A grandfather and grandmother were found guilty of murdering their two-year-old grandson, Ethan Ives-Griffiths, who died from a severe head injury at their home in Garden City, Flintshire. The couple, Michael Ives, 47, and Kerry Ives, 46, were convicted after a trial at Mold Crown Court. Ethan's mother, Shannon Ives, 28, was also found guilty of causing or allowing the death of a child and cruelty to a child.

Ethan suffered from severe dehydration and was severely underweight with numerous bruises when he collapsed on August 14, 2021. The court heard that he had been subjected to abuse during his time living with his grandparents. As the verdicts were announced, the family members displayed various reactions; while Shannon and Kerry stared ahead blankly, Michael rested his head in his hand.

The judge indicated that life sentences were expected for Michael and Kerry Ives due to the nature of their crime. He noted that Shannon would likely receive a substantial prison sentence as well. Outside the court, Ethan's father expressed gratitude for the support received during the trial and shared fond memories of his son.

North Wales Police highlighted that those responsible for caring for Ethan failed to protect him from harm. They described how distressing it was to consider what Ethan endured in his final weeks. An independent review by the North Wales Safeguarding Board will look into how agencies involved handled Ethan's case.

During the trial, evidence included a distressing emergency call made by Kerry Ives when she reported that Ethan had collapsed while watching television. Medical examinations revealed multiple bruises on him after he was taken to Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool.

Ethan had previously been placed on a child protection register but missed several scheduled visits from social workers before his death due to being turned away or not answered at home. The court also heard conflicting accounts regarding who was responsible for Ethan’s treatment within the family dynamics.

This tragic case highlights significant failures in safeguarding vulnerable children and raises questions about accountability among those entrusted with their care.

Original article

This article does not provide any immediate actionable information that readers can use. It does not offer any specific steps or plans for safeguarding children or preventing similar tragedies. While it mentions an independent review, it does not provide any details on how readers can engage with or contribute to such a review.

Educationally, the article provides some depth by explaining the legal process and the outcomes for the family members involved. It also highlights the failures in the safeguarding system and raises important questions about accountability. However, it does not delve into the broader context or historical aspects of child protection systems. It also does not provide any in-depth analysis of the causes or potential solutions to such failures.

In terms of personal relevance, the topic is highly relevant to anyone concerned with child welfare and safety. It directly affects how people view and engage with child protection systems, and it may influence their perceptions and actions regarding child care and family dynamics. The article's impact on readers' lives could be significant, potentially leading to increased vigilance and awareness of child protection issues.

The article does serve a public service function by bringing attention to a tragic case and highlighting systemic failures. It may prompt readers to demand better child protection measures and hold relevant agencies accountable. However, it does not provide any immediate tools or resources for readers to take action or contribute to change.

The advice and information presented in the article are practical in the sense that they describe real-life events and the legal outcomes. However, the article does not offer any specific advice or strategies for readers to improve child protection practices or identify potential abuse.

In terms of long-term impact, the article raises important questions and may contribute to ongoing discussions and improvements in child protection systems. However, it does not provide any concrete actions or plans that readers can implement to bring about lasting change.

Psychologically, the article may have a negative emotional impact on readers, especially those with personal connections to child welfare issues. It describes a tragic case of child abuse and murder, which could evoke strong emotions of sadness, anger, or helplessness. While it does not sensationalize the story, it may leave readers feeling upset and concerned about the state of child protection.

The article does not appear to be clickbait or driven by advertising. It presents a serious and sensitive topic without using sensational language or making exaggerated claims.

It is clear that the actions described in this text break the sacred bonds that should exist within families and communities, and they reveal a profound failure to uphold the duties we owe to our kin and the vulnerable. The murder of a child, Ethan Ives-Griffiths, at the hands of his own grandparents is an abhorrent act that shatters the trust and protection that should be inherent in family relationships. This tragedy exposes a deep contradiction: those entrusted with care and love have instead inflicted harm and cruelty.

The grandparents, Michael and Kerry Ives, have not only broken the moral code of family but have also abandoned their responsibility to protect and nurture the life of their grandson. Their actions, leading to Ethan's death, demonstrate a complete disregard for the sanctity of life and the duty to care for the most vulnerable. The mother, Shannon Ives, also bears responsibility, as she allowed harm to come to her child and failed in her duty to protect him.

This case highlights a broader issue of trust and responsibility within communities. The involvement of social workers and the child protection register indicates that there were signs of potential harm, yet these were not acted upon effectively. The turning away of social workers and the missed visits suggest a lack of cooperation and a failure to prioritize the well-being of the child.

The impact of such behavior is devastating. It weakens the very foundation of family, erodes trust between community members, and leaves children vulnerable to abuse and neglect. If such actions and attitudes spread unchecked, the fabric of society will fray, and the protection and continuity of future generations will be severely compromised. Children, the most precious gift to any community, will be at risk, and the balance of life, so carefully maintained by our ancestors, will be disrupted.

The consequences are clear: without a strong moral compass rooted in family and community, the land and its people will suffer. Children will grow up in an environment of fear and uncertainty, and the bonds that have historically united people and ensured their survival will be severed. It is our duty, as members of families and communities, to uphold the values of protection, trust, and responsibility, and to ensure that such tragedies do not become a norm, for the sake of our children, our land, and the future of our people.

"The judge indicated that life sentences were expected for Michael and Kerry Ives due to the nature of their crime."

This sentence uses strong words like "expected" and "nature of their crime" to make the judge's decision seem obvious and justified. It makes it seem like there is no other option but a life sentence, which can influence how readers feel about the verdict.

The text evokes a range of emotions, primarily sadness and anger, with underlying tones of fear, worry, and frustration. These emotions are expressed through the use of descriptive language and the portrayal of various reactions from the individuals involved.

Sadness is a prevalent emotion throughout the text, particularly when describing Ethan's tragic death and the circumstances surrounding it. The mention of his severe dehydration, underweight condition, and bruises paints a picture of a vulnerable child who suffered greatly. The phrase "collapsed on August 14, 2021" implies a sudden and devastating end to a young life, evoking a deep sense of sadness and sympathy for Ethan and his family.

Anger is directed towards the grandparents and mother, who were found guilty of murder and cruelty to a child. The use of words like "guilty," "murder," and "cruelty" carries a strong emotional weight, indicating a sense of outrage and condemnation for their actions. The description of Ethan's abuse and the grandparents' blank stares during the verdict announcement further fuel this anger, as it suggests a lack of remorse or acknowledgment of their wrongdoing.

Fear and worry are evoked when considering the impact of Ethan's death on his father and the wider community. The father's expression of gratitude for support during the trial and his fond memories of his son imply a deep sense of loss and fear for the future. The mention of an independent review also suggests a broader concern for the safety and well-being of vulnerable children, as it highlights potential failures in the safeguarding system.

Frustration is implied in the text's discussion of Ethan's previous placement on a child protection register and the missed social worker visits. The suggestion that he was "turned away" or not answered at home indicates a breakdown in communication and a failure to prioritize his welfare. This frustration is likely shared by readers, as it raises questions about the effectiveness of child protection measures and the accountability of those responsible for implementing them.

These emotions guide the reader's reaction by evoking a sense of empathy and outrage. The text aims to create a strong emotional connection with the reader, encouraging them to feel the weight of Ethan's suffering and the injustice of his death. By portraying the emotions of those involved, the writer humanizes the story and makes it more relatable, ensuring that readers are engaged and invested in the outcome.

The writer employs several persuasive techniques to enhance the emotional impact of the text. One notable technique is the use of vivid and descriptive language, such as "severe dehydration," "severely underweight," and "multiple bruises." These words paint a graphic picture of Ethan's condition, appealing to the reader's senses and evoking a stronger emotional response.

Another persuasive tool is the inclusion of direct quotes, such as the judge's indication of life sentences and the father's expression of gratitude. These quotes add a personal touch to the story, allowing readers to connect with the individuals involved on a deeper level. By sharing their emotions and experiences, the writer builds trust and encourages readers to align their feelings with those of the affected parties.

Additionally, the text employs a narrative structure, telling the story of Ethan's death and the subsequent trial. This storytelling approach engages readers and allows them to follow the emotional journey of the characters, building empathy and a sense of investment in the outcome. By using these persuasive techniques, the writer effectively guides the reader's emotional response, ensuring that they feel the weight of the tragedy and are compelled to consider the broader implications for child safeguarding.