Chapter 20 - WHAT MORGAUSE TOLD HER THERAPIST? We wouldn't know private. Instead THE PLEA OFFER.
The prosecutor offered Morgause a misdemeanor resolution.
Charges based on:
Intentional destruction of prescription glasses.
Interference with a child’s medical aid.
Pattern evidence relevant to sentencing, not separate criminal counts for every chore.
No felony torture.
No false imprisonment.
No exaggeration.
Terms proposed:
Plea to misdemeanor child endangerment and criminal property damage.
Probation.
Restitution.
Anger-management and parenting/family-boundary counseling.
No direct contact with Eluned consistent with civil order.
Morgause rejected first offer.
Why?
She would admit she knew taking the glasses created risk.
Her attorney believed they could negotiate language recognizing no intent to cause medical injury.
Reasonable.
Then a second offer:
Misdemeanor child endangerment based on knowingly making prescribed corrective lenses unavailable and subjecting Eluned to a coercive household condition.
Property damage merged for sentencing.
No claim she intended blindness.
Morgause considered.
Then she asked to meet me in mediation.
I declined.
Not necessary for plea.
Then she accepted.
No trial yet.
But sentencing remained contested.
She wanted the grandfather letter excluded as “irrelevant hearsay.”
Prosecutor argued it showed notice and prior confrontation, supported by Morgause’s own texts.
The judge allowed limited use of authenticated contemporaneous communications, not Dad’s letter as magical proof of everything.
May you like
Good.
The final confrontation would be about what Morgause already knew when she broke the glasses.
