ANDREA YATES

[Lillybee]

Since Casey Anthony has been acquitted, there has been a lot talk on HLN shows. Dr. Drew had a show with parents who have lost their children. He had Elizabeth Smart's dad, a woman whose daughter was killed by a predator and Randy Yates.

Randy's appearance on this show almost made me throw something at my TV because I believe that he holds more responsibility for the deaths of his children than Andrea, even though she was the one who killed them.

[WonderingInWA]

Not having thoroughly researched the case, but having done a lot of reading on it before I was fascinated by fundies, I agree. Randy Yates did not support his wife. I am going to be watching this topic. Interested to see what others think.

[bananacat]

Randy is a complete tool. He didn't even care about the loss of his children. During Andrea's trial, all Randy could think about was getting her back home so she could start having more babies. He also wanted to hire surrogates or adopt kids. I'm surprised he didn't go so far as to request a second wife. In many QF families it's the mom who is a baby hoarder, but in the Yates case it was definitely Randy who wanted a big showy collection.

[kpmom]

Did I read a while back that Randy was divorcing Andrea so he could remarry and have more kids? I'm pretty sure I saw that somewhere.

Did he learn anything from this horrible, tragic situation?

ETA: Yikes, I'm behind the times. Apparently he remarried in 2006, and yes has at least one more kid. I didn't see the show the OP mentioned. What did he talk about?

P.S. I see his name as both Randy and Rusty. Not sure which is correct.

[WonderingInWA]

Did I read a while back that Randy was divorcing Andrea so he could remarry and have more kids? I'm pretty sure I saw that somewhere.

Did he learn anything from this horrible, tragic situation?

His name was Rusty, not Randy. And he did divorce her and remarry. And had at least one child with the new wife.

[MamaJunebug]

OP, thanks for the heads-up. I have only rarely watched Drew but never will again.

I remember the reporter's documented story that when Rusty arrived at the Yates home after Andrea's phone call, cops wouldn't let him in (understandably). The reporter described how Rusty was raging about Andrea's housekeeping.

Rusty was quoted as shouting, "Good luck finding a clean glass in there for a drink of water!"

Gosh, Andrea's life must've been just peachy-keen with the guy, eh? And yet because *her* mental illness went untreated at Rusty's insistence and resulted in the murders, she's in prison for life and he's out procreating.

If anything happens to the second Mrs. Yates, Rusty and Casey Anthony should look each other up. The combination of all that meanness in one room would certainly result in an implosion and two evil people would be vaporized and prevented from future mayhem.

[TMS]

Did I read a while back that Randy was divorcing Andrea so he could remarry and have more kids? I'm pretty sure I saw that somewhere.

Did he learn anything from this horrible, tragic situation?

ETA: Yikes, I'm behind the times. Apparently he remarried in 2006, and yes has at least one more kid. I didn't see the show the OP mentioned. What did he talk about?

P.S. I see his name as both Randy and Rusty. Not sure which is correct.

It's Russell/Rusty, not Randy. I was obsessed with this case when it happened and read the Houston Chronicle daily for updates.

[JesusFightClub]

Andrea Yates had a *severe* mental illness and was prevented by Rusty from accessing providers and the help she needed. Her illness was well documented for years. Apparently when she was medicated enough into a level of sanity where she realised what she had done, she was absolutely prostrated with grief and guilt.

The whole thing is a tragedy and shows the danger of a controlling partner for a vulnerable person.

[antifundie]

Gosh, I was just reading the Wikipedia article--it's so horrible! It makes me so angry that Rusty was not charged as an accomplice or something--you don't just tell your wife to get over depression, nor do you leave her alone with children when you know that she's a danger to them.

I remember when it happened, but I didn't really follow the case. I know lots of fundies don't believe in mental illness, but you'd think that story would alert them to the possibility that it's real, you know?

[Lillybee]

Did I read a while back that Randy was divorcing Andrea so he could remarry and have more kids? I'm pretty sure I saw that somewhere.

Did he learn anything from this horrible, tragic situation?

ETA: Yikes, I'm behind the times. Apparently he remarried in 2006, and yes has at least one more kid. I didn't see the show the OP mentioned. What did he talk about?

P.S. I see his name as both Randy and Rusty. Not sure which is correct.

It is Rusty, I was wrong. He basically talked about the pain of losing his children.

I didn't know anything about QF or fundies at the time but I do remember Andrea saying that the killed her babies because she was sure that since she was such a bad mother, she had to save them from going to hell.

She had severe post partum depression after the birth of her forth and her doctors recommend that she not get pregnant for a few years. However, she went off her meds and got pregnant with the fifth.

[kb2]

Gosh, I was just reading the Wikipedia article--it's so horrible! It makes me so angry that Rusty was not charged as an accomplice or something--you don't just tell your wife to get over depression, nor do you leave her alone with children when you know that she's a danger to them.

I remember when it happened, but I didn't really follow the case. I know lots of fundies don't believe in mental illness, but you'd think that story would alert them to the possibility that it's real, you know?

I think I remember that her own family went a little Scientologist and testified at the trial that her psych treatments had caused her to kill her children. So I think there's always a way to completely misinterpret reality. Fundies who believe there's absolutely no mental illness would probably think she needed an exorcism.

[emmiedahl]

From what I saw on some Lifetime documentary, he was very concerned and repeatedly took her for mental health care that she would refuse. He moved one of their mothers into the house to help her.

I don't want to give him the majority of the blame because he could not possibly have guessed what would happen. I mean, he's a douche, but how many of us have been depressed and NOT killed our kids. She was way beyond depression of course but hiding her crazy well because she was determined to be the perfect QF wife.

[GenerationCedarchip]

I remember that case well because it's often used as an example in continuing ed trainings I've been to. It was so sad. One of the things I remember was that not only did Andrea go off her psych meds (she was diagnosed psychotic, btw) and have a fifth child but when her psychotic symptoms came back, Rusty refused to allow her to go back to her psychiatrist. He made her go somewhere else and never told that doctor about her previous psych history. Andrea at the time was neither talking nor eating, so I'm guessing she wasn't able to give much of a medical history. The reason I remember this is because it's one of the big examples given when they're training us not to blindly trust a medical history that we get from a person's spouse or parent because that person may have their own agenda and not necessarily be telling us everything we need to know.

I remember reading something once that went through a whole history of how Rusty basically interfered with Andrea's mental health treatments(pressuring her to leave hospital early so she could care for kids, etc...) and I have to say that I think he deserves part of the blame of what happened.

[camdendayton]

Unfortunately Mr. Yates, in my estimation, was mainly guilty of spousal abuse. Since there's no hard evidence that it was physical, I'm not sure there's anything the law could have done. If anyone with a better understanding of the law can set me straight please do! :)

Edited for clarity

[Chrystal-J]

I just happened to be reading an article the other day about this case. It has some pretty deep analysis about her illness, family dynamic and doctor's treatments.

LINK:

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?1 ... 27y+1#H1N8

I'm not the type to call the police on anyone, but if I had been Andrea's mother I would called child welfare and let them get involved. It's obvious that Andrea was too far gone to fix the situation and her husband either didn't care or was blind to how sick she was.

[Topaz]

From what I remember reading Rusty was told not to leave her alone with the kids but he did anyhow. In my book that makes him partially responsible for what happened, morally even if not legally.

[valsa]

My feelings on the Andrea Yates case are complex. I believe parents who allow the other parent to hurt their children, if they knew about it or should have known about it, are responsible for what happen to a certain extent. To me, this covers everything from mothers who don't leave husbands who abuse their children to fathers who don't protect their kids from mothers like Andrea Yates.

I believe Rusty (or whatever his name is) should have protected his children from Andrea, assuming he knew she was off her meds and thus a danger to them (which seems pretty likely) But, depending on the facts surrounding what happened (which, I freely admit, I don’ t know all that much about), I might still hold Andrea Yates responsible for the majority of what she did to her children. Was she mentally ill at the time she killed her kids? Yes. However, did she make the decision to go off her meds/have another child at a time when she was not mentally ill to the point that she didn't know right from wrong? If so, then she is still responsible.

[Kaylee]

However, did she make the decision to go off her meds/have another child at a time when she was not mentally ill to the point that she didn't know right from wrong? If so, then she is still responsible.

But, if she was mentally ill to the point she didn't know right from wrong, how responsible could she have been for the decision to go off her meds and have another child?

Also, if she had to go through her husband for access to meds and treatment (guessing he probably controlled the money, insurance, and transportation), how much was choice to go off meds and how much was coercion? Same with having another child - he wanted more kids, so I doubt he was going to allow her to go on birth control or abstain from sex, and she may not have had much of a choice there either.

[Cassandra]

Ultimately this is all about a lack of respect for doctors.

The doctors told her husband and mother to be with her at ALL times. Instead of going for a second opinion, or taking Andrea to the doctor when they (husband and mother) thought she was doing better they went ahead and made the judgement call to leave her alone. Because they thought she could handle it.

In the end Andrea is responsible for killing her children, but it probably wouldn't have happened if the people who were supposed to be taking care of her had actually listened to the doctor, and not decided to play around with the mental health of another person. So I definitely think they should have been charged with negligence or something similar.

[valsa]

But, if she was mentally ill to the point she didn't know right from wrong, how responsible could she have been for the decision to go off her meds and have another child?

Also, if she had to go through her husband for access to meds and treatment (guessing he probably controlled the money, insurance, and transportation), how much was choice to go off meds and how much was coercion? Same with having another child - he wanted more kids, so I doubt he was going to allow her to go on birth control or abstain from sex, and she may not have had much of a choice there either.

My awkwardly written sentence is probably to blame, but I said "did she make the decision to go off her meds/have another child at a time when she was not mentally ill to the point that she didn't know right from wrong".

You can be mentally ill but medicated so that you are in control of your faculties and able to make decisions for yourself. If you choose, while in that state, to go off your meds and then kill someone, I believe you are responsible. If Andrea was on meds and chose to go off them or to have another child- she’s still responsible for what she did.

To me, Andrea would share the same culpability as those religious nuts who pray for their children to get better instead of taking them to the doctor. They are not responsible for the direct cause of death of their children (whether it’s a serious cold or illness for the anti-doctor wackos or Andrea’s killing her children in her post-partum psychosis state) but they still share responsibility for what happened.

Also, I’ll say again that I know very little about this case but, from what I have read, Andrea was given mental health treatment before and it doesn’t sound like her husband was barricading the door from keeping her away from medication. And even though it’s not a popular opinion, if her husband really was absolutely keeping her away from either getting help, getting on birth control, or abstaining from sex- she should have left him. There’s always a choice, even if there are no easy ones.

[lovefromgirl]

Funny thing about choosing to go on/stay off meds.

When you're on them--my friends in similar mental states have reported--you think you're fine, and you don't think you ought to be on them anymore. So you stop. But the problem comes back, and you're put back on them, and the cycle goes on.

I later read about the same phenomenon occurring in epileptics who became asymptomatic due to medication... who stopped their drugs and, sure as anything, had seizures. Whoops. Peer-reviewed article, medical sociology text.

I would guess that if Ms Yates stopped her treatment for any reason that was not "But Rusty wants me to sprog again!" it would look something like this.

[valsa]

Funny thing about choosing to go on/stay off meds.

When you're on them--my friends in similar mental states have reported--you think you're fine, and you don't think you ought to be on them anymore. So you stop. But the problem comes back, and you're put back on them, and the cycle goes on.

I am aware of people who do this but it's really no different than anyone else who ignores their doctors' medical advice. You see it all the time in mental health, antibiotics (a big part of the reason we now have shit like MRSA and VRSA), blood pressure medication, etc.

It doesn't mean you're not responsible for what happens when you go off your meds, it just means you didn't listen to your doctor or read the information what came with your meds and did something dumb. But I'd guess that most crime could be described as "someone did something dumb".

[Lillybee]

I wonder if the Yates family were into submission and if submission played a big role in their life.

[lovefromgirl]

I am aware of people who do this but it's really no different than anyone else who ignores their doctors' medical advice. You see it all the time in mental health, antibiotics (a big part of the reason we now have shit like MRSA and VRSA), blood pressure medication, etc.

No and yes. No, it's no different, because they absolutely are going against medical advice. The thing is that unlike the epileptics in the paper I read, whether or not one takes one's antipsychotics affects whether a person is in a state of mind to be making those decisions. The epileptics were generally never out of touch with reality; nothing ever interrupted their ability to reason; they could look at all the evidence and choose to risk the seizures.

Somewhere in this case, there is a doctor who looked at a woman suffering from post-partum psychosis and either didn't notice she'd quit taking her meds (!) or shrugged and figured she was no danger to herself or others after all. I only hope she wasn't obviously psychotic until it was too late. Otherwise, somewhere, there's a doctor who needs to find a new specialty.

[valsa]

Somewhere in this case, there is a doctor who looked at a woman suffering from post-partum psychosis and either didn't notice she'd quit taking her meds (!) or shrugged and figured she was no danger to herself or others after all.

Or she could have stopped going to the doctor when she chose to go off her meds. I've done nursing clinical rotations in psych wards and it's not uncommon for people to go off their meds and just stop going to the doctor's.

The thing is that unlike the epileptics in the paper I read, whether or not one takes one's antipsychotics affects whether a person is in a state of mind to be making those decisions.

True. However, barring something like her running out of meds without warning (as opposed to just not paying attention to running low on them) and not being able to get any more before her psychosis returned, she had to have made a conscious decision to stop taking the meds, which makes her responsible. If I go out and get stinking drunk tonight, then kill someone by drinking and driving- I may have been too drunk to know right from wrong when I chose to drive but I did know right from wrong when I made the decision to get drunk, and thus put myself into a position of not knowing right from wrong.