And given the level of care, the child support order may exceed their income. I have had clients where it was requested by the State that they pay $4000 in support per month, when they income was less then half that amount.
Now, the court ended up entering an order less then their Income, but NOT by much. My point was the Mother may have seen no other option, for no other option was given to her (and she may have NEVER been told that the court will NOT take ALL of her income, just most of it).
I joke about Pennsylvania Child Support Guidelines (All states have similar guidelines, mandated by the Welfare Reform Act of 1995), it starts out at 1/3 of your income (2/3 for two or more children) BEFORE Taxes at minimum wage then works its way up to 10% of your income at $100,000 a year. Why? The State and Federal Government found that the #1 reason children were on Welfare was their custodian (Mostly the mother, but occasionally the Father) were NOT getting enough money on child support. Thus the harsh rules on the bottom end of the income scale.
I abhorred what this couple did, but at the same time I can see a couple seeing financial disaster because they have his handicap child. The outreach to such people is limited, most medical providers are mostly worried about HOW they are going to be paid, NOT how it will affect the disabled person's family.
After such a killing people point out where the family could have obtain help, but where was that information BEFORE the killing? In most cases no place the family has looked or knew to look. Thus they are boxed in. I have seen such situations (through NOT with a child that needed this extensive care) that I have had to inform parents where they could look for help, for they did NOT know where to look. If a family DOES not find out the help that is needed I can see them feeling boxed in, especially with welfare telling them they would have to pay child support based on the expenses to maintain the child incurred by the state.
One of the problems with Welfare is it is geared to get people off welfare. Before my state finally put them on computer I had the Welfare regulations for my state on a bookshelf. It was about five feet long of regulations on how to keep costs low, just one page told people WHAT welfare would actually pay. I mention it to show which way welfare is looking. State elected officials know cutting welfare is a way to get votes, for people in welfare rarely vote. Thus when reform of welfare is mentioned, reforms to cut cost are often sideline in favor of "reforms" to make it harder to get on welfare (even if these increased costs of Welfare, for example the recent push for drug testing of welfare recipients, the costs of the program exceeds ANY savings by cutting off drug users from Welfare).
Sorry, welfare has been so cut in recent years, it may appear to the family that killing off the child is what the state wanted them to do, that is at least what the Welfare regulations and those regulations tendency to punish such parents, indicate.
= new reply since forum marked as read
