Child killer disputes babysitting claims
Child killer Elizabeth Healy is disputing the account of a neighbour who says she babysat her child, breaching her parole conditions.
Healy was released from Christchurch Women’s Prison on March 6, 2013, after serving almost 15 years for killing toddler Shae Hammond in January 1997.
Shae died in Christchurch Hospital from a severely fractured skull after staying the night with Healy.
Healy was found guilty of injuring a second toddler with intent and poisoning a third child with salt.
At a parole board hearing last November, she was recalled to jail after it found she had breached her strict release conditions by babysitting a child.
Yesterday she appeared on trial in Hutt Valley District Court, charged with breaching her special parole conditions.
Her parole conditions stated she was not allowed to associate with anyone under the age of 16 without the presence of an approved adult.
A neighbour, whose front door backed on to Healy’s back door, told the court she asked Healy to look after her 6-year-old son, who has special needs, while she went to the shops for 20 minutes on two separate occasions.
The pair had become friendly when Healy moved in to the block of 10 flats in Upper Hutt and, after a few months, she felt comfortable asking her to look after her child, she said.
On one of those occasions, Healy looked after the child by herself, the neighbour said.
She did not know of Healy’s convictions when she made the requests and said Healy was good to her son.
When she was told by a neighbour about it and then looked up Healy’s case on Google, she said she was furious. ‘‘I was irate, in a hell of a mood. ‘‘To be quite honest I can’t stand being in the same room as her now.’’
But Healy disputed the neighbour’s record of events and said she had never been alone with the child.
‘‘[On the first occasion] I told her that I was unable to look after her son but that my son might be able to.’’
Her 19-year-old son took care of the child and, while the woman went to the shops, Healy said she sat in her car.
‘‘[My son], being my biggest critic, made sure that I left.
‘‘He then texted me to say they’d left our house and I went back inside.’’
On the second occasion, Healy said she gave the neighbour a ride to the shops so there was no way she could have been near the child.
The neighbour said this was not true and Healy and her son had stayed behind while she went to the shops, with the son leaving before she got back.
Healy said she was friendly with the neighbour but after a few months the woman began to constantly ask her for money and rides to places.
Healy said she baked for all her neighbours and had been on good terms with all of them until they found out about her offending.
Her son told the court that he had only ever looked after the boy by himself. His mother left the property on both occasions when he looked after the boy.
Healy’s lawyer, Louise Sziranyi, raised the question of why the Probation Service allowed Healy to live in a place with children nearby.
Probation officer Danielle Lee told the court the flat was approved because there were no signs of children when it was inspected.
Another neighbour, Ruth Russell, was the one who informed the neighbour about Healy’s offending. Russell and the neighbour later complained to the probation service about Healy looking after the child alone.
Judge Peter Butler reserved his decision.