For your pontification and amusementFollow

New topic for discussion: you've probably all read or heard about this case, in which a newborn was taken from his parents by Child Protective Services because his father was convicted of rape 22 years ago.

Obviously the state has an interest in protecting the lives and well-being of children. However, where do we draw that line? If he were never to be allowed to father and raise children, should that not be written into the statutes, and should irreversible sterilization not be made part of the sentence for a rape conviction?

Muddying the waters further is the fact that he's a completely unsympathetic character, probably nuts, and fairly scary looking. Those factors should not legally be taken into account, but they're bound to play some part in the court of public opinion.

Figures something like this would be happening in my dad's home town. Pottsville is very impoverished small town that started around the coal mining industry. County officials still treat the area like it's a company town.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were political motivations here too, given the Indian Tribe angle. Mr. WolfHawk may have pissed of some of the county officials trying to get his tribe recognized. I wonder if it was him that was trying to get the casino going a couple years back.

It's like time has stood still there. I went back there last year for my Grandmother's funeral and I swear I haven't seen that many mullets since the early 80's. Thank God my dad joined the Air force and moved to California.

Only two reasons to ever visit Schuylkill County: Yuengling Brewery, The Oldest continuously operating Brewery in the US. and Hawk Mountain Sanctuary, if you like bird watching. OK maybe three if you want to tour one of the old coal mines. Not much else there except VFW lodges and churches.

Edit: changed the Yuengling link as www.yuengling.com wasn't working.


Edited, Tue Oct 25 05:36:47 2005 by BloodwolfeX

If he robbed a liquor store, or stole a car, I would agree. But his type of crimes are mental. It's not something he has much control over. I don't believe these people are ever really cured.

I also believe people like this are commiting 10 times the offenses than they get busted for. For every offense we find out about, there are many more he gets away with.

This kid, will be abused if it stays with the parents. That's a no brainer. Of course he should be placed with the state.

Think it's hard keeping tabs on sex offenders? Imagine what they could get away with in their own home. It's a sad world we live in.

I believe when a woman is raped her life is changed forever. She may get over the constant fear and anguish after a certain number of years, but it still haunts her I'm sure. Like when someone says "Wow the Falcon's raped the Jet's yesterday" to most of us that means they had a very convincing win. To the woman that was raped if she hears this, it will bring back horrible memories, may cause tears, and who knows how long that one comment will take for her to push this history back where it belongs?

So yes I agree that prick does not deserve to have his child. He ruined one womans life for the most part and his deeds should never be completely forgiven. He may not be behind bars anymore, but there is no way in hell I feel he deserves to be accepted and forgiven by his coomunity.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1233572



http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_1unbornoct22,0,3902321.story?coll=all-newslocal-hed




Quite a few issues are on the table, I'd say. The ACLU wants to make this a case of basic civil liberties - a man committed a crime and did his time in prison. Now that he's out of prison he is still not being treated fairly like a regular citizen, hence their involvement.

The problem I find with their position is the well-documented fact that sexual predators have an incredibly high recividism rate. Let's set that aside for the moment, though, and pretend that people are rehabilitated by decade-long prison sentences. Mr. WolfHawk comes out of jail a new man (and apparently an indian chief, which he wasn't before, but that's neither here nor there).

Regardless of his previous conviction, there are outstanding allegations of sexual abuse against his own children (one article mentioned a 30-year old daughter, the one referenced in the parole statement; another shortened it to "his three children" with no qualifying info). That's sort of a nasty thing to have hanging over your head in our litigious society. As if that weren't enough we also have allegations of drug abuse and prostitution on the part of the mother.

I personally find CPS to be abusive and heavy handed in their enforcement of policy, and I feel they take measures to extremes at times. That said, I think I'd have an uphill battle to fight were I to disagree with their position on this one. There are an awful lot of unanswered questions that really need to be investigated, and the best place for a newborn child may not be in that family.

Also, the articles linked implied that this was not the first time a child had been taken away; apparently CPS in various states has pulled this routine three different times with this family. The mother was also notified during her pregnancy that they would be coming to take her child at birth (said one article). This has been in motion for awhile.



Bigger questions:

Should parents have an irrevocable right to raise their own children, even if the environment is dangerous, abusive, etc? Under what grounds have we to invalidate a parent's fitness?

Can we disqualify someone for economic reasons? i.e., if the child is going to be born to a poor family and grow up on welfare, having no opportunities, should the child be seized and placed with a set of solidly middle-class foster parents?

If economic reasons are insufficient, why is it okay to condemn a chlid to a life of poverty, when better opportunities might have made all the difference?


Thorny subjects.

She has offered to distance herself from her husband in exchange for being allowed to raise her baby. CPS doesn't believe her.

They may have good reason, I don't know.

This makes me wonder if the rape was a violent rape. A 19 year old bangin' a 16 year old isn't a good reason to take a child away from the individual 22 years later.

Imagine two or three years down the road the headlines read "Father charged with sexually abusing toddler daughter. Father was a known and convicted child molester."

We would all be outraged that officials had not taken custody of this child.

I'm guessing if this guy really wanted to be a father he could have cleared up any doubts ahead of time. Had a shrink or two or three evaluate him and make some determination that he had changed (pedophilia is a tough habit to break, eh). Went to the authorities for guidance. Maybe agreed to some kind of oversight, etc, etc.

I think though, if any situation is one in which we ought err on the side of caution, protecting children is it.

What boggles me is that a women could choose to have and raise children with a known child raper???

Yes. But what you're essentially saying (and the CPS in this case as well) is that if you commit a crime, your punishment does not end when your sentence ends. That's an incredibly dangerous slope to travel down (slippery or not).


He's not in jail, correct? He's not currently charged with a crime, correct? He's not wanted anywhere, correct? He's been in jail and has served his sentence, correct? Now, if the jury in his case(es) sentenced him to serve X amount of time in jail and never be allowed to father children or raise his own children, then CPS might have a valid right in what they are doing. But I'm pretty sure it's *illegal* for any state to pass that sort of sentence down.

I could even understand if children were taken from him and his wife as a result of previous actions, and they would not give them back due to his past record. That at least follows some concepts of criminal justice (children were taken away as part of a criminal process and he has to qualify somehow to get them back). But they're taking a *new* child. One that did not exist when any previous crimes were commited. One that was not taken away as part of any criminal action on the part of the parents. IMO, you simply can't do that. CPS in this case is punishing him for a crime he might commit in the future. That flies in the face of every standard of our legal system.


Alternatively, you can look at this as CPS carrying out a sentence that the legal system would never allow (sentencing someone to a lifetime without being able to have or raise his own children), but getting away with it because they're following bureaucratic rules instead of laws. How much power did we invest into this organization to allow them to take children away from parents despite no crime being commited that affects the child?

Seems wrong to me. Sure. I understand the concept that you're allowing a child to grow up in a high risk environment. But ultimately the state can't decide that *before* anything is done to endanger the child. They literally took this kid away before the mother even took custody of it. I can't see how that can be legal. And if it is, it's setting a pretty darn scary precident. Yes. Slippery slope and all of that, but what is to stop them from doing exactly what was mentioned above and take children from poor families or single parents, or anyone that doesn't meet some kind of parental standard that the CPA uses? Scary as all hell IMO...

This is so not about punishing this guy.

I understand the guy is a convicted rapist, and that he is the scum of the earth to mine, and others opinion. However, if his crime is as unforgivable as to where he cannot go on with life and have children, ect. then he should not be released. He was released and obviously a parole board found him to be rehabiltated. Rape is serious business, I agree, but not as serious as Murder IMO.
I just don't see the justification in taking his newborn away for a crime that happened long before the child was born. If I were in his shoes, this would be going to the Supreme Courts. Furthermore, this looks like a get rich quick program for this guy when he sues CPS.