Was goods wife charged with putting out cigarettes on her kids.

1. The well-documented core story: a shooting, not child-abuse charges

Contemporaneous and retrospective coverage centers on May 1992, when 17-year-old Amy Fisher shot Mary Jo Buttafuoco on the Buttafuocos’ Long Island porch and was later convicted for the attack, while Joey Buttafuoco ultimately pleaded guilty to statutory rape for having sex with Fisher when she was underage ^{[1] [2] [3]}; the sources supplied—encyclopedic entries, major news retrospectives and feature profiles—uniformly describe physical injuries, courtroom outcomes, and subsequent media attention rather than any prosecution of Mary Jo for harming her children ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

2. What the reporting actually records about Mary Jo’s public profile

The provided sources portray Mary Jo as the victim of a high-profile crime who survived severe injuries—partial facial paralysis and ear damage—and later became an author and speaker; those same accounts recount her public appearances, parole advocacy for Fisher, and later medical procedures, but none list criminal charges against Mary Jo related to child abuse or setting cigarettes out on children ^{[1] [4] [6]}.

3. Where allegations of child abuse would show up — and they do not in these sources

Comprehensive summaries of the case, including Time’s retrospective, People and ABC profiles, and encyclopedia-style entries, document arrests, indictments, guilty pleas and prison terms for Fisher and Joey Buttafuoco but make no mention of Mary Jo being charged with maltreatment of her children such as extinguishing cigarettes on them; if such a charge existed during the intense period of tabloid and mainstream coverage it would be expected to appear in the same court-focused reporting that is present here, yet it does not ^{[2] [5] [7]}.

4. Possible reasons for confusion: rumor, conflation or missing sources

The Long Island case was obsessively covered by tabloids and talk shows—coverage that often amplified rumors and sensational claims—so false or conflated stories could have circulated in that media environment ^{[5] [4]}; however, none of the supplied material documents a legal charge against Mary Jo for putting out cigarettes on children, and the current reporting sample does not include court dockets or local child-welfare records that would be definitive evidence either way ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Limits of the review and how the question could be checked decisively

The assembled sources are focused on the 1992 shooting, subsequent prosecutions, and later human-interest follow-ups; they do not encompass every possible local record or rumor archive—therefore it cannot be proven from these materials alone that such a charge never existed at any time, only that the major contemporaneous and retrospective public reporting supplied here contains no record of Mary Jo being charged with extinguishing cigarettes on her children ^{[1] [2] [5]}. To settle the question definitively would require checking court records, child-protective-services files, or primary local reporting archives from the relevant jurisdiction and timeframe, none of which were included in the provided reporting.

6. Bottom line — what the documentation supports and what it does not

Based on the documents provided, the public record captured in mainstream and retrospective reporting documents Amy Fisher’s assault and Joey Buttafuoco’s statutory-rape conviction but contains no allegation or criminal charge that Mary Jo Buttafuoco put out cigarettes on her children; absent supplementary primary-source records, the supplied reporting does not support the claim that “goods wife” (interpreted here through the Buttafuoco materials) was charged with that specific form of child abuse ^{[1] [2] [3]}.