Mother burned at the stake, father eats cake.

What do Moxie, Rusty Yates and my feelings have in common?

Moxie's post about the Morphing Into Mama debacle (and, yes, I'm now calling it a debacle, I'd tell you more about that but this post isn't about that) focused a bit on a woman's role in parenting and family and how much of that success (or failure) falls on her shoulders.

Then there's Rusty Yates who got remarried this last weekend just two days before his now, ex-wife goes on a second trial for the horrifying murders of their five children.

Then there's my feelings and my feelings have no handy link. I cringed when I read this minister's statement saying, "Yates chose to move on with his life while resisting temptation to pity himself or seek revenge on people who may have wronged him."

Was Rusty Yates wronged? Or did he wrong others?

This is the question that haunts me. Seeing Andrea Yates on trial bothers me in a vague way, not because I don't think she has responsibility for what she did. But because I wonder where the children's father is in all this.

Parenthood is a partnership and sometimes it seems that so much of the success of a family falls squarely on a mother's shoulders. Not in every situation obviously, but there are some fathers who are awfully removed from what is happening at home as they do their very hard work making enough money to keep the family working.

I just wonder where Rusty Yates' responsibility ends.

I don't know him or Andrea Yates. I don't know what he did or did not do to help his wife and the mother of his children. Andrea Yates must answer for her actions, psychotic or not....five children are dead.

But I wonder where Rusty Yates responsibility is in this tragedy and it bothers me that he has been able to walk away and remarry. Has he answered for his part in the murders of his children?

Obviously I don't know, but it really bothers me in a deep way to see the father in this situation moving forward while the mother is vilified.

Comments

[jill b]

I view this as an absolute tragedy, all the way around.

But why begrudge Rusty for moving forward? What should he do, wait on the sidelines while his wife "gets better?" Do you believe he could have prevented the murders of his children somehow? I'm not sure I do.

Obviously none of us knows the inside scoop, nor has any one of us spoken to Andrea personally. My perception of her condition is that she is severely mentally ill. My perception is also colored by personal experience. My mom divorced my dad after he was finally [and thankfully] committed to a state institution.

Honestly, to debate this now seems so irrelevant. Those poor kids are gone. That poor woman is gone.

Why not let him be happy? What should he do that would ever serve justice to this situation?

[Melissa Summers]

Something about how he has the ability to move forward doesn't sit well with me.

I do wonder if there was something he could have done. Some men, not all and not necessarily him, escape within their work to get away from the chaos of a home life which is crumbling.

[Wendy Mac]

I am glad to see he is moving forward. There is unfortunately a lot of mental illness in my family, and even suicides as a result. There's always the residual guilt of "I should have done x or I could have done y", but in the end, the truth is the person is sick.

I would think very carefully before saying a family member didn't do enough.

Unless you have seen that very dark side of mental illness, the hospitalizations, the electroshock therapy, and the suicides, it is hard to truly understand how horrible this disease really is, and in the unfortunate reality, there is sometimes very little we can do to help.

Also, being from Houston, I did read in the paper that his wedding date was set long before her trial date, and her trial date has now been postponed until June.

[Winifred Salizar]

I truly do see both sides of this.

My family is wrought with mental illnesses. And really, there is nothing you CAN do to change that person.

However.

There is much you can do to protect you, those you love, and society from those who are suffering.

She was obviously disturbed long before she took action. So I can see how it could appear as if he did little to help her or protect their children.

No, we don't have any idea what went on behind those doors or how good she was a keeping her problems hidden. But we do know she was told to not have anymore kids due to the severity of her post pardom depressive state, and that advice was ignored for whatever reason.

I don't begrudge him his ability to move on. I think it is great, but I DO think he had better have learned a great deal about stepping forward when you feel something is off and taking care of those you love despite how it might hurt others in your family.

and that is my two cents.

[Flydaddy]

His part? From what I understand, he came home and found all of his children dead.

I guess you are saying that maybe there is a chance he could have seen signs, and somehow prevented the tragedy, but that seems an awfully big leap to make from a distance. Especially when the man has been through something that is literally unimaginable to ANY observer. As far as him moving on, I'm no psychiatrist, but maybe that is exactly what somebody would HAVE to do to simply survive something like that.

I'm surprised sometimes at society's ability to exonerate a mother and villify a father in almost any circumstance.

Can you imagine the incredible hatred and outrage if the father had been the murderer? I can almost guarantee you that nobody would be trying to blame the mother who was at work, for the father's murder of her kids...

Believe it or not, sometimes mothers really can do bad things, for whatever reason.

[mom on a wire]

I don't know whether or not him "moving on" is a good thing or not. What I do know is... it is WAY creepy for him to get re-married in the SAME CHURCH WHERE HIS KIDS' FUNERALS WERE HELD.

[MelanieinOrygun]

Oh man.
When my mother died I was twelve. When my dad remarried I was 14. He started dating again oh, about eight months after my mother's death. And yes, indeedy, it chafed. I didn't understand it then, but having seen the same scene replayed over and over again with other males of my acquaintance through the years, I have a broader perspective on it now.
However, coming from a mother's point of view, if my husband had killed (!!!) my two children, and was going on trial for same, I would be oh, two wards over from wherever they were keeping him. I would lose it, flat out lose my shit. It's hard to understand how it can be possible to go on after the deaths of all your kids, but some people just can. I won't venture a guess as to the how or the why of that, or the relative mental health that must entail, but they do manage somehow.
And yeah, it shocked the hell out of me to see that he was going to remarry so quickly, but surprise me? Not so much. (sweeping generalization time) It seems to me that in certain respects, to a certain extent, men need companions in their lives to keep them stable and happy. I can't remember how many umpty-ump years ago it was that Dear Abby or Ann Landers had a big shitstorm in her column for weeks and weeks because of an elderly gentleman who remarried within three months of his wife's death.
Sometimes, people can just do that. I couldn't, but I suppose it takes all kinds.

[Melissa Summers]

Uhm, but I have been up close and personal with all classes of mental illness, hospitalizations and suicides.

No, something about the mothering vs. fathering thing in this case is not sitting well. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way but I do know many fathers who have been emotionally absent as their wives struggle through the responsibility of being 'the' mother.

I just wonder where a father's responsibility ends in surviving ppd.

[Melissa Summers]

Flydaddy: your point is well taken.

Melanie: I don't think it's odd that he remarried so quickly, it's actually not that quick really.

I just feel like the hormones and sometimes psychosis of motherhood leaves mothers to blame. Fathers are able to walk away and that brings into glaring focus for me the difference between mothering and fathering.

[poppymom]

I remember when Yate killed her kids. Many of the news stories brought up that she had a history of mental illness, including post-partum psychosis. Despite this, her husband wanted more children; I wish I could find references to it, but it's been years.

Granted, she could have said no. However, if you have a mother with such a history and a bunch of kids, is it responsible to say, "Hey honey? Let's have a fifth. You can handle it,"? Not in the slightest.

I also wonder about marriage vows in all of this, and what they mean. If I had done something horrible and unthinkable while severely ill, I would hope that my husband wouldn't bail.

No good answers, and it's far too complex to come up with a good way to explain any of it. It's all ugly, pure and simple.

[MelanieinOrygun]

Ack! I re-read, even after preview, and I see lots of holes in what I am trying to say.
:It's hard to see how people can go on SO SOON after the deaths of not one, not two, but all of their kids:
:shocked me to see that he was going to remarry WHILE THIS WAS ALL STILL SO MUCH IN THE SPOTLIGHT, not 'so quickly' - it's been three years:
Okay, I'm done.

[Wendy Mac]

Melissa, I totally see what you're saying about mothering vs. fathering. You're absolutely right that it can happen that the mother is left shouldering the responsibility of the chaos.

I think this is a very complex story. I was glad to see him supporting his wife after the murders- my reaction? I would be so horrified and angry I don't think I would have been able to be as big a person as he was.

As a result, I've always seen him as a good guy who's just trying to put the pieces of a life back together.

It's like the woman who lost both of her children in the Oklahoma City bombing. She had her tubes tied beforehand, had the surgery to reverse, and has gone on to have more children.

It's not that it can replace what was lost, but it's (and someone else said this in the comment) perhaps their way of just surviving the horror.

[midwestgrrl]

Poppymom is right...Andrea Yates had a history of mental illness and while I doubt it was actually this cut and dried...basically she was patted on the head and told to get well soon.

Naturally that's oversimplifying things, I'm sure her family struggled painfully with her illness. However as I recall it was apparent to all that she was MIGHTILY overwhelmed with five children. (Actually I believe she was overwhelmed when there were fewer than five, but whatever.)

Her husband has suffered something I can't comprehend, so I'm not qualified to decide whether it is "okay" for him to move on or not. But yes, I agree with Melissa, it doesn't sit well that Andrea Yates is vilified as a monster while her husband lines up for the dollar dance (or whatever).

My opinion is that there were warning signs this mother had serious problems and a severe illness and it wasn't taken seriously...by her husband...so that is why it leaves a bad taste for me.

[michele]

Maybe my memories of the press coverage about Rusty Yates was somehow tainted by my own biases, but the information that stuck with me was that he was some sort of born-again Christian who did not allow his children to attend school or socialize with the community at large. Andrea and the children were only "allowed" to fraternize with family and church people. He even told her where and when she could shop for food.Her family painted him as overbearing and controlling and painted her as having no voice in family decisions.

I, too, see Flydaddy's point about the apparent bias in the media's portrayal of mothers and fathers. But I think that most of us who are in relationships that are based on mutual respect and that foster an equal stake in decision-making have a tough time trying to envision what her everyday life was like. She had no power in her relationship, spent her days homeschooling and caring for her five young children as well as caretaking a critically ill relative.

Coupled with her hormonal situation and her unstable mental health, it's hard to see Rusty Yates as just a victim here.

[MsShad]

I actually wrote about this in my own blog when you wrote your first one sentence statement and closed comments. In short, he didn't divorce her till 3 years after the murders. It's been another 2 years since then. Whether or not he did or didn't get her the help she needed... and I do believe he tried, but wasn't taken seriously, how many people are able to make the leap from "she's depressed and overwhelmed, hmmmm, that means she's gonna kill the kids"? Who could? How long does he have to live under the cloud of HER act? He's given it 5 years.

As to remarrying in the same church? Maybe it was his church that helped him get thru it. Maybe it was his way of having his children be a part of his new life, just as he would have done had they been still alive. I think it's HORRIBLE for people to judge things of this nature when they have no clue how things like this feel.

[AskMoxie]

She had post-partum psychosis, yet he kept pushing to have more children.

He took the family to a church with a pastor who told Andrea her children's souls were being chased by the Devil.

She was in and out of treatment a couple of tiems before she had their last child.

He knew she was going under but he did nothing to stop it, and kept piling more on her. I'm not sure why people keep arguing that "he didn't know she'd kill the children." What about her? Why didn't he care if she was happy, or even functioning?

He gaslit her, and now he's moving on.

If I were his new wife I'd watch my back.

(FWIW, I'm the child of a person with a serious mood disorder and I have a mood disorder myself.)

Moxie
http://moxie.blogs.com
(posting under my other blog signin)

[MsShad]

How the heck do I get my blog URL in the typepad profile thingy?

[Lisa V]

I too remember all the press coverage about the homeschooling, the histoy of mental illness, the failure of medical professionals to treat her properly, and the fact that she was overwhelmed with this many children. I have heard very little sympathy for Andrea Yates. They were all a victim of this disaster. But just like I think Rusty and Andrea were both victims, I think they were both responsible. Rusty shares in the guilt.

[Lily]

I remember when the news first broke, and the stories that followed in the weeks just after.

I do recall there was the husband, the religion, and the refusal to allow any form of birth control. I seem to recall reports that she was basically begging for help - whether it was for support at home or to at least allow birth control of some sort. He refused.

From what came out of the reports, and I wish I could find the references now but it's been years, her husband basically reduced her to nothing more than a uterus.

Yes, she murdered her children, and for that she will be held accountable. Yet when it all came down she was the one left with all of the responsibility as well as all of the consequences. In reality - he had most of the control, especially when you factor in her diminished mental status.

I don't know if that's where you're going with this Melissa, but the way I see it the husband DID have some responsibility in the situation, and yet he's free to move on and remarry and carry on as if he had absolutely no part in it.

Not to turn the tide of the comments off the topic of your entry, but honestly this - though it may be one example of an extreme - is exactly why it's so important for women to have full reproductive rights and ACCESS to the services to allow them to exercise those rights.

So yeah, it kinda bugs me too.

[spondmom]

I don't think there's any doubt that Andrea Yates is severely mentally ill, and that Rusty Yates had nothing to do with that. Also, from reading the press releases about this case, he tried to get her as much help as they could afford. He, like Andrea, will have to live with this tradgedy for the rest of his life.

That being said, Like Melissa, there is something about this that doesn't sit well with me. She was diagnosed with severe post-pardum depression and mental illness serious enough to require a Haldol prescription. Yet, her husband still urged her to have another child, even when they were told by a doctor that it might cause another psychotic episode. He still allowed (or urged) her to homeschool 5 children, even though she was clearly unstable.

I realize it is impossible to predict another person's actions, especially such heinous actions as Andrea Yates', and no one should expect him to have. And it is painful and difficult to truly be honest about the extent of a loved one's illness. However, the public has pilloried her as a monster, while allowing him a pass. it might be comforting and easy to say that he is just a victim, but the universe is just not that simple.

[Schnozz]

I think the problem with bringing the wedding into it is that this discussion is more about what happened back then than what is happening now, and how society reacted to it. It seems your real concerns are about his treatment of Andrea back then. Maybe Rusty wasn't that considerate. A lot of husbands aren't. A lot of wives aren't. Many people are pretty dense when it comes to what their lifestyle or job is doing to their spouse, even when it's totally obvious to an objective observer. That doesn't make it OK, but it's pretty common, especially in mental-illness cases. Who's worse--the guy who pushes for kids despite a worsening situation, or the woman who lets him talk her into it? Both are pretty equally repugnant and irresponsible to me, and it hardly seems a coincidence that they are together. People like that are magnets for one another.

When it comes right down to it, SHE was sick and SHE killed her kids--mental illness was by far the biggest factor for me. The only issue I really see here is that mental illness has been construed into "evil" by society (I don't think Andrea is evil or a villain at all), but that happens in many crimes, not just those committed by wives and mothers.

Women don't even have to get married or have kids. Stay-at-home dads do exist. While it's true that society does have that women-get-stuck-with-the-kids standard, it's not a law, and we make our own choices about it. If the connection between society's expectations/shoddy spousesmanship and dead kids were that strong, I think we'd have a whole lot more dead kids on our hands than we do. That's not to say the standard isn't a contributing factor, but so are genetics, etc, and it would be pretty difficult to put all of that on trial.

The societal standards of women as caregivers absolutely warrants a discussion, but I feel bad that Rusty had to be the mascot for it based only on what the media has told us (and we all know how reliable that is).

[Shellybean/Michele]

Rusty always struck an odd cord with me. I was angry knowing that he encouraged more children to be bore into an obvious unstable situation. I don't think that this was just a case of a dad not holding up his end of the deal, it goes much deeper. I do feel that it was or should have been a partnership that he was just as responsible for the mental and physical livelihood of the children as well. I always felt that he should have been charged with Abetting/Accessory to murder. I know it's a stretch, but if there's a will there's a way.

I've read some blogs of some women who've got some pretty deep mental problems they could easily become Andrea or someone like her, and having kids pushed them over the edge. Some went into insane asylums; some have had their husbands be househusbands because they can't handle the job alone on top of having babysitters to help them daily. Great if that's what it takes to make the environment loving and a place of encouragement for the children do it. But for god sake, don't have any more kids. I wish someone had told Rusty that, who knows he might have listened.

You know it always bothered all the pictures and movies he put out on the web of the kids. It's like he thrived on the "stardom" at the cost of his kids.

[Mrs X]

I feel much like you do, wildly uneasy. It's not that I begrudge him his right to 'move on' or claim to know just what he feels. But given what we do know, I wonder where his responsibility comes into play.
I don't think anyone is saying that Andrea Yates doesn't deserve to be punished. I think the question at large is when does he have to answer for his role in it?

[Flydaddy]

I hadn't heard about him pressuring her to have more kids than she could already handle. That, if the whole truth, is of course wrong, but I am VERY reluctant to shift much responsibility away from her. I do believe she was very much in need of medical help (duh). I hope my comment above wasn't taken as an attempt to villify her for being mentally ill.
Whatever he did prior to the murders, I still have a very hard time questioning much of anything he has done since. He's a dad who just lost his 5 kids. All bets are off as to how different people would react to something like that, in my opinion. Maybe using the kids' funeral church for his service made him feel as though they were with him, and supportive or something? Who knows what kinds of thoughts would be in your head?

[Heather]

It bothers me too. I hope wife #2 truly knows what she's getting into; but suspect otherwise.

[Motherhooduncensored]

There's many parts to the whole RY situation. You have the notion that she was extremely ILL and obviously (from hearing her past mental health hx) had signs that things were not good - yet he still went away, left her alone, and provided no support for her.

Then there's this notion that's perpetuated by certain mothers that mothering is wonderful, and fabulous - and if you have a hard time - or don't like it at first (or ever), there must be something wrong with you - therefore making it less likely that someone with PPD (or worse) might say anything or ask for help.

And finally, we continue to perpetuate the notion that fathers are not as responsible for the actual parenting duties than we should be. Read Misconceptions (Naomi Wolf) - she talks about how soon-to-be fathers talk in depth about how they will be present-fathers - and yet, when it comes down to it, they work their 60-70hours per week and leave the moms to do the work.

And we allow it. (Not in my home - but I hear about too many women who have to beg their husbands to spend quality time with their kids - and that's not just playing with them, or taking them out for ice cream....).

So, who's to blame then?

I'm not saying it's the fault of women - but I think we need to raise our standards for what we require of dads ~ as well as continue to raise awareness of what really goes on for mothers.

[Melissa Summers]

Mrs X: Exactly.

But then again, maybe he has? Maybe not to the public but maybe he has with God and himself. What do I know really.

[Melissa Summers]

Okay but, M-uncensored. Logan works that many hours because we have kids and as we had kids our expenses shot up and we don't want to lose our house or not eat or more importantly, he doesn't want to lose his job in this market.

I do think the issues you've raised are quite true but I feel for fathers who are often the sole provider for the family finances (like in mine, for the most part).

They're sort of expected to be both and that's not always possible. I don't know what the solution to that is but I know Logan isn't alone in feeling pulled in 2 directions.

To be an involved father for the 2.5 hours he gets to see the kids during the school week and trying to make the money our family needs to make our life work.

[Jen D.]

I have been bothered by him and his lack of responsibility for what happened for years. They were conservative Christians, where the man is considered the boss of the family. They both knew that if she had more kids, Andrea would likely become psychotic again, yet they together chose to have more kids. Obviously, she is not without blame in that decision, but given their family was like that (where the man rules the roost) I think he has some culpability as well. Yes, he suffered because his kids were killed, there is no doubt about that, but he is walking around free and she will be locked up for the rest of her life.

[tammom]

Did ya'll ever think that she had to take drastic measures to get out of her marriage?

[TransplantedCanuck]

I had severe post partum depression myself. I am lucky in that my doctor and my family were both attentive in recognizing the signs before I did. I sought treatment and it saved my life. Really! Fortunately, I never had any thoughts of hurting my baby, but there were times when I considered removing myself from everyone and everything that I knew (not so much suicide as just escaping to somewhere else).

Anyway, my point is that is was a tragic situation. It is impossible to say whether it was preventable. I do remember hearing that Rudy's mother and he never left Paula alone after the birth of the last child. The murders happened shortly after she was alone for the first long period. Clearly, Rudy was probably not a model husband.

I guess this discussion just makes me pause to consider how lucky I was when I went through post partum depression. My family and my husband deserve some thanks from me, I think.

[Motherhooduncensored]

Melissa ~

But aren't we pulled thin as well? We're on the job 24-7??? (I hate that cliche' but it's true) - they get to leave their jobs for the day (for the most part - I'm not generalizing here as I know many can't and have to take work home). When do I get to put my feet up and relax after a long day? I don't - at least not that often.

However, I do understand that the money issue does come into play - and while what we do (as mostly sahms) is valid and priceless, let's face it, it doesn't bring in enough money to sustain the family. BUT, I think that even with women that work outside the home, many contribute to the parenting way more than their husbands - and to them, that's okay.

I think it's a cultural issue - we need to challenge the idea that just because women birth the kids and have a "mothering" instinct (whatever that is) doesn't mean that dads shouldn't be required to be an active part (aside from the work) in their kids' lives. I think that it's quite obvious she was doing the majority of the parenting and whether she was not asking for help, or he was unavailable, this speaks to a bigger issue.

I also think we need to challenge the idea of motherhood. I started my blog because I had a very hard time during the first year (as I know many women do). Everyone would tell me how great it was and I kept asking myself "Why the hell did I do this?" I love my daughter - but I just didn't realize how hard it would be to adjust.

If more people would be willing share (thank goodness for blogs!) their challenges, I think more moms would be willing to ask for help and cry out to someone else. All the stories I've read since my entry to the blog world have really helped me feel more comfortable in my feelings - knowing that you are not alone can be great therapy in and of itself.

I don't think that it's fair in any way that he gets to move on with his life and she is stuck, in prison for the rest of her life - for something that she physically did, yes, - but emotionally - who knows how she got there.

Sorry for my blog post guised as a comment...

[StacyK]

I live in the same area as Rusty and have done a lot of research on the case out of morbid curiosity.
I also have a teensy connection to the case which gave me a lot of insight.
Andrea's doctor that was supposedly treating her at the time of the murders was a TOTALLY CROOKED QUACK of a doctor.
He neglected Andrea in the same manner he neglected my own Aunt.
He likes to bill insurance companies for appointments and examinations he was never even present for, which in turn leads him to prescribe meds and discontinue meds for patients whom he knows very little about.
He took Andrea Yates off of meds that were working for her. She went for a period of time with no psychotic outbreaks or episodes of depression while on a certain drug cocktail. He removed her from those meds, and within a week she broke.

Rusty Yates does hold some responsibility, but I also don't believe he stood idly by and left his children in the care of his very mentally ill wife. He was very involved in her medical care, and arranged it so that she would not be alone with the children. She killed the kids in the ONE HOUR between when Rusty left for work and when her mother was supposed to be at the house to help her with the children.

I'm not saying he's innocent in all of this, but I don't believe he should be held criminally responsible for Andrea's crimes.

[Velma]

I've been mulling this over ever since I read that article, too. Despite my east coast uber-liberal beliefs, it's not that I think he doesn't share in the blame for the situation. He certainly is culpable by not recognizing how much pain his wife was in, or more to the point, by ignoring her illness. Mental illness is horrid, and Andrea Yates obviously needed and deserved more support than she was getting. He (and everyone else in her life, family, fellow church members, etc.) failed her, and failed those kids.

However, he *did* lose his kids in a horrible way, he *did* and still does continue to visit and support his ex-wife. And this is the key thing for me: he is not the one who killed them. From what I've read, I don't like his core beliefs, his actions, or the type of man he signifies to me in general. But I think I shouldn't judge a man who has gone through something so horrific, because you can't know what you would do in a similar situation until you actually ARE in that situation.

[jillpmcd]

I think Rusty Yates makes us uneasy because it is hard to believe that two people can live together in a marriage and one can be so completely unaware of what this other is capable of. And I don't mean murder. Rusty appears to have been completely unaware or unwilling to accept his wife's inability to cope with his (and perhaps her)ideal life. Conservative religion, 5 children - spaced so close, limited outside contact, homeschooling. There are very few adults on this planet that could manage that lifestyle when mentally and physically healthy. She was neither. I think he probably placed way too much faith in God. And now that same God has helped him go on with his life.
Interesting that Paula's defense team is not sueing Rusty, or the dubious docter mentioned in the earlier comment. She is guilty, but she is not alone in that. Those 5 children are not dead by her hands alone. I guess Rusty Yates is content to let God sort all that out in the end. And we are not...maybe that's what bothers you Melissa?

[Pants]

A comment on a tangent that's come up:

If we as a society truly value the equal participation of fathers in raising our children (and I believe that on the whole we give it lip service only), then drastic changes in corporate culture need to be made. Seems to me that a 40 hour work week ought to be sufficient to earn a reasonable wage supporting a middle class family but I know of no one who is able to do that.

[Stepha1202]

I feel like Rusty is guilty in this as well. Not guilty of murder, but guilty of neglect. He knew that his wife was having psychological problems, yet he did not wait for the backup to get to the house before he left for work. If he has a history of mental health in his family, he should know that it cannot be put on hold because, well, the babysitter for mom hasn't arrived yet.

Seriously, if your spouse is so loopy (and I mean mentally ill by that) that he/she could kill someone, I think that you would have a clue about it. Maybe he was in denial. I am sure it was not an easy life for him. But he should have been investigated further.

[Marnie]

Yes, I'm incomfortable too. In a very small part with his ability to just "move on" and leave her behind. But mostly because no one seems to want to hold him accountable. No one has the guts to actually bring charges against him and find him complicit in the murders. Knowing that she was unstable, knowing that she was begging for help, he left her home alone with 5 children every single day. How is that not complicit? How is it that he can't also be tried? Even if he wasn't found guilty - and I suspect he wouldn't be - I think I'd feel much better about the whole thing if *he* had been forced to answer questions and explain himself: explain why they had more children after the doctor told them it was a bad idea; explain why he refused to let the kids go to school or at the very least get part-time help for a harried mother - his wife; explain how much he saw and how much he knew and how much he ignored.

[Motherhooduncensored]

Pants ~ I couldn't agree with you more.

Although, there's a few problems ~ one is that people aren't willing to give up their stuff - two - it's damn expensive to live even without the stuff - and three, if you have to work 70 hours a week to get by, then you have to decide is it really good to be having TONS of kids...

(And I'm not preaching from a beemer and manolos - my husband is in the military and I'm a career woman turned really pisspoor housewife).

We're pretty stuff oriented these days - but if we had to give up cable, internet (I can't believe I'm saying that), and other stuffs (which I have had to do before)so my hubby could be home more then I would.

Here's a great post on this:

http://sweetjuniper.blogspot.com
(The Selfish Parent)

But regardless, the point is - that it doesn't sit well that he's off enjoying his new life (sans kids of course - which is sad) and she's sitting in a jail cell rotting away - with who knows how much therapy and medication.

I'm not looking to blame anyone - just trying to figure out what went wrong.

[merseydotes]

Rusty Yates is not responsible for the death of his children. There was one person holding those kids down in the bathtub, and she has been convicted for her crime.

Rusty Yates is responsible for his wife.

Yes, she was mentally ill. I'm not diminishing that fact. It was not his job, nor within his ability, to make her "better." You cannot force someone to seek help; you cannot force drugs to work.

But, like doctors, his first rule should have been "Do no harm."

My father suffers from bipolar disorder, and through many painful decades, I have finally come to terms with the fact that I can't motivate him to seek help and I can't make therapy/drugs/exercise/whatever work for him. However, I know when he's in a dark place, and I know what pushes his buttons. The one thing I can do for him is to make sure that I'm not piling on when he's depressed.

Rusty piled it on Andrea for sure - forcing more children into the family, isolating the family to a certain degree because of his religious beliefs and assigning her unnecessary responsibilities like homeschooling the kids when they could have gone to public or private school.

Now the question that I think StacyK raises so well is whether the piling on is a CRIME. I don't think it is; otherwise, Rusty would have been charged and tried. So what he's done is really more of a moral wrong.

But how does one pay the price for something like that? Is there one magnificent act of self-flagellation that could absolve him of his wrong? Or must he pay for a certain number of years? Who decides when he's been punished enough?

I don't have any answers, but like you, Melissa, his remarrying makes me uncomfortable. Somehow, I don't think he's been punished enough.

[jeff]

I normally agree with pretty much everything you say, Melissa. And, as a father, I don't disagree that too many fathers get an undeserved pass when it comes to the responsibility of raising children.

That said, the something that makes me uncomfortable about your post is your willingness to judge Yates while admitting that you know nothing about the specifics. It's one thing to wonder whether he bears any responsibility for what happened, and (if so), whether he's atoned for that responsibility. It's quite another to go from wondering to vilification. Just as it's unfair to automatically place blame on mothers, it's unfair to automatically assume that a person who has gone through such tragedy is himself culpable, and has not been adequately "punished" for that culpability. Either find facts suggesting he bears responsibility, or give the guy a break.

[Michelle]

Melissa, I love your blog and read it regularly. Your honestly and self-awareness are always inspirational and engaging.

I'm uncomfortable, however, with assuming that Rusty *has not* "answered in part for the murders of his children." What would that look like from your perspective? What would the evidence be that he has "taken responsibility?" He was in visible in the media immediately after the deaths of his children and over the years obviously grieving but still supportive of his wife and her illness. He still appears to support her visibly.

We don't know the guilt he has about what he did or didn't do to help his wife through her illness, (e.g., having more kids)but having direct experience myself with a couple of people who suffer severe depression (my mother and my ex), I know that you cannot solve those issues for them.

It's been 5 years. Why shouldn't he be allowed to move on? We can't even begin to understand the pain he must suffer daily at such a loss. In the absense of evidence otherwise, who are we to judge?

I think your other point (and perhaps much of what underlies this discussion) is the man's role in parenting. A good discussion for sure. I would love to see it taken out of this context.

THanks again for your great writing and honest thoughts. Michelle

[lwastal]

I've really enjoyed reading this dialouge [thank you Melissa] and it struck up a morbid curiousity in me about this trial, the situation and how it happened. For others interested in knowing more about the Yates' situation here is a link:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0322-02.htm that I think has accurately echoed some commentors thoughts and has some interesting facts in it as well.

[Sarah]

I get the sense that part of what doesn't sit well is that it seems that Andrea has been abandoned, and it's hard to reconcile his need to remarry, with her inabilty to even take a walk in the park. Are you also saying that it feels as if her children died, but his didn't, that she, because of her acts, is the only one to bear this terrible burden?
I remember when I heard that he'd divorced her, I felt utter saddness for her; that after this horrific loss, even if it was because of psychosis, she also lost her life partner.
There seems to be no good, clean ending to this story. It is mess, begginning, middle and end.

[Emily]

Reading the comments to this post has made me want to claw my face off. I think Rusty and the culture in which he lived, or lives, are repulsive. He creeped me out from the beginning of this horrible tragedy. And yes, I am a Christian. Churches like that are a grotesque mockery of my religion. I can't believe people are defending him. I'm pretty sure Melissa wasn't suggesting that he is in any way legally or criminally responsible, just raising questions about the nature of fathering and mothering.

[Melissa Summers]

I never said, implied or even feel that Randy Yates had any criminal responsibility in this situation.

I need to make this clear, so if you're scanning comments...
<<<<<><><><><><><><>>STOP HERE<><><><>><><><><<>><<><><><><><><>

I think, because as I said, I can't know what Randy Yates has gone through emotionally or otherwise. I don't know if he hasn't spent the last five years coming to terms with his responsibility for the way things turned out.

I think, though, that I'm speaking in a general way about the partnership of parenting. That as parents, who joined into that state together, we have a duty to make sure both parties are able to handle things.

Randy Yates, is just a clear example (to me, and I admit I may be wrong) of what happens when we assume our wife can handle it. Or that things will work out.

I'm coming from a place of personal experience, and that is all I"m willing to say at this point.

I'm talking less about the specifics of Randy Yates and more about the general state of a parenting partnership.

[Dorkette]

I agree with others who have said that what Rusty did or did not do is not a crime. Being a negligent spouse and/or parent, in and of itself, had never been punishable by law. It is more of a moral issue. Do I think more should have been done? Yes. Do I know exactly what that "more" is? No.

I think that morally, ethically, Rusty holds some kind of responsibility for his actions and inactions that contributed to the climate that exacerbated Andrea's condition. I would think that Rusty most likely never thought his wife was capable of murder. It appears that he downplayed his wife's issues, to himself and others. Had Rusty been more proactive for his wife (assuming she was incapable of acting on her own behalf)his children would most likely not be dead. But how do we quantify that? What could he have done that exonerate him? Our justice system works in such a way that people cannot be charged and convicted of not having done more than we think they should have. Unless Andrea was hurting or abusing the kids, there was nothing Rusty could have been charged with in association with the children's death.

That being said, I think a *moral* court could have a field day with him.

As far as getting remarried is concerned... yes, I agree it doesn't sit all that well. But I cannot say that anything would. Perhaps we would all feel differently if Rusty HIMSELF claimed some responsibility for the environment which led to the kids' murders. If he said he missed/ignored red flags, that he should/shouldn't have done this or that, that he understood that things could have turned out differently - maybe this would hold him in a different light.

As it stands, though, it's just an all-around tragic situation, and I don't think anyone is eating any cake.... that's more of an OJ Simpson thing, if you ask me.

[Melissa Summers]

Dorkette: I think they had cake at the wedding. No?

[Dorkette]

Melissa: OH, Rusty is already married again? Touche, my dear, touche!

[Marnie]

Actually, being a negligent parent *is* punishable by law in most states. Per findlaw.com "Under state laws, it is a criminal offense for parents and legal guardians to fail to meet children's basic needs, including food, clothing, shelter, medical treatment, and supervision. Such failure constitutes child neglect."

[Dorkette]

Marnie: Yes, neglect is punishable... but can what Rusty did be legally defined as neglect? All of their *basic* needs were met, by the law's definition.

[tiff]

The whole situation is tragic. My theory is that it was reported that Andrea's cycle was off due to medication. Not being cute, I really think she missed a period and thought she might be pregnant again and that sent her over the edge. She was in over her head and was overwhelmed. Not that it excuses killing your children, but she is sick. Hearing things about Rusty and what he would and wouldn't allow for his family makes me sick. He had the chance to escape when he went to work but as we all know as mothers our job never ends. Where was he to offer relief? We can only assume that Andrea's cries for help were not answered. I understand what you are saying Melissa.

[Lena]

If you followed this tragedy when it happened Melissa, then you'll remember that many family members spoke up and said that Rusty pressured Andrea into continuing to have children despite her SEVERE postpartum depression that progressively got WORSE with EACH pregnancy.

Friends were cited as saying she went from a happy healthy woman with no history of depression to a walking zombie after each of her kids.

What did Randy do? The same thing most husbands would do, the same thing MY husband did during my own PPD - he went to work. He had his mother help her. You know, the woman who raised him and his siblings in the 60's and denied herself any emotions. The one who supposedly told Andrea to 'push through it'.

This woman was a VICTIM. Victims victimize. She victimized her poor children. Unfortuntely, Randy got to stand a nice distance away.

[Lena]

I mean "Rusty", not Randy. Now, I'm totally thrown off my soapbox and LAUGHING. (sigh)

[StacyK]

FYI, he met his newest wife through her 21 year old son. So hopefully that means she is old enough that she is done having kids.
Of course it's not a given. Heck, my own mother gave birth to my sister when I was 22, so anything's possible. But I've heard many people I know say they hope Rusty Yates doesn't have any more kids.
Think what you will with that tidbit.

[LB]

Oh I know the Yates story is so painful. Right now I'm bracing myself for this TN woman's story. "They" say she was the "perfect wife." -Whatever that is.

[Michelle]

Wow. Many of these comments me as pretty harsh. Even if it is true that he pressured her to have children when it was obviously a bad idea, thereby contributing to the conditions that led to Andrea murdering her children, isn't the fact that his five children were killed by his wife and their mother, even if it was because of a psychotic break, "punishment" enough?

I'm honestly hearing what people are saying about some of the imbalances of parenting (I'm a mother of 2 children), and I also hear that in many cases it's coming from a personal place, but some of the vitriolic language being aimed at Rusty (which seems based on hearsay) seems really cruel, given the scope of this tragedy.

I wish we were all in the same room to talk about this.

[LeslieH]

I fear that, judging from the harsh words toward Rusty Yates (and Andrea Yates), 'blaming the victim' can be a dangerous path to take.

[MelanieinOrygun]

I don't know that there's a whole lot of blame, or even censure, going on here.
I have to agree that it really doesn't seem fair how much pressure there is on any given mom to be a picture-perfect, capable, gung-ho ready-for-anything kinda gal, and that it takes a hell of a lot more moxie (sorry, moxie, it was the perfect word there) than I've got, to get it perfect every time. I'm disgusted at what Andrea Yates did, but I really don't think I was ever all that many steps removed from doing something desperate myself, when things were awful, I was tired, and everybody kept looking at me like I was an a-hole for whining about my lot in life. Hell, I had it easy, right? All I had to do was lay on the couch and watch Ricki Lake, occasionally burp the kid, and wash a dish or two, right? Right?

[Lin]

I don't know any more than anyone else about this horribly sad event except that I have always had a deep-seated, fundamental discomfort with the husband. Yeah, Andrea killed her kids. But yeah, he is a weird fundamentalist at heart who controlled (I believe on very many levels) just what Andrea Yates could do. She could repeatedly breed, she could stay home and teach all of those children rather than allow them to be polluted by the public school system and she could be godly. While he went to work and called the shots. Guilt? I think he shares it with her and has gotten off scott free and now he's got a pretty new wife.

[Angela]

WOW, I would never have looked at it in that way, which in itself disturbs me a little. Why didn't I? I know when I was sufforing from severe post-partum depression my husband was my saving grace...but what would I have done without him. I would have died. This is honesty at its scariest. Would I have taken my son as well? I don't know, but I know that my husband and my son are still extremly close and I know it is because my husband was my sons only functioning parent for a while. What do women do when they don't have a partner who can step up and take control and help? I am a little sad...WHERE WAS HE?! Good question, thanks for asking it.

[Leslie]

Okay, here's an analogy:

Jane is deathly allergic to shellfish. Throat-swelling, stop-breathing, allergic. Her husband Dick is a shrimper (shrimp fisherman, for your land-lubbers out there). Dick insists that shrimp are their family's livelyhood and Jane should consume shrimp... to set an example, dontcha know.

Jane eats shrimp and stops breathing.

Jane is pregnant.

Is Dick partially responsible for the baby's resulting birth defects that were due to lack of oxygen?

Yes, I know Jane has free will. I also know the incredible pressure a spouse can exert upon one who is already in a compromised position.

I don't think this is a simple case of "moving on"...

[FlippyO]

I haven't read up on the story recently, but I remember reading about it when it happened and thinking Rusty Yates was creepy and facilitated the deaths of the children. I don't particularly care about being "fair" to him. Is he reading here? If suffering through the deaths of his children is "punishment enough", then why isn't it "punishment enough" for Andrea Yates? She was clearly not in her right mind when she killed the kids, but probably is now. Hasn't she suffered enough? No, probably not in most people's eyes. Anyway, I consider him an accessory.

[ethan'smom]

Rusty Yates had just as much responsibility to protect his children as their mother did, granted you pray it's not your own spouse you have to protect your children from. He should have seen the signs of postpartum depression, not to mention her other mental illnesses. It is something to think about how he can walk away from this and move on, both legally and morally, without being held accountable for anything.

[tod]

But she did kill the kids, whatever her mindset was. By law, even if she "wasn't in her right mind" she's going to be tried under the insanity plea. He didn't drown them in the bathtub, and saying that he was an "accessory" to the murder implies that he knew about it beforehand and looked the other way. Are you comfortable accusing him of that?

How the &*# did Rusty "facilitate" the death of his own children? Because he didn't understand the seriousness of his wife's illness? Because he was a "bad" husband who didn't pull his own weight? Welcome to the problems that many, many marriages have in this country.

I think we're treading on scary ground here if that is the assumption you are making. No matter what the issues were in his marriage. No matter what he did or didn't to help her, he didn't kill his children. She did. Sorry, I don't buy this idea that he's ultimately as culplable as her for the crime.

He didn't help, for sure. But he's no different than millions of men or women out there who are in the same situation.

So tell me, what kind of punishment should be in store for him according to your judgment? What would "just" punishment look like to you?

[tod]

Oh for GOD's sake please stop writing about these poor people and get some help for your own sorry selves! Your life might suck but that doesn't mean you know anything about these people and you can't possibly understand what made this woman kill her FIVE CHILDREN and to rewrite her as the innocent party and victim and rewrite him as the evil culprit is just wrong.

[FlippyO]

Oooh, meltdown in 31 minutes. Did I miss something?

No one said Andrea Yates was innocent. Insane at the time of the murders, maybe. Innocent, uh, no.

How the &*# did Rusty "facilitate" the death of his own children? Because he didn't understand the seriousness of his wife's illness? Because he was a "bad" husband who didn't pull his own weight?

Yeah, that's it exactly. Thanks for putting it into words for me.

[tod]

Welcome to marriage.

[Josephine]

Hi, Melissa. I'm a big fan of your writing and this is my first comment on your blog.

After Andrea Yates killed her children, I read an article that listed the medications she was taking for depression, etc. One of the meds was Remeron.

Years ago, I was misdiagnosed with depression. I was on the highest doses of two anti-depressants and then a new doctor added Remeron at bedtime to help me sleep. It caused me to have an auditory hallucination and I went off it the next day.

I've wondered if, in addition to Andrea Yates's mental illness, her meds might have added to her problems. If she didn't tell her husband what she was feeling and experiencing, he could not have predicted her actions.

Perhaps he didn't have experience with mental health issues and, depending on what his church taught, he might have believed her problems were spiritual and not physical.

[Michelle]

Flippy, if being a bad husband means that Rusty facilitated the death of his children,and that he is an "accessory" in your words, then all couples should be tried together when one commits a crime if it comes out that they were in an imperfect marriage.

[Melissa Summers]

And Tod, this is what can happen when a marriage goes so terribly wrong.

Parenting is a partnership and if one person bows out of the responsibilities, very bad things can happen.

Again, I think it's impossible to claim Rusty Yates has a legal obligation to this situation and who knows, perhaps he's haunted by what 'may have been'.

It think it's an important lesson about marriage and parenting as a partnership.

[Michelle]

So the decision has been made that Rusty bowed out of his responsibilities and that Andrea killed the kids because of this and because the marriage had gone terribly wrong? Because honestly that's what I hear you saying here, and I gotta say I think that's really dangerous territory, but I'll bow out of this conversation now, because I don't want to keep beating this point to death.

Now to your point about marriage and parenting as a partnership, I couldn't agree more. It would be wonderful to have a discussion about that!!!

[Melissa Summers]

Michelle, I (personally) wrote this piece as a way to understand why this new marriage of Randy Yates made me feel unsettled.

One of the reasons is the relationship to parenting as a partnership and my own lingering doubts about that particular situation.

I think I've made it clear, repeatedly, that I have *doubts* about Rusty's part in parenting the kids and caring for his wife. I never said I *know* anything about him or his situation.

Often cases in the public eye are used as examples. I'm not emailing Rusty Yates and calling him a baby killer. I'm not wishing him ill. I'm simply evaluating my own feelings and why I'm even having feelings about a case I've only read about and so don't really know anything about.

At the same time the comments of people who have stronger opinions about his guilt or part in the situation have been relatively respectful and intelligent (though Tod's 'Welcome To Marriage' thing is annoying) and so, worthwhile.

[Michelle]

(Breaking my own promise to bow out.) I hear you Melissa. Thanks for responding.

We can agree to disagree on some of the comments being respectful to a guy who's been through something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy (with regards to language like "repulsive" and "accessory" to murder), but I guess this is the kind of thing that brings out really intense feelings, because it obviously hits close to home for some. I understand that. I just wish we could take the conversation away from Rusty and talk about how we are feeling as mothers with regards to issues like parental roles. But maybe its safer to project frustration onto him. (And I say that kindly.)

[TransplantedCanuck]

For me, this type of debate is one of my favorite things about blogs. Melissa started an intelligent discussion by stating her feelings on this subject. I like that most of the responses have been quite civilized -- disagreement is wonderful, if done in the right way. It's nice to see a discussion take off without having to close the comments because of a handful of hateful people.

[Jenorama]

I remember reading about Rusty Yates right after the tragedy. And I remember that I was almost physically ill.

He isolated her in the middle of nowhere, with five kids in what wasn't even a trailer.

He made her home school. Oh, sure, she had a choice in the matter. But did she? In cases like this (a man isolating a woman, a man pushing for more children when his wife is mentallly ill), emotional abuse is almost certainly occurring. Wow, Commenter Jen, that certainly is a strong statement to make about this poor man who lost his five children!

Yes, it is. And I'm sticking by it. I know about emotional abuse from having personally experienced it, and it's not as simple as saying that Andrea Yates could have said no, that she didn't have to live in this trailer, that she didn't have to home school, that she was an adult with choices. That is why it is called emotional abuse.

I don't think she killed her children because her husband isolated her or because her husband wanted more children. She clearly had a psychotic break-- she drowned them, chased some of them down and held their heads under water for the 4-5 minutes it took to kill them, then dressed them in their pajamas and put them in their beds. Then she called her husband and told him.

But she was having a psychotic break. That means that she did not know, in the clear sense that you and I know, what she was doing. She did not know then, and it is not clear on what level she understands it now. She may have killed the childre, but I view her very much as a victim in this tragedy.

The whole situation is a horrible tragedy for everyone concerned. But is Rusty Yates completely innocent? I have the same misgivings as you, Melissa-- sure, he didn't kill the kids, and maybe there was an hour window in which his wife was supposed to be supervised with the kids. But if she was THAT unstable, then why not move her closer to her family as she wanted? Why not get her more support? Why not send the children to school?

I am completely surprised by all of the comments here defending Rusty Yates. Completely stunned. And nodding my head at the ones from people who are completely creeped out by him.

[j3n]

If you read the following urls you will see Rusty had a pretty clear picture of what state of mind Andrea was in from the time they had their first child to the morning she killed them all.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/andrea_yates/5.html
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/andrea_yates/6.html

[lin]

I don't know If you had the chance to watch their story on american justice it's episode 190. It really will give you an insight on their life. She was left alone for an hour from the time rusty had to leave till the time his mom was to come over and keep an eye on her and the children.

[wendyod10]

Something about reading this unsettled me too (Rusty Yates's remarriage, not your post) so I agree with you - I don't begrudge him moving on but I do wonder what went on in that house - it is such a tragedy all around - I felt much the same as you did..

[Marie Freeman]

Yep. This is five wrongs, maybe 6 or 7, depending on how you look at it, in a world of a million wrongs. Since I can do nothing to prevent these particular really bad things that have already happened, I'd rather gonna commit instead, to make tomorrow a better day for someone else. I realize that this may be perceived as a lame idea, however, good lord, what else can I do? Really. What else?

[Rose]

I think it's fair to say that any woman who has experienced PPD, even in a mild form, felt two things upon hearing of the deaths of the Yates children: revulsion and recognition that "it could have happened to us."
"Are you there alone?" by Suzanne O'Malley paints a very different picture of this case. She truly wanted to hate Rusty Yates, but in the end, felt sympathy for him. The author's criticism is turned towards the ineffective delivery of mental health care in this country.

[shame of mental illness]

Speaking from personal experience, many times when sufferring from a mental illness, the individual that is ill doesn't always realize the magnitude of their illness. This is where family, friends, etc. become vitally important. It is these people that can notice changes in behaviors that are indicative of a decline in their loved ones state of mind.
I feel that Andrea Yates was failed miserably by the most important (and aware) people in her life. It was their responsibility to identify critical changes in her behaviors. She was not rational as you cannot rationalize with an irrational individual. Her illness was no one person's fault, not hers or her husbands. But he had taken a vow to stand by her in sickness & health, for better for worse. Rusty broke that vow to Andrea by not seeking ALL available avenues to have her illness treated & continue on that path even after the loss of their children. He could see what she could not - the reality of her illness and the threat that it imposed. How can she be held solely culpable for something that for her, was reality while her reality was delusion? Rusty failed her in so many ways, in my personal opinion. The price of that failure was the loss of 5 children, continuous,intensive care & support for Andrea for which they all have had to pay at a terrible cost. Meanwhile, she is housed in yet another type of "prison" and he must live with his conscience for the part (or lack of) he has played in this tragedy.
I am sure that everyday he is plagued with many "what if's", & I'm not totally unsympathetic towards him. But Andrea was his wife - he had vowed to stand by her forsaking all others. To have divorced her & then remarried only intensifies his avoidance and ignorance of her illness. In essence, he has done what seemingly he always did - cut & run. Thank God my husband has continued to stand by be, ever watchful & supportive, insuring I receive the care & support that I need.
My message to Rusty Yates is simple - SHAME ON YOU! Educate yourself on mental illness!He let his entire family down, THEY paid the price and he is free to begin again. I wonder how he sleeps at night? Maybe in part to a prescription prescribed by a mental health professional?

[Meganann]

Thanks, Melissa, for bringing this up. I agree with you, it makes me uneasy. If she was that depressed, why wasn't she hospitalized or why weren't the kids staying with relatives until she felt better? It seems like Rusty Yates didn't take care of his wife when she couldn't take care of herself.

Parenting is hard, and if you have read this blog for a while, you know that Melissa and Logan balance their lives on a knifeblade in order to be the best parents possible, which may be why this whole thing makes Melissa uneasy.

It is easy to see how a home life could come crashing down if one partner removed himself or herself emotionally. It seems like Andrea Yates was left twisting in the wind, drowning under the burden of parenting-and that Rusty removed himself emotionally from the partnership. Tragic consequences resulted. Rusty's seeming abandonment of Andrea is really creepy to me because supporting your partner is even more important than supporting the children, especially when that partner can't take care of herself.

[Rach R]

Oh, my.

I've seen it all. So if I get a speeding ticket after my husband and I fought this morning, then it is partially his fault, right? Because he made me upset.

Where has personal responsibility gone?

And 4 years is too soon? I think the only thing Yates CAN do in this situation is move on. Being bitter and angry isn't going to bring his precious kids back.

And Melissa - the meanies saying things about your weight, etc. It's hateful. I love your blog and love your thoughts. You are a creative, thoughtful, and insightful person.

Screw the trolls.

Rach
rach.typepad.com

[Mocha]

Oh, Melissa. I'm typing this here since there are no comments for today. It wouldn't much matter because you don't even know who I am. Can I be truthful in telling you what I dearly wanted to say to this but didn't? That I'm grateful that, in my culture, having some weight on me is a revered thing. My ass is SPECIAL. My hips are RELISHED. Does that make it ok? Or me better for some reason? No. But my thinking has been affected by this growing up and body issues aren't as pervasive. I say all this knowing that I'm 50 pounds overweight. 50!

Your writing is fantastic. Your creativity boundless. Keep up the excellent work that makes them so jealous they must attack something else.

[ilovemine]

You're absolutely right, this does not sit well with me either.
How can Rusty Yates NOT be partially responsible?? Would you leave a CLINICALLY DIAGNOSED mentally unstable person alone to babysit your children? Not me, buddy. Not even for an hour. duh

[Rach R]

One other thing - I wrote about this on my blog, too. How many women do we know who go through postpartum psycosis (if that's truly waht it was) and DON'T kill all 5 of their children in cold blood? Do they get an award?

I read some of those links...what about the fact that she had thought of doing the same thing months earlier - only couldn't, because Rusty was home? Premeditation, anyone?

She knew her actions would land her in jail. It stands to follow that she knew what she was doing was wrong.

[Rach R]

oops...forgot to sign
rach
rach.typepad.com

[anastasia beaverhausen]

I blogged about Rusty last week. Andrea Yates? Yes...she deserves to be spend her life in a mental heath facility. Rusty just needs to be in jail. I like you just the way you are, Miss Bliss.

[Belinda]

First, it hurts me to see you hurt. I hate it. So...well, I don't guess it helps at all if I just say, "DON'T," does it? Didn't think so. But don't.

And then, thank you for just saying this about the Yates thing. That has bothered me from the beginning. I just can't believe that someone can become THAT psychotic without their SPOUSE noticing.

[rsm]

I think that you and your family are all very beautiful. I know that doesn't help where you are. But just know that there are people out there that feel exactly the same way about themselves that look at you and wonder why YOU would feel that way about yourself because it doesn't seem to make sense. Best of luck to you in getting to where you need to be.

[Andie D.]

I've thought about this a lot as well.

Andrea murdered her children right before I had my firstborn. It was on my mind a lot after my son was born.

With my 2nd, there was no denying the PPD. I sought help. Even when my husband thought I should "wait it out".

I don't blame Mick for thinking I should wait. He simply didn't understand. Thankfully, I had a clue. I am proud of myself, however, for taking action to get better, despite any reservations my spouse may have had.

And as horrible as Andrea Yate's situation turned out to be, I can say that it enlighted a lot of us to the real dangers of PPD, or in her sad case, Postpartum Psychosis. Many, MANY, more of us are aware of the dangers now.

Thankfully.