Her kids are with woman who killed her own children

[Scairp]

Source: NBC

Twenty years ago, Kristine Cushing shot and killed her two daughters in their sleep.


In 1991, Kristine Cushing killed the two daughters she had with John Cushing. After being released from a mental institution, she remarried John — and today they live with John’s two sons by his second wife, Trisha Conlon, who fears for their safety.

Cushing was found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity, but her action 20 years ago has Trish Conlon fearing the safety of her two teenage sons today. Conlon is the ex-wife of former Marine fighter pilot Lt. Col. John P. Cushing Jr., who was married to Kristine Cushing when she killed their daughters — and who is remarried to her today.


Kristine was ruled not guilty by reason of temporary insanity and spent four years in a mental institution, followed by a decade of psychiatric monitoring before authorities in California determined she posed no risk. In 2005, she received an unconditional release.



Read more: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43984225/

---

There is plenty more, and I have personally placed a telephone call to King County Superior courts. I suggest that anyone else who has a problem with this do the same, bombard them with bad publicity, and get those boys out of the house. Also, they know they are living with the woman who killed their two half sisters all those years ago, and the father needs to have his head examined for what he is doing. He made those boys lie to their mother about who the woman was living in his house, made them tell their mother a fake name for her. The mom, Trisha Conlon, only found out because this Kristine Cushing's shrink called CPS to report she was living with children again, and that was in 2007, according to Ms. Conlon who appeared on the "Today" show. CPS called mom, and still this moron commissioner says it's much ado about nothing. It sounds as if he's siding with the father no matter what and ignoring the facts. I have plenty of sympathy for someone who has been severely mentally ill, but that doesn't trump the safety of the children. I never thought that Andrea Yates should have been tried for capital murder because she was/is mad as a hatter, but neither do I think that she should ever again have children, not that she will get out of the mental hospital for probably the rest of her life. It should be the same for this woman.

http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/SuperiorCourt/judges.aspx#juvenile

[JustAnotherGen]

1. I agree

I've alerted Secondwives cafe on this story (saw it on MSNBC) so they can get organizd and advocate for this woman.

[Warpy]

2. "Siding with the father and ignoring facts?"

What about the fact of her clean bill of health after psychiatric treatment?

This sounds more like a bitter ex wife trying to control an ex husband than a woman who is afraid her teenaged sons are going to be murdered by a crazy woman (who is no longer crazy and she can prove it).

Recovery from mental illness, especially drug induced mental illness, is not only possible, it's quite common.

[Bladian]

4. But she killed her OWN CHILDREN

I don't think there's any coming back from a mental illness that would cause you to do that. Think of what she could do to children that aren't even hers?

[Warpy]

7. Yes, and a pink and purple striped hippo with wings could fly over

and shit down my chimney, but that's a small risk, too.

[awoke_in_2003]

25. I had that happen last week

:)

[saras]

63. Who cares what you think? Why should they? People whose job is to know obviously think differently

[Scairp]

5. You didn't read it did you?

Much has been learned in 20 years about anti-psychotic drugs and how they affect a person. Nobody could know for sure now whether or not that is even why she lost it and killed her daughters. And Trisha Conlon doesn't come across to me as bitter when listening to her. Tell me, would you want this woman living in the same house with your children, after the other parent lied to you about who she was, made the kids lie to their mother about the fact that she was living in the house again? Sorry, safety of the kids is paramount over someone who may have overcome mental illness, and it sounds like a very stressful situation for the boys. She did, after all, kill their sisters they will never know. That has to creep them out. Why subject them to that?

[Withywindle]

11. There are some acts that will change a person's life irrevocably.

That's just the way it is. Doctors are not infallible and "paying a debt to society" doesn't guarantee safety. There are some precautions that ought to be taken to protect innocents who could be at risk, and sorry, that's a higher priority than proving redemption. Michael Vick should never be allowed to have dogs again. Mary Kay Latearneau should never be allowed to be a teacher again. And anyone who's killed her own children should never be allowed to live with children again. It's not about the perpetrator's "redemption" or about punishing them further. It's about protecting future potential victims--and their rights to safety come first.

Yes, some people do change, do learn, do heal from their terrible illnesses, do feel remorse for their deeds, do find ways to atone. Redemption is good, and it happens frequently.

But it's still never, ever right to expect someone else to stake their children's lives on it.

[DeschutesRiver]

30. Agree +100. nt

[liberalhistorian]

10. Just because a shrink and/or a doc says you are fine

doesn't mean that you are, far from it. There are times when a doc's professional judgment doesn't mean shit. There are countless cases of docs being fooled by patients who know just how to pull the wool over a professional's eyes, and countless more cases of people being "cleared" by docs only to do some horrendous damage thereafter. Anyone who's been in the legal field for even five minutes, as I have, will know and experience that. Docs are not God, and the honest ones will admit to just that and that their judgment is only their judgment and not the final, definitive word.

If I were this mother, there is no way in hell I would ever allow my child or children to live with that woman, especially not after being directly lied to by the father and knowing that the father forced the children to lie about it, I wouldn't give a shit what a damned court said. The father appears to be as crazy as the stepmother. His lies, and forcing the children to lie, alone should have been enough to have gotten him only supervised visits with the boys. But there are way too many crazy judges out there, unfortunately, many of them in family law.

[pnwmom]

18. If her current therapist thinks she's fine, why did s/he recently report her to the CPS?

I agree with you; she's still a risk, and she's not a risk worth taking. She's just a stepmother who's been secretly living with those boys; she has no biological connection worth salvaging.

[LanternWaste]

64. I imagine we believe that most strongly...

"There are times when a doc's professional judgment doesn't mean shit..."

I imagine we believe that most strongly when the doctor's diagnosis and prognosis are counter to our own opinions.

[pnwmom]

17. What about reading the article? Her current therapist reported her to the CPS

as a risk to those children NOW.

This isn't the children's biological parent, she is a stepmother who has been deceptively living in that house without the consent of the mother.

And I don't buy one bit the idea that Prozac and a heart condition caused her to kill her children. Where are all the other Prozac murders? I haven't heard of any with all the billions of prescriptions that have been written by now.

[tammywammy]

32. She also tried to kill herself

She shot the children and herself. There's been a lot of articles on how anti-depressants can increase the likelihood of depression and suicide.

The prosecution and defense in her case agreed that this was a case of temporary insanity.

[LisaL]

35. It's all well and good then.

Andrea Yates might be a free woman pretty soon. Should her ex-hubby let her babysit his new kid?
:eyes:

[tammywammy]

36. If Andrea Yates is unconditionally released, there would be nothing legally preventing it. n/t

[Pithlet]

40. But I do think the mother of those kids would have a say.

And if she says no, that should be that.

[LisaL]

53. Just because there is nothing "legally preventing" something,

doesn't mean it should be done.

[tammywammy]

58. There's nothing in the law stopping it

Look, this woman was released unconditionally by the state of California. The judge must rule based on law. If there was evidence she presented a danger to her step-sons, the judge could have altered the custody arrangement. If there's no evidence of danger, is the judge just supposed to rule based on his emotion?

You're only getting this one woman's version of this incident. She's already appealed this decision to the next highest court, her hearing is on Aug 25.

My only advice to this mother would be to push for a guardian ad litem for the children.

[pnwmom]

41. Yes, there's been reported a link with SUICIDE, but not murder.

And no one knows that the anti-depressants cause the suicides - the people who take them are depressed in the first place, so they're already at greater risk of suicide.

And it really doesn't matter what the prosecution and defense agreed decades ago. Her CURRENT therapist reported her to Child Protective Services, which only happens when a therapist is concerned about an ongoing risk to children. That, coupled with the murders, should have been all that no-nothing "commissioner" needed to make the correct decision.

[Yo_Mama]

23. Why did her mental health professional report her to CPS?

Because she was living with children, as the article says.

So this situation is considered risky by a mental health professional, who probably suggested to her patient that the woman not do this, and was rebuffed. That is anything BUT a "clean bill of health".

People are released from prisons and mental institutions all the time, but frequently they have restrictions. There is something wrong her, and it is not at all just the emotions of a "bitter ex-wife".

[Darth_Kitten]

29. Bitter ex-wife?

Right. :eyes: Poor guy in this case, he sure doesn't know how to pick em: one kills her own kids, and the other one is bitter because she's worried about her kids.

Yes, bitter. Must be a man-hating shrew as well. :sarcasm:

[Exultant Democracy]

69. Perhaps you can recover from somethings, but murdering your daughters isn't one

it has left scar psyche, and I would never trust he with the stress of having two teen-aged boys running around the house. This is probably one of the many reasons the mental health expert who was working with her notified CPS.

[glowing]

3. It was wrong for the father to lie and push his boys to lie, but she has been cleared by drs.

Perhaps she was post partal? In that state, women are in a psychotic state because of hormone imbalances. Once they are treated after harming their children, they go thru even more emotional pains of guilt for being the person who harmed their own children. Seeing that it has been 20yrs and that the father only has the kids every other weekend, I would tend to believe that the children are ok... As well, the boys themselves are in their teens. They are probably uniquely able to defend themselves from any attack.

On the other hand, I would go ballistic as the mother knowing that my boys were in that house... And that my ex-hubby went bak to the mommy killer... So, I would feel as if the marriage was even more a sham and that the ex never really loved me... There is always more than child disagreements when it comes to a divorce. Obviously, the boys have been unharmed under the dads family care. And I'm doubting that the step mom is having anymore children manly due to age and fear of a pregnancy causing another hormornal imbalance. I think this is another case of media jumping onto a pre-judged feel for mom band wagon. It's amazing how they create heroes and villains.

[Scairp]

6. People can defend themselves in their sleep?

And it isn't every other weekend. One boy lives with dad during the entire school year. They spend a great deal of time at their father's very isolated house. I don't get the dad at all. How could he remarry this woman who killed his daughters, expose his sons to the woman who killed their sisters? How is that good parenting?

[pnwmom]

19. No, she hasn't. This all came about because her therapist recently reported her to the CPS.

This is at the bottom of the article.

Therapists keep their treatment confidential UNLESS there is reason to think a child is at risk. Clearly, this therapist thinks there is.

Think about it. This woman killed her OWN children to get back at her husband during a previous divorce process. Do you really not think she's capable of inflicting harm on HIS two children in the event of a similar situation -- children that she isn't even related to?

[LisaL]

27. How long could "postpartum" possibly last?

The daughters that she killed were 4 and 8 years old.

[dmallind]

8. more qs than as here.

1) What makes Conlon one of the tiny minority of mothers to whom the biased courts did not grant custody in the first place?

[Scairp]

12. It's a joint parenting plan

It sounds as if the boys spend more or less equal time with each parent. It is the 21st century you know. One parent or the other doesn't necessarily get complete custody of the kids unless something is wrong with one of the parents. In this case and IMO, the kids should only spend time with their father, after his own psych exam, when this first wife is not around, especially at night when everyone is sleeping. This whole thing must be stressful, and who's to say this stress won't trigger another psychotic break and kill everyone in their sleep?

[dmallind]

14. Doesn't say that in the article. Says he has custody. nt

[Scairp]

16. Sorry

I read that part in the NY Times article. The "Today" show was dated today, the Times article was dated from the weekend. Here's the link if you want to read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/us/31custody.html?_r=1

Also, the video from "Today" is posted and anyone can watch it for themselves.

[dmallind]

20. Gotcha. Strange omission from first article.

And sadly, even in the 21st century, only about 10% of men who seek equal or full custody get it. One day a week and alternate weekends is typical.

Personally I have no kids, but any fair look at custody fights shows a clear bias towards women, even now.

[LisaL]

34. She does have custody of one son.

The father has custody of the other. So nothing makes her "one of the tiny minority of mothers."

[dmallind]

50. Where does it say that? And I can prove the tiny minority needs no airquotes any time you like. nt

[LisaL]

57. Well there are other articles available, not just OP article.

One son lives with the mother on a regular basis. The other son lives with the father.

[Pithlet]

42. It's the 21st century.

It doesn't work that way anymore. I know, a lot of people still have the misconception that it does. But the laws are gender neutral now.

[slackmaster]

9. I think it's inappropriate for random people who have no personal stake or legal qualifications...

...to call and brow-beat employees of a county courthouse in an effort to influence a court case. There are established procedures for filing briefs to express formal opinions on a case, and it would be improper for a court of law anywhere in the country to allow itself to be swayed by a virtual flash mob of semi-informed amateur opinions.

If you really believe Trish Conlon has been treated unfairly, the best way to support her IMO would be to contribute to a legal defense fund for her.

Just my amateur opinions. I am not a lawyer, not do I pretend to be one on the Internet. I think this kind of "call to action" beckoning people to take one side in someone's personal, family dispute that is already working its way through a legitimate court of law is not the right thing to do. None of us have all of the facts, and few if any of us are familiar with the laws and precedents that apply.

Unrec'ced and alerted per LBN rule #6.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberalhistorian]

22. As someone who once worked in the law, I know that

"legitimate courts of law" can and often do make boneheaded, senseless decisions that either have no basis in fact or don't take needed factors into account, etc., and real, live human beings pay for it. And they need to be called on it.

[slackmaster]

46. Yes, of course, and there are legitimate avenues of appeal for those situations.

I don't believe that calling overworked courthouse employees and haranguing them is an effective way of disputing a decision.

[liberalhistorian]

56. Yes, I do agree with that-the employees have nothing to do

with it and can't do anything about it. And it's only likely to make the judge even angrier, although I can't imagine where his head was in the first place.

Yes, there are appeals, but even appeals that have merit are often refused. And you have to have money to continue to appeal, it is expensive to do so. A cold, hard fact of the "justice" system is that justice does not always prevail; in fact, it too often doesn't. That is one reason why lawyers can get really burned out after awhile, that's a really hard thing to deal with.

[Leopolds Ghost]

45. While I think this is appalling, +1 for your reply... I can't rec the OP because of this

Even tho I agree with the sentiment.

[Taverner]

70. THANK YOU VOICE OF REASON!!!!

What part of mental illness do people not understand?

[Happyhippychick]

13. I rec'd. This is complete insanity, the father is completely crazy and if I were the mother I would

grab the kids and get on a flight to Brazil never to return.

[Scairp]

21. They moved this, for some reason

That's fine, but I don't think it violated any terms of posting on LBN.

As for this idea that mom should snatch the kids and make for Rio, that shouldn't be the solution. It isn't a solution. The solution should be common sense that a woman who killed the sisters of these children can't live with them. Ever. Or any children for that matter. The idea that this father remarried her and brought his sons into this new marriage is utterly creepy. I would love to know what is going on inside his head.

[Scairp]

24. Kick

With the hope everyone will read, think about getting involved.

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. Some odd assumptions and stereotypes at work here

"Twenty years ago, John Doe shot and killed in their sleep the two sons he had with his then-wife Jane. After being released from a mental institution where he spent four years and has since been declared sane, he has remarried Jane.
Jane's two teen daughters of her second husband, Mark, now live with John and Jane. Mark now fears for the safety of his teenage daughters."

I doubt that anyone here would disparage Mark's fear as unjustified
We'd heap blame on Jane for not putting the kids wellbeing first
The fact that the daughters are teenagers wouldn't be a significant "so what" factor
Mark is simply trying to control Jane. Who knows what goes on in that household to compel Jane and the daughters to flee?
"Four years?????" OMG!!11!!1.

[Scairp]

28. Thank you

Sanity at last. Definitely some gender bias is at the very least quite possible here. This commissioner, a man, says more or less, it's been twenty years, and she hasn't killed anymore children, & her husband remarried her after she killed his little girls with her, he's a Marine, he must know better than us, even better than the psychiatrist who informed CPS who in turn informed the boys' mother killer mommy was still living in the house with her former/present husband & the boys, and making them lie about it for several years. I don't get why some people cannot see this.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TwilightGardener]

33. There is no way I'd allow my children NEAR this woman, if I were in her shoes.

Don't blame her for being scared.

[Pithlet]

37. This would be our system that's supposed to be so biased against fathers

This must have been a fluke :sarcasm:

Seriously, I think this is ridiculous. That judge needs his head examined.

[Scairp]

38. He's not a real judge

He's a commissioner, and I believe that's a huge problem. They need a real family court judge looking at this case. I think that a regular judge would have put a stop to any contact with this woman already, especially considering that the children she killed were the half siblings of these two boys. I've said it before in other posts, but this is the part that really freaks me out. That father needs to say more than he has, like why he ever remarried her, lying to this former wife, making his sons lie to their mother. To my mind, he sounds unfit and should perhaps only have supervised visits until he has a psych exam. Forgiving is one thing, remarrying her and exposing his second set of children to her is quite another.

[Pithlet]

39. Well I hope that happens.

It freaks me out, too. I just can't imagine what that poor mom is going through.

[LisaL]

43. Do we know why "real judge" didn't hear the case to begin with?

[Scairp]

44. I haven't read why it was a commissioner

But it would seem that an actual judge is hearing the appeal now, and let's all keep our fingers crossed nothing bad happens between now and the next hearing later this month. I just wonder how much stress this woman can take, considering she killed her children and attempted suicide while, I guess, under stress. Wonder how she's feeling now with so much publicity surrounding the situation? If this Cushing guy is such a great father, he would defuse the situation and send the kids back to their mother right away until he gets his own life sorted out. He seems to have almost as many problems as his 1st/3rd wife, forcing them to live with the woman who killed their sisters.

[rug]

47. Mind your own business.

This family has suffered enough tragedy without uninformed busybodies forming a mob.

[LisaL]

49. Why don't you mind your own business?

[slackmaster]

51. No LisaL. The real question here is why don't YOU mind YOUR own business?

[LisaL]

52. If I just wanted to mind my own business, I'd have no business

posting here to begin with. Get a clue already.

[slackmaster]

55. Ooooh look, someone is suggesting that I'm stupid here!

Get a clue already.

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!



:rofl:

[supernova]

48. I can't believe this

The situation is horrifying on so many levels.

* The husband is clearly in need of help himself if all these years he has preferred a woman who killed his first children. He kept in contact with her while married to this second woman for heavens' sake! He seems in deep denial.

* I agree with others that while it's good that she may no longer be a threat to society, it is not necessary to place that stress on her again to prove it. Afterall, these were two little girls, now she's got (possibly more trying) teenage boys. I can't believe the stress level is less now that before. And wtf? mentioning she has a heart condition?? What's that got to do with it?

* We don't know how the boys feel about it all. I can't imagine they don't know. If they don't, they really should know. They are teens, they are old enough to make their wishes known in this process, either as emancipated minors (in the extreme case) or with a guardian ad leitem.

* The woman may no longer be a danger, but she still seems to be manipulative and great at garnering sympathy. She's kept the husband stringing along all these years, managed to charm the "commissioner" who dismissed the case. I'm sure she has that act down pat.

I think this woman is right to be very tense about it all and I hope there is a healthier outcome from a real judge than the present, i.e. I think the husband should have to visit his kids w/o the first wife present.

[slackmaster]

54. All of the information we have about it comes from a single, obviously biased corporate media source

An MSNBC Today Show human-interest segment designed to attract readers by provoking an emotional reaction, that conspicuously (speaking only of my own perception of course) presents only one side's point of view. There isn't even a pretense of unbiased journalism in the piece, but people have been conditioned all of their lives to assume that in any media presentation that is constructed in the format of a news item.

I'm not saying there hasn't been a miscarriage of justice here. I don't have access to what I assume is a large amount of testimony, documents, and other information that the court has in its possession.

Please step back a moment and think about the target audience of the Today Show, and how its corporate sponsors would expect to benefit by drawing people in with this story. Do you think MSNBC gives a shit about the family situation?

[supernova]

59. Nope

Even if you strip away the fact that NBC presented it, you are still left with a bad story. As someone who had to watch my two nephews being raised over the years by someone with obvious difficulties (to the point the sheriff had to be called on a couple of occasions) I can readily understand this situation.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be possible to have some sort of relationship with her at some point. Just not in a parental role that requires responsibility from her.

[slackmaster]

61. I'm glad that you recognize that your perception of the story is influenced by your own experience

But that's your personal bias, not information that is useful to others in understanding the story.

[supernova]

62. Your experience

is no more superior to mine. In fact you display a callousness that doesn't serve the left well at all.

Edit: I do disagree with the OP about contacting the courthouse. That would be pointless and counterproductive. The only thing I hope for this case as that this woman gets a fair hearing from a real family judge.

[slackmaster]

67. What you see as callousness I see as hyper-rationalism, and it's served me well for a long time

There has to be much more to this story than is presented in the Today segment. A whole lot more.

[tammywammy]

60. +1 n/t

[LanternWaste]

65. Which is precisely why many people are skeptical

"All of the information we have about it comes from a single, obviously biased corporate media source..."

Which is precisely why many people are skeptical regarding local evening weather reports from the obviously biased corporate media sources.

[slackmaster]

68. There's a big gap between a weather report and a "good woman/fallen woman/stupid men" piece

I hope you understand the difference.

[Pithlet]

71. Skeptical of what?

That the first wife killed her kids? The second wife is just making that up?

[JonLP24]

66. I'm not sure

calling is a good idea. Though as a general rule, I think courts should be free from political or public pressure to decide one way or the other. Courts should decide based on what is said in court. Maybe find someone to file an amicus brief? :shrug: