Stacey Louise Taylor and Mark John Harrison, of Chapel Court in Hyde, failed to seek medical attention for little Jack even though he was drastically under-weight and showing clear signs of illness.
He also had a number of fractures of various ages to his arms, legs and ribs that were considered `non-accidental' by experts, a court heard. The oldest fracture was up to 12 weeks old with the others ranging from one to two weeks old.
A number of small bruises sustained up to 48 hours before Jack's death were also found on his face and head. A pathologist deemed they were most likely to have been caused by prodding or poking.
It is understood the child was not known to social services before his death.
Taylor, 20, and Harrison, 27, were cleared of manslaughter but found guilty of child cruelty after a three-week trial at Sheffield Crown Court.
Taylor also pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis in relation to a drugs warrant carried out in May 2007. She was sentenced to three years for child cruelty and one day for the drugs offence, to run consecutively.
Harrison also pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and possession of cannabis with intent to supply in relation to the same drugs warrant. He has been sentenced to three years for child cruelty and 12 months for the drugs offence, to run consecutively.
Underweight
The court heard how Jack's parents knew that he had a low immune system and was underweight. Yet despite that they did not seek medical help until it was too late. He was finally taken to Tameside General Hospital where he died in November 2006.
DC Kath McKenzie, from Greater Manchester Police's public protection investigation unit in Tameside, said: "How someone can deliberately harm a defenceless baby in any way escapes me, but what makes it worse is that his parents put themselves first before obtaining medical attention for their injured and sick little boy.
"Jack would have clearly been very ill in the lead up to his death but Taylor and Harrison did not take him to hospital or to a doctor, presumably because they were aware that the child's injuries would be discovered.
"Throughout this investigation they have been unable to explain how he got his serious injuries, insisting they were either accidental or they did not realise he was injured.
"The court has found this is not the case. Maybe one day Jack's parents will take responsibility for their son's tragic and preventable death."
A spokesman for the Tameside Safeguarding Children Board said a serious case review had already been held into the case and would be published shortly.
"This child was not the subject of a child protection plan and the death was not regarded as suspicious until old fractures were found as part of the post mortem," said the spokesman.
"Neither parent could explain the series of injuries and they have both appeared in crown court in connection with the death.
"The serious case review highlights the importance of recognising signs of neglect and in dealing with parents who miss appointments with professionals and are resistant to accept help.
"It is always tragic when a baby dies and all agencies are working together to take the necessary steps to implement the recommendations of the draft serious case review which have all been accepted by the Safeguarding Board." Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
Is it not time to to start sterlizing these poor excuses for human beings; thus making sure there is absolutely no chance that they can bring anymore children into this world.
bless this baby another poor child what is the world coming to i hope these to suffer
God bless baby Jack may you rest in peace, safe at last. And may those that did this to you rot in hell, the sooner the better.
This sort of thing really upsets me he was just an innocent little babi. The thing is if you cant cope then the authorities are there, but to keep the baby and to keep punishing him is just sick.
They don't deserve any luck now.
God Bless little jack.
Throw away the key. This is no different than the baby P case, not as sick but the same result. A dead baby.
This is what we call british justice, it is just a joke they killed this baby. For a 6 month old child to have so many injuries is such a short painful life, and all they KILLERS get is 6 years.
Any drug user who has children should have the child taken off them a matter of urgency.
I though the new babies had to visited by the midwives or someone, did they not have access? Another life lost because of low lifes.
People like those two should never be allowed to have anther child. My heart breaks when I think how he must have suffered; I hope they meet their match in prison. Who else can a baby rely on for nurturing other than his parents?
They make me sick.
R.I.P. Baby Jack.
The Observer:
I used to be quite a liberal lefty; however, I am becoming more and more hard line when I read this sort of story.
Having a child is a responsibility, not a human right because you have the biological parts!
If you are unfit, remove those biological parts so they can sire anymore unfortunate and neglected children.
Baby Jack, time to rest and sleep in peace. God Bless......
It's time we had parenting training and licences plus temporary 'sterilization' (contraceptive injections) with an antidote only if you have a proven stable relationship with one partner having a permanent job and a commitment to put the child's needs/wants before your own.
So when can we expect the odd one or two social workers being sacked? In my experience not any time soon but "lessons have been learned" just a pity children have to die before learning these lessons.
"So when can we expect the odd one or two social workers being sacked? In my experience not any time soon but "lessons have been learned" just a pity children have to die before learning these lessons.
thaitanium,
16/12/2008 at 11:30"
On what grounds should anyone be sacked? The article clearly states the child was not known to Social Services.
The current system rewards people like these with hard cash for having a child. They spend the cash on themselves and don’t care what happens to the child – that is why they do not go to the authorities for help if they can’t ‘cope’ – if they loose the child they loose the benefits. If all child benefits came in the form of direct rent/fuel payments and vouchers, maybe people like these would not be so quick to have a children.
"On what grounds should anyone be sacked? The article clearly states the child was not known to Social Services."
Well for starters she had been convicted of drugs offences. I assume these wonderful socila workers have access to court records and if not why not? I want to know how many more children must die before all these "lessons learned" will be put in practise by these clowns who obviously put the human rights of the parent in front of the right of the child to a decent life without suffering.
'"On what grounds should anyone be sacked? The article clearly states the child was not known to Social Services." Well for starters she had been convicted of drugs offences. I assume these wonderful socila workers have access to court records and if not why not? I want to know how many more children must die before all these "lessons learned" will be put in practise by these clowns who obviously put the human rights of the parent in front of the right of the child to a decent life without suffering.'
Your anger in this case is mis-directed. You should be angry with the scumbag parents who allowed this poor baby to die. Social Services had *no involvement with the family whatsoever*, do you understand this simple sentence?
"do you understand this simple sentence?
Marc"
I will type this slowly as you are obviously hard of reading and probably a social worker as well. The social services are ther to protect tragic children like this one. Both the people involved are drug users and been in court before why did the social services not act on this? Why are you such an apologist for these social worker clowns? another day another dead child I wouldn't let them look after my cat let alone a child.
'I will type this slowly as you are obviously hard of reading and probably a social worker as well'
Wrong! But as we're making assumptions about eachother I highly suspect you're not living in Thailand as you claim.
You're clearly not qualified to comment on this story so why are you even bothering to try?
Bah, censored again.