'Sadistic' carer's sentence cut

Date: 2008-09-26
Source: BBC

A foster mother who abused three children in her care has had her 14-year jail sentence cut by two years.

Eunice Spry, from Tewkesbury, was last year found guilty of 26 accounts of physical and mental abuse as well as perverting the course of justice.

The abuse, which was described in her trial as "sadistic", included forcing sticks down the children's throats.

The High Court in London reviewed the sentence and she will now serve a total of 12 years.

Spry was found guilty of a range of charges from unlawful wounding, cruelty to a person under 16, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, perverting the course of justice and witness intimidation.

Care system

At her trial Judge Simon Darwall-Smith told Spry it was the worst case he had come across in 40 years.

He told her: "Frankly, it's difficult for anyone to understand how any human being could have even contemplated what you did, let alone with the regularity and premeditation you employed."

Following Spry's conviction, Gloucestershire County Council apologised for the "shortcomings" in its care system.

Despite arousing suspicions and causing concern, she persistently kept one step ahead of the agencies who were supposed to be safeguarding the youngsters concerned.

Vital information which could have alerted social workers to the abuse was not shared by the various bodies involved.

1.05
Average: 1.1 (1 vote)

OMFG!! I sit here wanting to

OMFG!! I sit here wanting to say so much and i'm not sure any of it could be printed or released with enormous edit! This woman is obviously very sick and needs the proper care afforded this type of individual. But she also deserves to be punished and the children under her 'care'....should be compensated enormously for the injustice poured upon them by a blind eyed society of do gooders! Fluck the organisations who think that a case is solved once a child is put into a foster home, fluck the authorities for turning away from them once they have them off the books and thank God this man Christopher can find it in his heart and 'self' to go on to some kind of normailty.....She deserves to fry......no she deserves help but she needs to be made to accountable for all of the evil she has put- upon these poor file no's!!! And isn't that what it all comes down to.....file no: 6 or whatever? The system need an overhaul and I...... now need to find a good place to regain my composure because I feel so un nerved by this injustice!

Rights given to the wrong people

In another related article, the opening paragraph begins:

A Jehovah’s Witness who told her three foster children that they were possessed by the Devil

[From:  Jehovah’s Witness tortured foster children ]

The article continues:

Spry, a twice-married single mother with two children of her own, educated the children at home and forced them to lie to doctors and social workers.

One of her foster children, identified only as Child A, was made to stay in a wheelchair for four years so Spry could claim £6,000 compensation for a car accident. She spent the money on a fireplace.

Spry was convicted after a five-week trial during which the three foster children, who are now adults, told how she force-fed them lard, rammed sticks down their throats when they refused and then forced them to eat their own vomit.

Spry claimed she was “horrified” by the accusations and denied the charges.

Some of the reports are misleading, as one piece will suggest all or most of the children in her care were foster children.  However, other reports provide better details:

Spry took the children out of school and ensured that they were never alone with doctors or social workers. She adopted two and became guardian of the third, and social services stopped visiting. The children continued to live in Spry’s vermin-infested house in Gloucester.

[From:  Council 'sorry' for tortured children ]

Interestingly enough, this is the same year and council linked to the Baby P case.  However, no mention of the Spry case  was given when the council announced more social workers would be recruited ( February 24, 2010 ).  And Ofsted's 2011 report, doesn't address the post-adoption problems seen in the Spry case.

To my knowledge, I do not know if Spry received any money from the government in the form of an adoption subsidy.  But I was glad to see at her sentencing, she was ordered to pay costs of £80,000

For the sake of comparison, let's take a look at similarities and differences between this wretched case in the UK and a wretched case in the USA.

Keep in mind, each foster/adoptive parent in the US has been checked, tested, and studied before given foster/adoption agency A-OK approval to parent a child. 

If the stomach and blood pressure allow, please read about Renee Bowman, a single-mother doing her part to help the community and care for children removed from their unfit parents/homes.

Mommy Bowman's story begins with a father's grief:

the woman who adopted his daughter killed her and stashed her body in the freezer of her Maryland home. And he says she could this because the District of Columbia and the Board of Child Care of the United Methodist Church failed to check her background.

[From:  Grieving Father Sues Church and DC ]

In the Bowman case, mummy-dearest received $2400/month to ease the financial hardship that comes with caring for children with "special needs".  Chosen Forever Mom smothered the two older girls, wrapped them, using duct tape, stored them in her freezer, MOVED, and kept the remains with her and a third adopted daughter, who was also abused.  According to one report,  Bowman claimed she tried to return the girl to the adoption agency after she realized she couldn't handle her.  Yet she kept all three in her home.  Two in the freezer, the third, eight years old, had no evidence that she had ever been to school.

And still, payments were paid in the form of adoption subsidies to Rene Bowman. 

Yep.... the D.C. government kept paying $2400/month, even after the older children were killed.

One of the things that disturbed McCarthy [Montgomery County State's Attorney] the most was how visible the back yard of the home in Aspen Hill where the Bowmans lived was, and how police were never able to find a single neighbor who saw any of the children at the house during the two years they lived there.

"No one, no one ever saw these children outside," he said. "As a father of four, I could not imagine that."

He was also troubled by the fact that even with an assault conviction and bankruptcy filing, the District of Columbia adoption agency still allowed Bowman to adopt the three girls.

"The adoption records are sealed, even to us," he said. "So the question becomes, did you find what we found and let her adopt the kids anyway, or did you not find what we found, and why didn't you find it?"

The D.C. social service department has not answered its telephones or returned calls seeking comment for more than a year.

[From:  Prosecutor calls Bowman murder case the worst he has seen ]

No checks are made on parents who receive government issued checks to care for foster/adopted children.

There are no polite words... are there? 

Let me just add this new nifty 2010 tax perk available to Americans who adopt :

 for each dependent child, you can take a $3,650 personal exemption. The more children, the more exemptions you can take. Each personal exemption serves to reduce your income.

Children under age 19 can be claimed as dependents; those under 24 if they are full-time students. Children 24 or older who are full-time students can be claimed provided their income is less than $3,650. Age limits do not apply to disabled children.

[From:  EXTRA CREDIT:  Children can mean additional tax deductions, February 25, 2011 ]

Oh, there are more extra credit perks and points posted in that article, but knowing what some adopters do to get that money from the government, I'm better off not seeing too much because I will lose my freaking mind.

Again, let me repeat the obvious mistake so many make:   No checks are made on parents who receive government issued checks to care for foster/adopted children.

Why not?  It would violate the adult's right to privacy?

Pound Pup Legacy