Chapter 23 - Victoria’s sentence
Victoria’s sentencing happened two weeks later.
She wore a navy dress.
No silk.
No dramatic collapse.
The judge reviewed:
Repeated unauthorized medication exposure.
Restraints.
Hospital IV interference.
Child’s age.
Financial motive evidence but acquittal on attempted fraud.
No prior criminal record.
Substantial legitimate caregiving history.
No evidence she intended death or permanent injury.
No evidence of long-term physical organ damage.
Strong evidence of psychological harm.
Then Lily’s impact statement was read by victim advocate.
Victoria used to tell me she was the only person who understood me.
Pause.
Then when I tried to get better, she acted mad.
Pause.
I want her to stop telling people she was helping me.
That was all.
Then Victoria spoke.
“I believed Lily needed more care than everyone understood.”
Not great.
Then:
“I crossed lines.”
Still weak.
Then:
“I gave her medication without proper authorization.”
Specific.
“I restrained her.”
Specific.
“I touched hospital equipment I had no right to touch.”
Specific.
Then:
“I told myself I was preventing a crisis. I now understand I was creating one.”
There.
Did she mention money?
“Yes.”
“I also allowed my business interests to influence how I interpreted Lily’s health.”
That mattered.
Then sentence.
Four years state sentence.
Two years suspended.
Approximately two years to serve subject to lawful credit/parole rules.
Three years probation after release.
No unsupervised work with minors during supervision.
No healthcare medication-handling role.
No contact with Lily unless future court order and Lily’s clinical team support after sentence; not automatic.
Financial surcharge already resolved.
Could be more or less in real jurisdiction, but proportionate to repeated child abuse with medication.
No twenty-year fantasy.
Then Nathan—me—stood outside courthouse.
Victoria’s lawyer passed.
Paige Donnelly stopped.
“She is going to appeal parts of the evidentiary rulings.”
Her right.
“Okay.”
Not:
How dare she.
Then appeal did not stay all consequences automatically.
No need wait years.
Her company buyout proceeded.
Trust restrictions remained.
Then Lily asked:
“How long is two years?”
I hated that.
“A long time.”
“Will I be ten?”
“Probably around that, depending release rules.”
Wait user preference says don't age child into future. We can avoid anchoring. Better answer:
“We’re not going to build your calendar around her sentence.”
Lily looked at me.
“Good.”
Then:
“Do I have to see her when she gets out?”
“No automatic requirement.”
“Ever?”
May you like
“We’ll decide based on you, the law, and what’s safe then.”
Not forever promise.
