Safe Mode: On
Not guilty verdict in case of baby left in Wal Mart toilet

This 22 year old has a 10 month old baby and has another one on the way. She is planning on trying to get custody of this baby that she abandoned in Wal mart in May 2007. I don't have a problem with the verdict but it pisses me off that she kept on breeding.

=========================================================

A young woman who gave birth in a Wal-Mart bathroom and left the newborn in the toilet has been found not guilty of child abandonment.

April Halkett, 22, appeared in a Prince Albert, Sask., courtroom on Wednesday to receive the verdict.

She had pleaded not guilty to the child abandonment charge stemming from the May 2007 incident.

Court of Queen's Bench Justice Neil Gabrielson ruled against the Crown's argument that Halkett had willfully abandoned the child.

"This was not a case of abandonment but rather a case of a scared young woman being confronted with unexpected circumstances involving a precipitous birth and a pale, motionless child because the child was in a shock-like state," the judge said.

Halkett took the stand in her own defence during the trial, saying she didn't know she was pregnant until the baby was born in the bathroom.

She testified that she was still getting her period during the pregnancy and that three home pregnancy tests had come back negative.

Halkett also said the baby was blue and not moving after she delivered, and she thought it was dead.

"She responded to these circumstances in an obviously inappropriate way in leaving the child in the toilet," said the judge.

"However negligent her actions may have been, they were not criminal in nature."

Court heard that Halkett had been shopping at Wal-Mart in Prince Albert when she felt sick and went to the bathroom. She delivered the baby and then left him behind, court heard.

Later, another shopper went into the bathroom and discovered the baby's tiny hand emerging from the toilet.

With the help of paramedics who arrived shortly after the discovery, the baby began breathing.

Four days later, with the help of security footage, police found Halkett.

Crown lawyer Jennifer Claxton-Viczko maintained that Halkett knew her longtime boyfriend wasn't the father of the child -- something that was proven by DNA blood test -- and therefore didn't want the child.

The boyfriend was away working in Nunavut at the time.

But defence lawyer Ajay Krishan argued that his client wouldn't have chosen a Wal-Mart bathroom to give birth if she wanted to get rid of the child.

Halkett, who does not have custody of the boy, has since given birth to another child, whom she is raising.

Krishan added that Halkett wants to reapply to get custody of her first child.

"She wanted the truth to come out because she's been vilified and I think it was important for her to say, 'Here's what really happened.' People may or may not believe her, but the judge believed it ... Hopefully now she can get on with her life. She loves her children."

The child's current guardians said that the boy is a "rambunctious little guy" who is very healthy.

Halkett is also expecting a third child.

Meanwhile, the Crown is considering an appeal.


Click to view image: '8d8a9ada1fa9-walmarthasket.jpg'

Click to view image: 'f7a503da51ab-walmart.jpg'

Added: Jun-25-2009 Occurred On: Jun-25-2009
By: Steve677
In:
News
Tags: baby, walmart, abandoned, welfare
Views: 11939 | Comments: 12 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE