Opinion ID: 612544
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Maternal Abuse and Neglect

Text: When Foust tried to impress his mother by attaining good grades, Barbara responded: `You're still a worthless piece of shit.' Later, when [Foust] got a job, [his] mother responded the same way. App'x Vol. 3 at 1207-08 (Amy Aff. ¶ 6). Barbara insulted her children in many contexts; for example, she derided Amy by calling her a stupid whore who could not do anything right. Id. These facts contrast starkly with the trial evidence, in which Barbara reflected on a time when Foust earned good grades by saying that Foust had `blossomed.' App'x Vol. 5 at 2077 (Karpawich Report). Barbara's disapproval would have stung Foust strongly because of his earlier attachment to his mother. After Kara died in 1980, social services reported that the three-year-old Foust is the most obviously disturbed by the recent trauma in the family. App'x Vol. 3 at 1038. Foust was very attached to his mother and d[id] not relate well to strangers. He cr[ied] when approached by anyone other than his mother. Id. A different evaluation described Foust as a withdrawn child who clung to his mother. Id. at 1040. In addition to emotional abuse, Barbara perpetrated physical abuse. She punished the children by beating them with a belt, throwing items such as shoes, dishes, and food at the children, smacking them across the face, and sending the children to bed hungry. Id. at 1207 (Amy Aff. ¶ 5). In 1992, Amy expressed fear of wear[ing] a belt because her mother will beat her with it. Id. at 1055 (Intake Referral Form). Barbara's violence extended to her treatment of Gary Sr., at whom she would throw pots and pans as well as bottles. Id. at 1219-20 (Julie Dep. ¶ 4). Although testimony at the mitigation hearing showed that Gary Sr. had substance abuse problems, the new evidence shows that Barbara did as well. As of 1985, she was an alcoholic who has not attempted to quit drinking. Id. at 1164 (Social Services Notes). Amy states in her affidavit that her mother spent a lot of time drinking at bars and would return home in a drunken stupor or return home to smoke marijuana or take pills before passing out. Id. at 1212 (Amy Aff. ¶ 21). These particular facts are small pieces of more systemic neglect. A social worker noted that Mrs. Foust had problems in functioning and appeared to be in a daze. Id. at 1039. Amy described her mother as an embarrassment. I always wondered how she could sit there, look at her children suffer, and not do anything about it. Id. at 1207 (Amy Aff. ¶ 4). Amy has no contact with her mother but does not miss her. Id. She's the kind of mother you regret. She makes you sad  she could do so much better, if she cared. It's disgusting to think about. When I was about five years old, our mother decided she wasn't going to be a wife and mother anymore. She moved next door with a man named Randy Kipp. She would sneak in and out of our house so that I wouldn't see her and cry for her not to leave. Id. External observers witnessed Barbara's neglect as well. One social worker could never understand how Barbara Foust, ... residing two blocks away[,] could remain absent and never inquire about her children. Id. at 1033 (6/21/88 Notes). Barbara resisted much-needed intervention from social services. On one occasion in 1984, Barbara threatened to shoot any social worker who came to her home. Id. at 1080. In 1988, a social worker observed that the Fousts have always scapegoated social services agencies, the courts[, and] their children. Id. at 1033. At the mitigation hearing, the testimony accredited the abuse and neglect to Foust's father, never revealing that Foust's mother perpetrated the same types of harm. The testimony at the mitigation hearing misled the three-judge panel into believing that Foust had a stable influence in [his] life who did everything she could to help him. Johnson, 544 F.3d at 604. [8] The reality was more grim. We conclude that the evidence about emotional and physical abuse from Foust's mother is not cumulative, and its effect is strong because of the loss of both parents' support. Cf. Sutton v. Bell, No. 03-5058, 645 F.3d 752, 763-64 (6th Cir. 2011) (discounting mitigation evidence because Sutton, the petitioner, had one constant and positive influence: his grandmother, who raised him and adequately provided for him).