Archive for Saturday, January 7, 2006
Mother charged in infant’s death
Change delays father’s hearing
January 7, 2006
Advertisement
A preliminary hearing for a man charged with the murder of his 5-month-old daughter was delayed Friday when the case took a new twist.
The girl's mother was charged Thursday as an accomplice in the death.
Brandi Mae Hendrickson, 24, Lawrence, is accused of aggravated endangering of a child in the death of her daughter, Risha Lafferty, in October 2005. Hendrickson is free on her own recognizance and has been ordered to appear for a preliminary hearing Jan. 26 in Douglas County District Court.
The girl's father, Jay D. Decker, 26, was arrested and charged in October with first-degree murder. He is accused of killing the baby by child abuse. Decker's preliminary hearing was set for Friday before Judge Paula Martin, but prosecutors requested a continuance because of a "problem with a witness." The witness wasn't identified, but Hendrickson was likely to be one of those witnesses.
Dist. Atty. Charles Branson said later that Hendrickson was potentially a witness but the charge against her changed her availability as a witness.
A new hearing was tentatively scheduled for Feb. 17 or March 10. Meanwhile, Decker remains in jail on $250,000 bond. Hendrickson and Decker are not married.
On the morning of Oct. 14, 2005, Lawrence Police and emergency medical crews were called to Decker's apartment at Edgewood Homes, 1600 Haskell Ave. Decker was holding the unresponsive baby in his arms when they arrived, a police spokesman said at the time. Efforts to revive the girl failed.
An autopsy later showed the girl died from physical abuse.
Branson declined to say much about the allegations against Hendrickson.
He did note that the charge against her states that Hendrickson "intentionally and recklessly" caused Risha Lafferty to be placed in a situation in which the child's life or health could be endangered between Oct. 1 and Oct. 14. Prosecutors think Hendrickson knew abuse was taking place, Branson said.
Top ads RSS
- SECURE YOUR FUTURE! High earnings, creative freedom, lifetime security. Reece ...
- LOCAL COMPANY EXPANDING Lawrence company looking for 15/20 people to ...
- LEGAL SECRETARY PART TIME Litigation firm needs experienced person, up ...
- KU Information Services
- Busy, OB/GYN office seeking full time, dependable, organized individual to ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- On the street: What foreign country would you like to travel to? July 6, 2009 · 36 comments
- City working to shut down Lawrence nightclub July 6, 2009 · 20 comments
- Proposed cap-and-trade legislation would mean bigger rate hikes for northern Kansas Westar customers July 6, 2009 · 43 comments
- Should we celebrate freedom of religion on July 4? July 4, 2009 · 34 comments
- Blog: Sarah Palin: With Interest July 4, 2009 · 181 comments
- Blog: Do You Have A Favorite Proverb? July 6, 2009 · 20 comments
- Fourth of July weekend leads to unprecedented crowding at Humane Society July 6, 2009 · 2 comments
- Baby names that are off the beaten path July 6, 2009 · 21 comments
- Couple speak out on transgender issues July 5, 2009 · 65 comments
- Palin to resign as Alaska governor July 3, 2009 · 135 comments
- Oread hotel on schedule for debut in February July 6, 2009
- Former KU coach Jack Mitchell dies July 6, 2009
- Man arrested after Monday morning home invasion July 6, 2009
- Baby names that are off the beaten path July 6, 2009
- Couple speak out on transgender issues July 5, 2009
- Say cheese (or don’t): How to look good in your driver’s license photo July 6, 2009
- Job opportunity July 3, 2009
- Engineering their future: KU camp works to attract girls to science field July 6, 2009
- A new crop of farmer July 5, 2009
- Sheriff's office reviewing July 4 shooting followed by suicide July 6, 2009
7 January 2006
at 8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smitty (Anonymous) says…
I concur. Too many mothers turn a blind eye to the abuse of the children so not to rock the boat in their relationship with an abusive partner.
Co-dependancy at the expense of the defenseless child that perpetuates the violent cycle. Enough of this idea that the women are without power or accountablity in the abuse cycle.
An idea that the battered woman's movement perpetuated. There is enough support in our system for battered women and children that women now need to be held accountable for not removing themselves from the abusive situations.
Both parties are accountable.
8 January 2006
at 9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
katybleu (Anonymous) says…
This had nothing to do with her being abused (that we know of) - However if she was aware that his was abusing the child she should have taken measures to prevent any further abuse. Leaving the baby with him after knowing this certainly places guilt upon her. I disagree with your comment about having a support system that meets the needs for battered women and children - because we do not. The law for one thing does not support abused women - for instance filing an order for the abuser to stay away from the abused is not effective at all. There are not enough homes to house battered women and children and certainly never enough funds to support them. Additionally, it has to do with educating parents in child rearing. It should be a mandatory class in high schools for young adults to take parenting classes.
8 January 2006
at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smitty (Anonymous) says…
We both agree on more than we disagree. There have been positve achievements through the battered woman's movement but the perpetuation of victimhood is a sore point with me. The victim mentality of the women's shelter movement is long over due for a change. The problem with the restraining order isn't the fault of lack of funding for shelters.
If the protection orders are so weak why is there a court advocate in every shelter program? Why are you spending funds and energy on an ineffective method? That incluces national, state and local positons associated with the restraining orders that require large sums of money for administrative salaries. Monies that do not reach the clients for direct services. And by your own statement, an order that is “not effective at all.”
Or what does the court advocate do when the restraining order is woman on woman? They take the word of the first woman who claims to be abused then refuse assistance to the second woman regardless of who abused who. In fact I am aware of a situation where the court advocate stated women don't lie about the abuse so they must automatically be protected by a restraining order. Kinda flys out the window when it is female against female. The way the restraining is now administered only takes away the responsiblity of a woman to take responsiblity for herself and her choices.
Funding…women with children have less problem getting welfare, health care, food stamps, educational and job supports, child care funding, legal support in today's society(quite different than 25-30 years ago). But they must want it enough to use it.
Now back to the children, if a mother is allowing for the abuse of the child then throw the book at her just as fast and hard as the guy. If a couple wants to sell their souls for sex, money, company, drugs, or whatever, then it is their choice. But not at the expense of a vulerable child.
Many other complicating issues though….sexist, biased cops who will not assist a battered woman in order to protect the career of the abusing cop is a problem. Women do not make the same money as men is a problem. Men and women not held to the same standard of accountablity is a problem. Our own police chief and city manager tried to circumvent the state laws on dv to keep lpd Martin on the police force after he was convicted of child abuse. Major local problems that are well hidden from the public eye. Sexism and misogyny systemically exists, yes.
It is a unacceptable that children are victimized, injured or killed.
13 January 2006
at 5:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
girlie04 (Anonymous) says…
well as a close respondent to the case.I'm glad to see that the wheels are turning in the right direction.As in the fact that the mother of Risha is finally being involved in what happened to her! girlie04 (whispers)…….could she have done it all??????? If the prosecution does it's job. The truth and nothing but the truth will come out.
16 January 2006
at 8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
What happened to the idea of “women's rights” to do as they “choose” with their own babies? 'These milk-sucking leaches cause harm to the mother's body and it is the women's right and convenience to get rid of it.'
If she paid the guy, would it make a difference?
29 January 2006
at 4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lizzyp13 (Anonymous) says…
Trust me, “women's rights” has absolutely nothing to do with this case. Oh Brandi…you funny, funny, tricky little girl!!