Comments on: Sylvia Sieferman’s sentencing after the attempted murder of her adopted Chinese daughters- Minnesota http://www.babylovechild.org/2009/07/26/sylvia-siefermans-sentencing-after-the-attempted-murder-of-her-adopted-chinese-daughters-minnesota/ Yet another Bastard Blog Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:20:28 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Marley Greiner http://www.babylovechild.org/2009/07/26/sylvia-siefermans-sentencing-after-the-attempted-murder-of-her-adopted-chinese-daughters-minnesota/comment-page-1/#comment-3045 Marley Greiner Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:12:13 +0000 http://www.babylovechild.org/?p=1107#comment-3045 Thanks for posting this BLC I followed this case a little bit. In the study of parents who kill their children, Dr. Philip Resnick, a pioneer in the that field of study, divides child murder into 2 categories: filicide and neonate. He divides filicide into 5 general subcategories, though they are actually multitiered and complex. Other scholars have questioned some of them, and modified his model, but I think it's helpful to cull through them: 1. acutely psychotic 2. altruistic 3. unwanted children 4. accidental 6. spouse revenge. Clearly Sieferman falls under 2 and probably 1--but mainly 2. Resnick then divides the categories into sub-sub categories. I'll only do the first 2: 1. Actively psychotic: under the influence of halucinations, epilepsy or delusions 2. Altruistic: divided into a. associated with suicide: parents who couldn't abandon their children when they killed themselves b. euthanasia aimed at eliminating a child's real or imagined suffering. Euthanasia, imo, is a bit strong, except in very specific cases, (ex. a child's terminal illness) but it seems to me from accounts you have posted that Sieferman saw the girls' deaths as a way to relieve the suffering of the kids knowing that she had failed them, and more importantly to keep them out of state care. Obviously, either (or any other) of those scenarios means nothing in view of the steps she took. It does, however, indicate a thoroughly rattled mind aided and abetted with narcissism. These kids were totally abandoned by the "child care" system long ago: abandonment (or supposed abandonment) in China, bad adoption placement, protective services and the mental health system. "Experts" and "officials"officially ignored the red flags, I believe, because Sieferman was privileged: well educated, professional, and moneied, at least in the beginning, and authorities are far less likely to hassle her beyond the minimum (if that.), than if she'd been poor and the wrong color or ethnicity. It is particularly appalling that the neighbor tried so diligently to help these girls and was ignored because she wasn't a family member. If she had ignored the situation, she'd be blamed for not doing anything. You absolutely cannot separate race and class from this tragedy. Thanks for posting this BLC I followed this case a little bit.

In the study of parents who kill their children, Dr. Philip Resnick, a pioneer in the that field of study, divides child murder into 2 categories: filicide and neonate. He divides filicide into 5 general subcategories, though they are actually multitiered and complex. Other scholars have questioned some of them, and modified his model, but I think it’s helpful to cull through them:

1. acutely psychotic
2. altruistic
3. unwanted children
4. accidental
6. spouse revenge.

Clearly Sieferman falls under 2 and probably 1–but mainly 2.

Resnick then divides the categories into sub-sub categories. I’ll only do the first 2:

1. Actively psychotic: under the influence of halucinations, epilepsy or delusions

2. Altruistic: divided into

a. associated with suicide: parents who couldn’t abandon their children when they killed themselves

b. euthanasia aimed at eliminating a child’s real or imagined suffering.

Euthanasia, imo, is a bit strong, except in very specific cases, (ex. a child’s terminal illness) but it seems to me from accounts you have posted that Sieferman saw the girls’ deaths as a way to relieve the suffering of the kids knowing that she had failed them, and more importantly to keep them out of state care. Obviously, either (or any other) of those scenarios means nothing in view of the steps she took. It does, however, indicate a thoroughly rattled mind aided and abetted with narcissism.

These kids were totally abandoned by the “child care” system long ago: abandonment (or supposed abandonment) in China, bad adoption placement, protective services and the mental health system. “Experts” and “officials”officially ignored the red flags, I believe, because Sieferman was privileged: well educated, professional, and moneied, at least in the beginning, and authorities are far less likely to hassle her beyond the minimum (if that.), than if she’d been poor and the wrong color or ethnicity.

It is particularly appalling that the neighbor tried so diligently to help these girls and was ignored because she wasn’t a family member. If she had ignored the situation, she’d be blamed for not doing anything.

You absolutely cannot separate race and class from this tragedy.

]]>