Tracey RichterRiddle me this: if you committed a bloody murder while your three kids are in the next room, would you consider yourself a good mom? You wouldn't think I'd have to ask this question, but I do. Because a judge in Iowa has decided that Tracey Richter is not only a good mom -- despite having killed a man while her then-toddler kids were a room away -- but her honor has deemed the convicted murderer deserves parental rights that include their dad being forced to bring them to prison for visits.
Wait, make that make them travel to prison in Iowa all the way from their home in California to visit the mom who -- yes, I'm going to repeat it -- cared so much about their well-being that she murdered a man while they were in the next room. And they say the nuclear family is breaking down ... apparently not so folks!
I jest ... sort of ... but the ruling here is so loopy that the jokey defense mechanism that comes of being completely confused was inevitable.
The facts of Tracey Richter's case are just so bizarre, I'm struggling to see how a convicted murderer's rights supersede those of her kids.
Basically, Richter murdered a man named Dustin Wehde back in 2001 in her home. Her (now ex-) husband Michael Roberts was away on a business trip, but her kids, then ages 3 and 1, were a room away, along with a third child from another man, when she fired off 11 shots. It's almost impossible for them not to have been impacted in some way.
At the time, Richter told police it was self-defense, that Wehde and another man had attacked her during a home invasion, and Roberts stood by her. But after the couple divorced in 2004, she started blaming him for the man's death. It would take several years, during which she retained custody of her kids, for cops to determine it was all a pack of lies, and she was convicted of the murder last November.
She sounds like a lunatic, right? An evil, gun-toting lunatic?
Well, not according to the judge. Judge Nancy Whittenburg says it's wrong that Michael Roberts has moved his kids to California to keep them away from their mother. She wants these kids to visit their mother in prison, take 30-minute phone calls from her on their birthdays, and she says the kids should be required to accept packages of Richter's voice recorded on tape.
In other words ... the fact that she killed a man in cold blood is not considered a factor in whether or not this woman is a fit parent. She's being pushed into these kids lives whether they want it or not.
Are we really setting the bar for good parenting that low?
To be fair, maybe the kids do want some relationship with their mother. She is still their flesh and blood, their mother for crying out loud. I've always said that even murderers have people who love them.
But shouldn't that be on the kids' terms, not the mother's? She made the decision to put herself first when she murdered a man in the same house as her kids. Now it's time to put them first.
Do you think this woman should have any rights to her kids?
Image via Iowa Department of Public Safety
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Kanye West is Gay?! 
Comments 15
Kids are not possessions, yet they are being treated as such by both the "mother" and the judge. This is a disgraceful ruling.
I think it's difficult to tell exactly what's going on from the details provided here. This crime happened over a decade ago, so the kids are at least pre-teens. It could very well be that the kids would like to still talk to their mom occasionally and receive packages from her. You can definitely understand the father wanting to shelter the kids, but at their ages, if they want to have some minimal contact with their mother they should be allowed to, (The same goes for if they think she's nuts and do not want to have contact with her) Like I said, a lot of it, in my opinion should come down to how much contact the kids want to have.
If a man broke into my house and I shot him to defend my kids, then yes, I deserve the right to see me children. On the other hand, she shot a man 11 times, repeat 11 TIMES!! Not two or three to stop him or once in the head or heart, 11 times. As a judge, I'd have to have this woman clinically checked out and see what kind of mental mind state she has, and then why she changed her story. I'd hate to have someone of her caliber trying to teach her kids anything when she's obviously not a good role model for even the family dog.
I totally agree with Amanda Provenzano we have no idea at all what took place here. There is certainly more then one reason I would kill someone and some of those reason are for my children. This article is so closed minded. Wake up!!
I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, after reading a couple other articles about the whole situation, she sounds like a crazy person. On the other hand, she had custody of her kids until last year, when the prosecutor took another look at the case. She's been raising them all this time, so I don't think it's fair AT ALL that her ex-husband moved them to California and is trying to get permission from the courts to take them back to his family in Australia. I'd really be interested to hear what the kids say.
This judge is out of her mind. The ruling is such a diservice to these children. I hope he gets to appeal this to a judge with some common sense.
I am sure this woman would not want her children to be in touch with a murderer.