Chapter 20 - MARGARET’S CASEMargaret’s legal consequences centered on what she actually did.
Not the affair.
Not the secret DNA test.
Not saying cruel things.
The restraint.
She had intentionally wrapped a heavy chain around a five-year-old and secured it to a post to prevent her leaving a punishment area.
No injury.
Brief duration.
Still an unlawful restraint and child-endangerment concern.
She had no criminal history.
She was sixty-seven.
She cooperated after initial denial.
The eventual negotiated resolution involved a child-endangerment/unlawful-restraint-related misdemeanor, probation, parenting/grandparent education, and strict no-unsupervised-contact conditions.
No decades in prison.
No absurd sentence.
The court emphasized:
A child being physically uninjured did not mean the restraint was acceptable.
Margaret’s lawyer emphasized:
No intent to cause bodily harm.
Both true.
The family-court restrictions lasted longer than her criminal supervision.
May you like
Access to Sophie was not a reward for serving a sentence.
It depended on Sophie’s welfare.
Related Stories
