Brent's injury on the right side of the brain directly affects his social and cognitive development, retarding them to some degree so that he interacts at an emotionally and mentally younger age than his same physical-age peers. We'd noticed that. His doctor pointed out that the retardation of said development is roughly 24 months, or close to 2 full years behind that of his peers. It also affects his "impulsivity"-- his ability to rationally consider the consequences of his actions when he has been overloaded by excessive stimuli-- in this case, the persistent bullying from
a particular classmate, who admitted during a taped conversation with Mesa PD that he KNEW Brent felt as if the bully, were making fun of Brent.
Brent feels emotions more deeply than his peers, according to his psychiatric assessment, and is not a violent person by nature. We believe he may have become so emotionally overwhelmed by negative stress, that his baser instincts momentarily took over. He also has an avoidance issue with expressing his emotions, which deepens as he matures. Hence, an uncharacteristic, unprovoked, and unplanned explosion. Bad karma for a big kid. But being a big kid does NOT automatically mean a person is either violent or entertains terroristic thoughts. Nor is it an excuse for a horrid choice.
Here's another interesting fact about "Traumatic Brain Injury": in about 95% of children's cases, there are NO SYMPTOMS until the onset of puberty, right about age 14--when, coincidentally, the brain actually experiences one of two major physical growth spurts (the other is about age 19). Take the google challenge. We were amazed how much info is out there about TBI, and also how little is known about detecting it! It's a relatively new medical research tool, so much is still not known.
Other choices could have been made. We agree with the general public, as does Brent, that he must pay the consequences for his actions through appropriate punishment. But having found the concrete answer for said behavior, should it lay in the Prosecutor's hands to DENY him medical and behavioral care, and ongoing therapy to correct a problem that is not going to go away, so he learns to function appropriately in society-- but that will DEFINITELY become worse as a direct result of Brent's immediate environment, over an unnecessarily prolonged period of confinement with society's less acceptable role models?
Did we mention that this is the first thing we asked for when we went to law enforcement-- that he be subjected to a psychiatric evaluation within 24 hours, so that there would exist a baseline measurement for such uncharacteristic behavior? Or that he would have been legally entitled to that exam if charged as a juvenile (see the Juvenile Statutes, Section 8 of the AZ Criminal Code)? Now WHY do you suppose they'd want to deliberately deny him that test? OR the urinalysis (UA) we also requested?
They could have transferred his case to the adult courts later, at any time they chose.... Brent has been medically and psychiatrically diagnosed as requiring rehabilitative therapy in order to continue to function in society. If he were accessible to us, we would be responsible for that: logistically, supervisorally, AND financially. WE had already begun the regimen.
If Brent is incarcerated as an adult, we intend to ENSURE that he receives an equivalent level of medical, therapeutic, and behavioral care in line with his diagnosis, at the expense of the County logistically, supervisorally, AND financially. After all, he is an adult now, by dint of his actions alone, according Andrew Thomas.
Apparently the Prosecutor has decided that he will receive an appropriate level of rehabilitative care in the environment the Prosecutor has placed him in. Do we, as parents, still have the right to ensure his security and welfare? The State has not taken away our parental rights or emancipated our child.
