Judge’s Ruling in Baby Killing

When I was a medical student in Sacramento in the 1970s, I was a member of a multidisciplinary team of professionals who worked hundreds of hours a year attempting to help children who were battered, tortured, and mutilated by people who unfortunately had the biological capability of bearing them.

One particularly disgusting example was a female who had killed one of her children, severely tortured two others, and finally managed to kill a third, who had been sent back into the home by a “compassionate” judge who felt that the biological mother was more valuable than a foster one. This woman was admitted to our hospital in Sacramento to bear another child.

Our child abuse team reacted quickly, obtaining a court order to take the newborn child away. The woman sued, but quickly dropped the case, deciding to move to Nevada and “have all the babies I want.” I felt a profound sense of nausea, sadness, and anger for weeks following that horrible case. The outcome caused one of our social workers to resign--she just couldn’t handle these situations anymore.

I felt the same sense of nausea, sadness, and anger when I read the article regarding Judge Robert R. Fitzgerald’s ruling in the case of Sheryl Lynn Massip’s battering and eventual murder of her infant son (“Judge Clears Mother Who Killed Baby,” Part I, Dec. 24).

From my previous reading about the case, there would appear little doubt that the woman battered and killed her son. A jury of her peers came to this conclusion after a long, and I am sure, emotionally difficult trial. There is little doubt in my mind also that the woman was emotionally distraught when she murdered her baby.

But criminally insane? A much more profound proposition! When I worked as a family physician, I delivered hundreds of babies, and followed these kids and their mothers through the early years of their lives. No murders. A few distraught mothers who needed to talk out their frustrations, but no murders. What happened with Sheryl Lynn Massip?

If Massip was criminally insane, why were the examining psychiatrists and her jurors unable to realize this? In explaining his reasoning, Judge Fitzgerald said, “ . . . I didn’t have any choice but to find her insane. . . . She was bonkers.” Well, judge, I think you had two other fairly obvious choices: First, you could do your job as described by law; you could administer an appropriate sentence based upon the verdict handed down by the jury. A murder conviction demands a murder sentence.

Second, if you truly bought the concept that the defendant was insane on the basis of postpartum depression, and was therefore totally out of control, you could have acted to save the lives of her future babies by ordering that the woman undergo sterilization. If she was truly insane as a result of her postpartum hormonal imbalance, why should she be any less insane with her next baby?

DANIEL S. LEVY, M.D.

Santa Barbara