To all intents and purposes, it seems that the mother received a lenient sentence. Before she was sentenced her barrister made her low IQ of 70 a mitigating factor. I was reading through a MN thread on this case, and it seems, the suggestion there from some posters was that with such a low IQ it is possible that her judgement would be impaired, whether or not that is true, I have no idea, not knowing what the implications of a low IQ are. Her barrister did point out that she was an awful mother, but she didn't actually kill Star, her partner did. As with Arthur's father she stood by and let it happen, almost with relish, so one can only ponder as to whether either of them had that innate sense of love and protectiveness that most parents have.
A while ago there was a case in Brighton where the 18 year old mother left her child, similar age to Star, in a supported hostel and went off for days on end partying leaving the poor little girl unattended and without fluids and food and that baby was another heart breaking statistic along with all the other poor little souls. This little girl could have been saved, it seems as the hostel where she was living was staffed and the cameras showed the mother coming and going. Reading about that made me honestly wonder how anyone could reach the age of 18 and not realise any dependent living creature, let alone a human baby, could not be left for days at a time without suffering painfully. She also received a fairly light sentence and again there were grandparents who were appalled and would have stepped in if only they had an idea what she was up to.
With both cases in mind, I read an article by the excellent Julie Bindel who is of the opinion that Star suffered her fate because Social Services put the perceived sensibilities of the fact that these women were lesbians, Julie Bindel is one herself, before the needs of the child and the partner had used that to good effect in deterring both of them being investigated further. I can't believe anyone in their right mind seeing that awful facial bruise wouldn't have removed Star to the safety of the extended family, even just to make sure. As with the mother in Brighton who went out partying, I wondered whether it was felt that it would be unacceptable in that case for someone to hold a master key to enter her accommodation because that would have been deemed to be an infringement of the mother's privacy, if they had, they would have found a little girl slowly dying a painful death who could have been saved.
Both mothers of course were very young when they had their children, and it seems in one case with learning difficulties and in both cases extreme immaturity, too immature to parent independently, or seemingly to have any feelings for their children other than dressing them up as an accessory to be used for photo opportunities. I'm sure many teenage mothers rise to the challenge and do an excellent job, but I wonder why with such question marks and concerns were these two were allowed to go it alone as parents without the much needed and vital support of the extended families.
Once again, as with Arthur, the murderer was named as a step parent, how infuriating that must be to all those step parents who provide love and ongoing support to their step children to be lumped along side those who are merely shacked up with the parent.