No, I have remained purposely impartial.
Protip, don't try and become a lawyer.
We have no evidence to sway us between "mom was worse than dad" and "mom is a victim". (In fact the available evidence suggests mom was so bad that dads psychopathic character didn't shine through as less safe from Mom than foster care. I've been generous to Mom given this and, again, not going into gender politics of custody battles...).
I understand you're trying to be empathetic. I'm trying to preserve justice for a tortured, dead child. Until we don't know mom wasnt worse, we remain impartial.
You may be right, mom may be a victim. But you may be doing a dead child a severe disservice. Withhold your judgement without facts present, please.
Was Dad's cousin the DA? that changes things. We dont know. And until we do, we examine the available evidence.
Until more evidence is presented publicly, mom is not a victim. That doesn't mean she can't be, and I have left that window open. On purpose.
The known victim is a dead child. We proceed with respect to known victims so as to remain impartial.
There is one victim here until we know more.
Stick to child services and dont get into law.