>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Investigators soon learned that the boys had allegedly been subjected to punishments that defy any definition of caregiving. Court evidence includes claims that the children were restrained with zip ties, trapped under a tent, and even forced to wear a hockey helmet as a method of control. At times, they were reportedly ordered to walk staircases repeatedly as another form of discipline.
The most chilling part of this case is not only what the women allegedly did, but how casually they appeared to discuss it. In 2022, Cooney sent a text about the dying child, referring to him as “the f**k.” When her father warned something was clearly wrong because the boy kept collapsing, Cooney dismissed it, saying, “It’s a fake fall for sympathy.”
The next day, Cooney texted Hamber that the boy might need medical attention. Hamber’s response revealed a mindset completely detached from responsibility or compassion. “Guess the stupid choices are really getting him,” she wrote, followed by another message: “No sleep, starving, dehydrated, and no poo… the perfect storm.”
Despite the horrifying state of the children, Hamber attempted to portray their actions as reasonable, saying, “We’re doing the best we can do.” Yet prosecutors say the women were anything but overwhelmed caretakers — they were abusive guardians who not only harmed the children but openly talked about killing them. Text messages shown in court include statements from Cooney such as “I’m gonna kill his whiney a**,” and another: “I’m trying, I really just wanna murder.”
The accusations didn’t stop there. When one of the boys told a therapist about having his hands tied, the women panicked. “We’re fd,” Hamber texted. Cooney complained about the child’s honesty, writing, “Fing d … shows he will tell anyone anything.”
The Independent also reported that L.L. was repeatedly insulted and dehumanized, called “a loser” and “such an a**hole” by the women entrusted with his care.
Both defendants have pleaded not guilty, but the evidence presented so far paints a devastating picture. And the broader question remains unavoidable: How did government officials, social workers, and foster evaluators approve and maintain placement in a home where this level of mistreatment could occur?
For many conservatives, this case underscores a long-standing belief that modern foster systems are increasingly guided by ideology rather than the wellbeing of children. Instead of prioritizing stable, faith-guided homes, bureaucratic agencies appear more focused on fulfilling progressive visions of family structure — including placing children with couples who may not be prepared, qualified, or grounded in traditional values that emphasize duty, discipline, and moral upbringing.
The death of a child should prompt deep national soul-searching. If the state refuses to reform these structures, then communities — especially churches and faith-centered organizations — may once again need to take the lead in caring for society’s most vulnerable. Because if children continue to be placed in homes where they are starved, restrained, mocked, and ultimately die, then the system is not just broken — it is dangerous.
