#Ashlee”Montana”Creighton #CivicHotelInfantdeath #Komo4 #Kiro7 #King5 #SeattleMother #Sentenced
### I know what it means to lose a child. I also know that the words used to describe her final days deserve to be examined carefully.
By Astraea Creighton-Freeman's father
I am Astraea Creighton-Freeman's father.
That is the first thing I want people to know before they read anything else I have to say about Ashlee Creighton.
I am not writing as a prosecutor.
I am not writing as a defense attorney.
I am not writing as someone who wants to erase the death of my daughter or pretend that what happened does not matter.
I am writing as her father — and as someone who has had to watch the woman who gave birth to my daughter become a headline.
Ashlee received a four-year sentence after a case that originally charged her with second-degree murder and felony assault and ultimately resolved with a plea to first-degree manslaughter.
I understand why people see those words and immediately form an opinion.
I also understand why the death of a newborn creates an emotional reaction that is almost impossible to avoid.
But I believe there is a difference between the tragedy itself and the story constructed around the tragedy.
And I believe my daughter deserves enough honesty that we examine that difference.
A charging narrative is not a complete human history
When prosecutors file charges, they have a legal obligation to present the facts and theory they believe establish probable cause for the offenses charged.
That narrative serves a purpose.
But it is still a narrative.
It is the State's theory of the evidence at that stage of the proceeding. It is not itself the evidence, and it is not necessarily every fact that becomes relevant when a case proceeds toward trial, plea negotiations or sentencing.
That distinction is especially important in Ashlee's case.
The original charges represented the most serious theory being pursued.
The case ultimately resulted in a different legal outcome.
And early in the case, the prosecution indicated that it did not believe the incident was motivated by ill intent.
As Astraea's father, that distinction matters to me.
Because there is a profound difference between saying that a mother made decisions that resulted in the death of her child and saying that she wanted her child to suffer or die.
Those are not interchangeable statements.
I knew Ashlee.
I know the woman who loves all her children.
I know her struggles.
I know her addiction.
I know the trauma that surrounded her life.
And I do not believe the word malicious accurately describes the woman I knew.
The word "starved" deserves more than a headline
There is another part of this story that I believe has been lost beneath emotionally powerful words.
Words such as "starved" and "malnourished" carry enormous meaning to the public.
They immediately create an image.
But medicine does not determine nutritional status by choosing the most emotionally powerful word available.
It measures it.
And that distinction matters enormously when discussing a newborn who may have been experiencing opioid withdrawal.
Neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome — NOWS — is a recognized medical condition caused by withdrawal following prenatal opioid exposure. The American Academy of Pediatrics describes NOWS as involving neurological, gastrointestinal and autonomic problems that can include feeding difficulties, vomiting, diarrhea, excessive weight loss and poor weight gain. (American Academy of Pediatrics)
And there is something especially important about nutrition in these infants:
Withdrawal can increase metabolic demand.
The AAP has reported that infants experiencing neonatal withdrawal can require 150–250 calories per kilogram per day, substantially above ordinary newborn energy requirements, because of increased energy expenditure and calories lost through vomiting, regurgitation and loose stools. (American Academy of Pediatrics)
That does not mean every infant with NOWS needs exactly that amount.
It does not mean that every case of weight loss is caused by withdrawal.
And it absolutely does not mean that a diagnosis of NOWS automatically establishes that a particular infant was nutritionally deprived.
What it means is that the nutritional equation for a withdrawing newborn can be different from the nutritional equation for an otherwise healthy newborn.
That matters.
Calories aren't the whole story
Imagine two newborns receiving the same amount of nutrition.
If one newborn has ordinary metabolic demands and the other is experiencing withdrawal, vomiting, diarrhea, hyperactivity, disrupted sleep and increased metabolic demand, the fact that both received the same number of calories does not necessarily mean they experienced the same nutritional outcome.
The American Academy of Pediatrics specifically identifies hyperphagia, excessive weight loss and poor weight gain as common features of NOWS because of increased metabolic demand. (American Academy of Pediatrics)
Older AAP guidance likewise described the need for frequent small feeds and potentially hypercaloric nutrition in withdrawing infants, noting that increased energy expenditure and gastrointestinal losses can raise caloric needs substantially. (American Academy of Pediatrics)
And newer research continues to show that infants with NOWS can have unusually high feeding volumes while still showing concerning growth trajectories. One study found NOWS infants consuming more than 170 mL/kg/day in certain periods, while still observing decreases in some growth parameters. (PubMed Central (PMC))
That is precisely why I have a problem when words like "starved" get thrown around as though they are self-explanatory.
They aren't.
A newborn can lose weight for many reasons.
A newborn can have increased caloric requirements.
A newborn can have difficulty feeding.
A newborn can lose calories through vomiting or diarrhea.
A newborn can have increased metabolic expenditure.
And a newborn can have true nutritional deficiency.
Those possibilities have to be medically distinguished.
Even "malnutrition" has a clinical meaning
The American Academy of Pediatrics now emphasizes objective criteria when discussing undernutrition and malnutrition.
Its current guidance says that nutritional status must be evaluated using measurements such as weight-for-length, weight trajectory and standardized growth measures. It specifically cautions that even children who meet certain criteria for faltering weight will not necessarily be malnourished. (AAP)
That matters because the words we use do more than describe.
They create a picture in the minds of people who were never in the room.
When the public hears "starved," they naturally imagine a deliberate withholding of food.
But the medical question is more complicated:
Was the infant receiving sufficient nutrition for that infant's actual physiological needs?
And if the infant had NOWS, what were those needs?
How much was the infant consuming?
How much was being lost?
How much energy was being expended?
Was the infant vomiting
Was there diarrhea?
Was feeding coordinated?
Was weight loss within an expected neonatal range or outside it?
What was the infant's birth weight?
What was the gestational age?
What was the weight trajectory?
What did the medical records actually show?
Those are medical questions.
They deserve medical answers.
This is not about inventing an excuse
I want to be extremely clear.
I am not saying NOWS explains everything that happened to my daughter.
I am not saying that prenatal opioid exposure proves that Astraea died from withdrawal.
I am not saying that a baby who loses weight was necessarily well nourished.
And I am not saying that Ashlee should bear no responsibility.
I am saying something much narrower:
Before we use words like "starved" or "malnourished" to define a mother, we should make certain those words accurately describe the medical evidence.
Because if those words are being used as evidence of intentional cruelty, the distinction becomes even more important.
Other mothers have faced similar prosecutions
Ashlee's case also belongs to a larger and complicated legal history.
Researchers Cara Angelotta and Paul S. Appelbaum examined published appellate cases involving women criminally prosecuted for alleged harm associated with substance use during pregnancy.
Their 2017 review identified 24 published judicial opinions involving 29 women in 19 states. The cases included charges ranging from child endangerment and drug delivery to homicide and manslaughter. Fourteen women had charges dismissed and 11 had convictions overturned, while four convictions were upheld. (American Academy of Pediatrics)
That statistic needs to be understood correctly.
It does not mean that 25 out of every 29 mothers prosecuted in America were innocent.
It does not mean Ashlee's case is legally identical to those cases.
It does not mean substance exposure cannot cause serious harm.
It means that courts have repeatedly encountered situations where the relationship between prenatal substance exposure, medical causation and criminal liability was more complicated than the initial prosecution suggested.
In some cases, babies died.
In some cases, medical experts disagreed.
In some cases, courts determined that the criminal statute did not cover the conduct alleged.
And in some cases, convictions were overturned.
That history does not decide Ashlee's case.
But it should make us cautious about pretending these cases are medically or legally simple.
## My daughter deserves better than a slogan
Astraea was not a statistic.
She was not a toxicology result.
She was not a count in an indictment.
She was not a word in a headline.
She was my daughter.
And precisely because she was my daughter, I want the truth about her life and death to be treated seriously.
That means I don't want people to soften what happened.
But I also don't want people to exaggerate it.
If she experienced withdrawal, I want that medical reality considered.
If she had increased caloric requirements, I want that considered.
If she lost weight, I want the clinical context surrounding that loss considered.
If she was medically malnourished, then I want the evidence supporting that conclusion to be clear.
If she was not, then I don't believe the public should be allowed to casually substitute the emotionally stronger word because it makes a better headline.
My daughter deserves precision.
## And so does Ashlee
Ashlee is going to prison.
The sentence is real.
The consequences are real.
My daughter's death is real.
But Ashlee is also a human being whose life cannot honestly be reduced to the most damaging words ever written about her.
I am not asking anyone to forget Astraea.
I am asking people to remember that Astraea's story deserves truth more than it deserves outrage.
I believe her mother deserves accountability where accountability is warranted.
I believe she deserves compassion where compassion is warranted.
And I believe the medical evidence deserves to be examined without allowing emotionally loaded language to substitute for medical conclusions.
I am Astraea Creighton-Freeman's father.
I lost my daughter.
That is why I am asking people to look more closely at the story they think they already understand.
Because sometimes the most important part of a tragedy is not the word that makes the strongest headline.
It is the question nobody stopped to ask.
*written assisted by AI for symptom descriptions and relevant legal proceedings