Chapter 20 - THE DEFENSE EXPERT
The defense called a child-development expert.
Not to say Reena did nothing wrong.
To explain:
Children under stress can conflate memories.
Grief can affect narratives.
Repeated adult conversations can shape phrasing.
A child saying “Mom told me Dad caused the others” may reflect generalized family story, not specific coaching instruction.
Fair.
Then:
Children can also accurately report core events while details shift.
Also fair.
Defense expert did not accuse Drew of lying.
Good.
Then orthopedic expert:
Current tibial fracture could result from fall on stairs.
No evidence from X-ray alone that someone intentionally assaulted.
Correct.
Delayed care medically inappropriate.
Correct.
Older fractures not proof of abuse.
Correct.
No one should convict assault simply because multiple fractures exist.
Good.
Then Reena’s pastor? Maybe character witness not necessary at guilt phase. Excluded.
Defense rested.
Closing arguments.
Prosecution did not say:
Believe every word Drew says.
Instead:
Believe the parts corroborated.
Basement exterior lock.
Reena text “grounded downstairs.”
Daytime absence.
Window escape.
Untreated fracture.
Her own messages refusing ER.
Her acknowledgment she feared questions.
Aaron objecting to lock months earlier.
Reena continuing.
Coaching/blame pattern.
For assault causing fracture:
Prosecution argued closing door on child on stairs while preventing exit was reckless/intentional enough under charged statute.
Defense:
Accidental closing during discipline.
No proof she meant bodily injury.
For unlawful restraint:
Defense said parental discipline and safety authority, no criminal intent, room safe, duration disputed.
Prosecution:
Parents do not have unlimited authority to lock young children in a basement and leave property.
That was strong.
For neglect:
Hard to escape.
Then jury.
Family court paused.
We waited.
Drew did not.
He went to school.
I made myself go to work half day.
Could not.
At two, prosecutor called.
“Verdict.”
I picked children up from school and took them to maternal grandmother? They should not sit courthouse. Their therapist/approved caregiver kept them. Maternal grandmother now trusted enough? Let's use my coworker’s wife? Better CPS arranged respite/kinship support. Maternal grandmother could be safe and loved; she had improved. But she was Reena's mother and emotional. Still, children can be with her if court-approved. She took them, promised no case talk. Good.
At courthouse, Reena stood.
Verdicts:
Guilty — unlawful confinement of Drew on the escape-day incident.
Guilty — unlawful confinement/endangerment of Lily for the same incident.
Guilty — child neglect for failing to obtain medical treatment for Drew’s fracture.
Guilty — child endangerment related to food withholding/confinement pattern? Need avoid duplicate. Maybe one endangerment count for leaving both children locked while she left property.
Not guilty — aggravated assault causing Drew’s fracture because jury could not determine beyond reasonable doubt whether Reena intentionally/recklessly caused the fall under that charge.
Not guilty — one historical unlawful-restraint count prosecutors had included? We said only one strong episode. Keep no.
Maybe mixed by acquittal on assault only. Enough.
The jury found:
She locked them.
She neglected broken leg.
They were not sure she legally caused fracture.
Accurate.
Reena cried.
I did too.
Not because I wanted every count.
Because Drew would eventually ask:
“Did court say Mom broke my leg?”
Answer:
“No.”
Court said it wasn’t proved beyond reasonable doubt.
That would matter.
Then judge remanded Reena pending sentencing? She had complied and nonviolent history but convictions against children. Could allow continued release under strict conditions pending sentencing. Let's say she remained on monitored release with no unsupervised contact.
No dramatic handcuff unless required.
Family court now moved toward permanency hearing.
Criminal sentencing in six weeks.
The main legal confrontation was not over.
Reena’s parental role was still alive.
And the hardest question came from Drew that night.
“Did Mom win the leg?”
I sat beside him.
“No one wins.”
“Did they believe me?”
“They believed some things were proved and one thing wasn’t proved enough.”
“So maybe I fell by myself?”
“You did fall.”
“Because Mom closed door.”
“Yes, that’s what you remember.”
“Then why not guilty?”
“Court needs a very high level of proof for that particular charge.”
He started crying.
“Then Mom says I lie.”
“No.”
“Will she?”
“I don’t know.”
That answer again.
He punched pillow.
Then screamed:
“I know!”
May you like
I let him.
Sometimes certainty belongs to the child even when court cannot certify it.
