i've also been intriqued by the Yeates case. if i recall correctly, her husband did pursue charges in another trial against her psychatrist and health insurance company after she was sentanced. his claim was that he 'did everything right' in requesting her to be re-hospitalized, or be put back on her anti-psychotic medication (dropped a month earlier). he'd followed through with an appeal, been denied, and told there was nothing more he could do, when he'd visited the psychatrist's office earlier the same week.

her instability was the reason his mother was staying with them, to watch and help care for thier kids, as needed. his mother stepped out to the grocery that day, since she seemed in good spirits and had been doing 'better' (they figured out, later, she'd probably had made 'the decision' by then - giving her a sense of relief).

her husband wanted to make a point out of thier case, in court, specifically about managed care companies choosing the bottom line over patient care - releasing her too soon and withdrawing needed medication. the appeal and reconsideration process he went through, were nothing more than a rubber-stamp procedure, and his reports about her behavior disintegrating weren't considered by either one of them. i don't recall if the insurance had a lifetime limit on behavioral health or not. i seem to remember something about 'limits'.

instead, he ended up settling out of court for an undisclosed amount of money - and a gag order preventing him from talking about the case. all the charges were dropped.

i was very interested in seeing how this case would play out in court. there was also a number of speculations about his behavior in thier relationship contributing to her mental status. about a year later, i'd heard they'd gotten a divorce.

when she was put back on her medication (that the psychatrist had taken her off of) she seemed fully aware and remorseful about what she'd done. i think she would have preffered death vs a life sentance.