These are the undisputed facts:

(1) Mrs. Yates suffered from increasingly severe episodes of post partum depressing following the birth of her children, especially the younger ones.

(2) Prior to drowning her five children, Mrs. Yates attempted suicide not once, but twice.  When asked about what he did in response to these attempts, Mr. Yates replied, in court, "We just thought we'd keep an eye on her," and did not seek medical help for her.

(3) Following the birth of their fourth child, Mr. Yates was told by psychiatrists that, should Mrs. Yates become pregnant again, the safety of his wife and their children could be at risk.

(4) Seeing their sister enduring so much suffering, Mrs. Yates' brother and sister implored Mr. Yates not to allow her to become pregnant again.  Mr. Yates's reply was, in words or substance, "We'll just keep having as many babies as God wants us to have." Andrea Yates' fifth and last pregnancy followed.

As their father, Mr. Yates was under both a moral and legal duty to protect his children from harm.  There is no doubt he failed to do that.  However, is he criminally liable for their deaths?  It would surely seem to be so.

When one voluntarily becomes intoxicated or under the influence of drugs and then drives a car which kills other people, that person is customarily charged with the crime of negligent homicide, also sometimes called manslaughter.  Similarly, recklessly shooting a gun into the air or other doing other intentionally careless or hazardous acts which cause a death can also result in a similar criminal charge.

Was Russell Yates criminally negligent in his acts?  Mr. Yates knew another pregnancy would endanger the mental health of his wife and could put the physical safety of his children at risk.  Mr. Yates knew Andrea Yates had twice attempted suicide following the birth of two of their children, but had done nothing to lessen the risk of a reoccurrence of the hormonal-caused psychosis which caused those attempts.  With this knowledge indisputably within his grasp, it is not a great legal leap to impose a duty on Russell Yates to have acted to save his wife's mind and his childrens' lives.

Mr. Yates' response to such a notion seems to be one which raises his religious faith as a shield to such suggestions of moral or legal culpability.  However, our laws have never allowed religious zealotry to threaten the lives of our children.  Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Science parents cannot stand idly by praying for recovery while their children are at medical risk of death or serious injury.  As a society, we have determined that such children have the right to life and health regardless of the religious beliefs of their parents, no matter how sincere or well-intentioned those beliefs may be.

How much different from these obvious examples of negligent homicide crimes was Russell Yates' indifference to his wife's illness?  Were not his choices to ignore the multiple warnings and the pleas of both medical professionals and relatives to protect his wife and children from harm clearly criminal acts?

The law is not dry or dead words on old paper - it is a living thing in constant evolution.  The acts and omissions of Russell Yates are well over the line of what constitutes negligent homicide. He, too, should be held to answer for the deaths of his five innocent children at the hand of his obviously ill wife.