances that
awarded the second chance in the first place. What constitutes mitigating circumstance
should be the question

 

[SLM]

There are people like this that repeat offend doing the same crime and they get almost
nothing, and some poor slob has a few pot plants in the basement and gets a year or
two in jail or under house arrest. I agree there are mitigating circumstances in many
cases that is a given. However the person kills someone and the breach an order doing
the same work they failed so miserably at in the first place. The courts must take into
account mitigating circumstances in cases, but at the end of the day the punishment
must still fit the crime. Some are entitled to another chance in life but not repeat offenders.
There should be a limit to the chances and a tightening up of the circumstances that
awarded the second chance in the first place. What constitutes mitigating circumstance
should be the question

What could possibly be the mitigating circumstances here? Her stupidity?

She unplugged a device necessary to monitor his vital signs and then shut off the alarm. All because it was annoying to her and she wanted to sleep on a night shift job that she had taken. Then after this incident, another man under her care suffered severe burns. At some point this "failing to provide the necessities of life" has to give way to depraved indifference if not outright malicious intent to cause harm.

Just how many 'mitigating circumstance' considerations should one person get?

 

[The Old Medic]

Whoever prosecuted her, and the Judge involved iin giving this sentence, should be thrown out of office, have their ability to practice law revoked, and be ridden out of town on a rail, after being tarred and feathered.

And the powers that be wonder why there is NO respect for the "Justice system"?

 

[L Gilbert]

What could possibly be the mitigating circumstances here? Her stupidity?

She unplugged a device necessary to monitor his vital signs and then shut off the alarm. All because it was annoying to her and she wanted to sleep on a night shift job that she had taken. Then after this incident, another man under her care suffered severe burns. At some point this "failing to provide the necessities of life" has to give way to depraved indifference if not outright malicious intent to cause harm.

Just how many 'mitigating circumstance' considerations should one person get?

Exactly. The woman shows chronic incompetence and negligence. That indicates to me that she's just not bright enough to be in control of anyone else's care. Perhaps not even her own (I'm wondering if she's had a psych evaluation).

 

[SLM]

Exactly. The woman shows chronic incompetence and negligence. That indicates to me that she's just not bright enough to be in control of anyone else's care. Perhaps not even her own (I'm wondering if she's had a psych evaluation).

And that's being kind to her and assuming negligence and not malice. I almost wonder if it something weird like Munchausen by Proxy. I know not that specifically because it doesn't quite fit, but some other kind of weird 'deadly Florence Nightengale' thing. I keep getting caught up on the second situation; she took a job illegally as a caregiver after the boy died under her care. I sure as hell wouldn't trust her not to take another caregiver job illegally in the future. Who knows who else is going to die while in or directly related to her care.

There is something really off about this woman. More than just stupidity.

 

[shadowshiv]

This is something that rears it's ugly head far too many times in Canada. People commiting these crimes have no culpability it seems, and have more rights than the victims! It just boggles the mind.

 

[barbiedee]

This is something that rears it's ugly head far too many times in Canada. People commiting these crimes have no culpability it seems, and have more rights than the victims! It just boggles the mind.

She got a slap on the wrist for contributing to the death of this lovely little boy. I want to know why she hasn't been charged for the death of the quadraplegic fellow she boiled to death? The one she was working with while she was forbidden by the courts to work as a caregiver. She scalded the fellow and he died eight days later from his burns. She needs to be held accountable for his death too. And to think this woman was studying to be a nurse! Lord help us all if this is the type of person who is being accepted into nursing programs now. And I think i have some experience here...I've been a nurse for 22 years.

 

[oleoleolanda]

And that's being kind to her and assuming negligence and not malice. I almost wonder if it something weird like Munchausen by Proxy. I know not that specifically because it doesn't quite fit, but some other kind of weird 'deadly Florence Nightengale' thing. I keep getting caught up on the second situation; she took a job illegally as a caregiver after the boy died under her care. I sure as hell wouldn't trust her not to take another caregiver job illegally in the future. Who knows who else is going to die while in or directly related to her care.

There is something really off about this woman. More than just stupidity.

I agree. The existence of healthcare serial killers has been well documented.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Whoever prosecuted her, and the Judge involved iin giving this sentence, should be thrown out of office, have their ability to practice law revoked, and be ridden out of town on a rail, after being tarred and feathered.

And the powers that be wonder why there is NO respect for the "Justice system"?

Since she pleaded guilty, this was probably the doing of the prosecutor wanting a conviction on his sheet rather than the chance of not guilty in a trial. The judge, in 98% of these cases will follow the prosecutors recommendation.

I am wondering how she obtained the second job at caregiver when she criminally failed at the first. And given she did, will the 2nd sentence make any difference at a 3rd attempt?

 

[shadowshiv]

Since she pleaded guilty, this was probably the doing of the prosecutor wanting a conviction on his sheet rather than the chance of not guilty in a trial. The judge, in 98% of these cases will follow the prosecutors recommendation.

I am wondering how she obtained the second job at caregiver when she criminally failed at the first. And given she did, will the 2nd sentence make any difference at a 3rd attempt?

It makes me wonder how thorough a background check is done anymore.