Tuesday, October 9, 2012

The troubled past of teen charged in fatal Highland Park crash


Carly Rousso said she was afraid to sleep. After the Highland Park teenager was attacked by a pit bull three years ago, she had frequent nightmares in which an animal — often a dog but always something with teeth — would attack her.
She switched schools; her grades fell. She reported hallucinations and suicidal thoughts, according to court records filed in a lawsuit against the pit bull's owner.

Last week, Rousso, 18, was charged with misdemeanor driving under the influence of an intoxicating compound after a crash that killed a 5-year-old girl in Highland Park and injured her mother and two brothers.
On Tuesday — the same day the funeral was held for the girl, Jaclyn Santos-Sacramento — Rousso was briefly jailed before she was released on bond with a curfew and an agreement not to drive or consume any intoxicants. During a court appearance, her lawyer also revealed that she is receiving outpatient treatment, though he did not specify for what.
But court records reveal that Rousso has had past struggles with substance use and emotional problems that stretch back years. Her family claimed in a lawsuit against the dog owner that the attack led to many of her troubles. She also was later cited for marijuana possession and as a result participated in a 12-step rehab program, court records show. The information gathered from court records reveals a more complex portrait of the woman charged in the Labor Day crash.
Through a family spokesman, Rousso's parents declined to comment about the pit bull attack or their daughter's past struggles.
On May 1, 2009, Rousso was visiting a friend's home in Highland Park when a pit bull her friend's brother was walking on a leash suddenly attacked her without provocation, according to the lawsuit.
"The next thing she knew there were jaws in her face and she was screaming," she told a therapist, according to paperwork filed in the suit. The dog bit her head and face and clawed her body, the suit said.
Police confirmed the attack at the time, saying that her friend's 17-year-old brother had just brought the dog home the night before and that the victim required hundreds of stitches. The city issued a citation for violating city ordinances regarding biting dogs.
As a result of the attack, then-Mayor Michael Belsky called for a citywide ban on the "unpredictable" and "lethal" pit bulls, though such a law was never enacted.
After the attack, Rousso said she began having nightmares, hearing barks and occasionally seeing a dog outside her window, the lawsuit said. She began seeing a psychologist and taking Prozac for depression and suicidal thoughts, according to the court paperwork.
A year after the incident, the scars on her face, head and arms had begun to fade, but she said in court records that they still turned bright red in the summer and were sensitive and painful and needed follow-up surgery.
Rousso's therapist said in a deposition that Rousso had post-traumatic stress disorder. She said Rousso made the gymnastics team but left it early because of a continuing fear of dogs, hallucinations and hypervigilance about covering and protecting her back. She had difficulty concentrating and "would readily become unglued," the report said.
Despite her problems, Rousso volunteered to work with children and helped her mother at her art gallery, her therapist said.
In November 2011, the case was settled for $200,000, according to court documents.
The Roussos' attorney in that suit, Kevin O'Connor, verified that Carly Rousso needed surgery for extensive scars.
"She had a horrific dog bite attack," he said. "It had a terrible impact on her. It was a sad, terrible situation."
Rousso transferred from Highland Park High School to Deerfield High School because she said there were "mean people" at Highland Park who taunted her over the scars on her face, according to an evaluation by David Hartman, a forensic neuropsychologist hired by the dog's owners. Her grades also deteriorated after the attack.
But Hartman was skeptical. He noted that Rousso went on a monthlong vacation to Europe with other teens the summer after the attack, and from her pictures seemed to be having a good time. He wrote that hallucinations are not typical of PTSD, and there was no mention of other common symptoms of the disorder. Without objective psychological testing, he said her claims of symptoms were not enough to merit the diagnosis.
Before the dog attack ever happened, Hartman noted, referring to Rousso's medical records, she had a pathological fear of clowns that precipitated a panic attack. He even questioned the extent of her scars, writing that her photos "do not show significant areas of facial deformity."
On Feb. 4, 2010, after the dog attack but before the settlement, Rousso was placed under court supervision after being cited with possession of cannabis, according to court records.
She started treatment at Resurrection Behavioral Health in Lake Bluff less than two weeks afterward and completed an intensive outpatient program two months later, attending 12-step meetings in that time, according to court records.
Dana Wagner, her adolescent program coordinator at Resurrection, described Rousso as a "model patient" who "maintained sobriety through some difficult times" and who was missed by others in the program.
Robert Baizer, a personal injury attorney representing Jaclyn's family, said Tuesday he felt the focus now should be on the victims in this case rather than Rousso.
"At this time, it's pretty hard for me to have sympathy for her," he said, "when you see the grief that Jaclyn's mother and father are having, when you see the father lean over to kiss his baby before they close the casket.
"Anything in her background doesn't excuse or explain what happened."

30 comments:

  1. I do find it sort of hard to believe that all this was caused by the dog attack. The fact that she went on a month long trip to europe after the attck is hard to believe is she was having all these symptoms.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rousso is taking advantage of her incident with the dog in the car accident case. It may be true that Rousso has been through a lot, but the attention should be focused on the victims of the car accident case rather than Rousso's past. The fact that Rousso went on a month long trip to Europe after the dog attack proves that the experience of the attack played no role in the car accident. Rousso is only taking advantage of the court, and should be treated no differently than any other person.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rousso is entitled to personal injury damages as a result of the pitbull attack, but one attack does not give her an excuse for all future actions. She seemed to have been rehabilitated somewhat, and managed to stay sober and kind according to the adolescent program advisor Wagner. She seems to be once again attempting to use this injury as an excuse. I agree with Jaclyn's family's attorney, he seems to realize that Rousso has noexcuse for causing this pain.
    - Peter Kolb

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think Carly and her family are taking advantage of the situation. They're doing anything to keep their good rep considering the parents are artists. Past traumatic incidents have nothing to do with what's going on now, and she doesn't deserve to be treated any differently in court than anyone else. She isn't even diagnosed with PTSD so she has no real excuses. She was slightly intoxicated when she stuck and killed this child. The facts are what is present in this case, not an explanation to her actions due to some past trauma that didn't seem to really affect her according to the trip to Europe she seemed to enjoy with no troubles of hallucinations or anything related. I think that her exploitation of this self diagnosis should be disregarded as part of court evidence. The question shouldn't be "why did you crash?", it should be "why were you intoxicated and driving with family members in the car in the first place?"
    -Chris Linares

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. never mind, wasn't her family. Question should be "why were you driving and intoxicated in the first place?" -Chris

      Delete
  5. She killed a five year old. That is inexcusable no matter what state of mind you are in. She can't use her incident with the pitbull as an excuse to get off of such a horrific crime. She should not be pitied or given any extra sympathy for her attack after killing a five year old in a big family. The pain she caused and will continue to cause this family is unmatched.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I feel like she is just using the pit bull attack as an excuse for all of her other numerous problems. I do think that she is entitled to the injury damages caused by the pit bull attack. If my 5 year old kid was killed in a car accident and the driver was not properly punished, I would be furious. This girl has some serious problems that she needs to deal with.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is quite a messed up story. The girl obviously has some serious problems, but its tough to say if that can take the place of a girls life. She was driving under the influence which in case it doesn't matter her past. That is completely unacceptable. She is taking advantage of her past problems, and that is cowardly when you kill a 5 year-old girl.-- Ben Paulson

    ReplyDelete
  8. the one above Ben Paulson's is from Popo
    -Popo

    ReplyDelete
  9. What happened to the girl isnt good but it seems like her lawyers used the dog attack to get her off the hook. If what they are saying about all her problems is true she should have been receiving more attention. But the dog attack really doesnt have anything to do with why she crashed. She crashed because she was under the influence. She is a dsgusting person for using this to try and get out of what she did. If it was up to me I would put her in jail for longer because she used this to try and get out of killing a 5 year-old.
    Alex Colter

    ReplyDelete
  10. I feel bad for the girl and what happened to her but there is still no reason to being doing any sort of drug. There are plenty of people that have been brutally attacked by dogs and not taken drugs while driving and killed a 5 year old.The Highland Park girl is 100% at fault for this.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think that this girl is going through a rough part of her life. However, she did kill a young child and i think she should get a worse punishment than spending a short period of time in jail.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This girl is using the dog attack as a crutch for all her other issues in her life. She acts likes this pit bull ruined her life but she is still alive and the five year old girl she killed is not. No matter what happened in her life, it does not fix what she did.

    ReplyDelete
  13. She killed a 5 year old girl. No one should ever kill anyone. She is trying to blame a dog for why she killed a 5 year girl. The dog has nothing to do with why she kiulled the girl. She is going to go to jail for a long time. She was parting too hard and drove drunk. #yolo

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rousso is using the dog attack as an excuse for her misconduct, and she should not be able to use that in court. And even it were a liable excuse, she still was driving drunk, which resulted in her killing an innocent 5 year old. there is no way that she should be able to avoid these charges.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I understand that being attacked by a dog is a traumatic event, but in the grand scheme of life, there are more traumatic things. She is using the dog attack to justify her poor behavior. Driving drunk and being irresponsible is a completely independent issue. The dog incident is irrelevant, and it makes me angry that it is even a factor.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Its kind of hard to believe she was that affected by a dog bite. There had to be some other issues with her that made her basically messed up. I feel like she is using the dog bite as an excuse. Killing a5 year old is completely unacceptable. She should be properly punished for killing a 5 year old and driving under the influence.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rousso is flat out crazy, and uses the dog attact as an excuse for her wrong doing. She blames her fear of dogs for everything, and should let go of the past. She was driving intoxicated, and as a result, kills an innocent five year old who has not lived her life to the fullest. Rousso should be put in jail.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I don't think this dog attack is an excuse for what has happened.she killed a 5 year old because she was too intoxicated. This is completely her fault and she should for sure serve time in jail.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This girl sounds crazy. I don't think that she was justified in any way at all. She has issues that stem from deep down, predating the dog attack. I feel like all those things were present in her mind before, and she just uses the attack to pin it on something. And just because she has issues does not make her innocent of driving while intoxicated. She killed a child and she should have some reparations for it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This previous pitbull attack is no excuse for what she ended up doing. You can't just blame what you have done on things thats have happened to you in the past. Being attacked by a pitbull doesn't justify driving while intoxicated and she should be in jail for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I was also bit by a dog, although significantly less seriously. I do not think that incident is in anyway an excuse for her actions or substance abuse. I am seriously disspointed and slightly disgusted that her lawyers are using that as an excuse. It was a selfish act that ended an innocent girl's life. enough said

    ReplyDelete
  22. Just Becasue you were bit by a dog, doesn't mean you need to use drugs. Becasue of her being under the influence of drugs, she hit and killed a five year old child which is unacceptable even if you were not under the influence.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Although this girl clearly experienced a very traumatic event, this does not make what she did ok. If she feels like drugs are the answer to her problems thats her choice, but she still should never get behind the wheel under the influence. She should be punished to the full extnt of the law no matter how traumatic her past i.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I do feel for the girls traumatic events in her life but I do not agree with the girl using drugs to cope with their problems. If she found a better way to cope with her problems in her past she would have never killed a girl. I do think the fine is a good punishment.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I understand that this girl has gone through something that has traumatized her life, yet it doesn't give her an excuse for using drugs and killing a 5-year-old baby girl. There are many instances where people have gone through something in their lives, some worst then this girl's, and decided to turn to even more serious drugs and alcohol and killed or injured people. These people didn't get off because it was at their own will to use the drugs,act irresponsibly and hurt another human being.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I do not think this girl can use her attack by the dog as an excuse to drive under the influence of drugs. She needs to take responsibilty for her own actions and stop using her past as an excuse. She obviously has not gotten over the attack and needs help from a professional until she is back to her normal self. It is terrible what happened to an innocent family, and the girl needs a wake up call to realize she cannot live hiding under the dog attack her whole life.
    Maclain Edwards

    ReplyDelete
  27. Its a little ridiculous to blame a dog attack for your actions. Killing a 5 year old girl under the influencehas absolutly no excuse. She needs some serious help if she thinks this dog is the one causing her to live her life like this.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Just because you had one bad experience gives you no excuse to drive under the influence. I do not care what has happened to you, driving under the influence is never acceptable. You are putting others in danger for your dumb mistakes. It is her fault without a doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Though the dog attack would have been stressful its no excuse to drive drunk espessially when a 5year old was a resulting casualty.

    ReplyDelete