“She said she was deceived. What else do you want?”

“I was deceived” may be a defence. It cannot end the questions.

Chen says the babysitter deceived her. The defence also argues that she was an adoption social worker, not the babysitter’s direct supervisor. She is entitled to make those arguments. But the public may still ask why visible warning signs did not trigger an escalated response.

The first-instance court’s release says her duties included adoption matching, family contact, visits, counselling and monitoring the child’s condition. It found that three visits revealed bruising, marked weight loss, severe tooth loss and other abnormalities, yet the required positive action was not taken. That finding may change on appeal.

A not-guilty plea is lawful—and remains open to scrutiny

A witness reportedly endorsed Chen’s professional performance, and the defence may continue to seek an acquittal. The question is not whether she may defend herself. The system must still answer: Who saw the warning signs? Who could escalate the case? Who had to confirm medical care? Why was the harm not stopped in time?

Some people can still return home for holidays and time with family. Kaikai never reached his next birthday. This contrast does not deny anyone a family life; it reminds us that proceedings end, while a child’s lost life does not return.

What are we insisting on?

• Preserve public hearings, court records and unanswered systemic questions.
• Never let divided roles become a vacuum of responsibility.
• Respect the presumption of innocence while demanding institutional accountability.
• Do not let mockery, deflection or time erase Kaikai.

“I was deceived. What else do you want?” Our answer: every known warning sign, and every decision not to escalate, must at least be tested in court and in public.