http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1233572
Quote:
County officials say there is much more to the case. They told the court they've heard reports the WolfHawks have a history of mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse. The county has also accused DaiShin WolfHawk of sexually abusing his three children. WolfHawk denies the allegations.
...
DaiShin WolfHawk was known as John Joseph Lentini when he pleaded guilty to rape, attempted rape, sodomy and attempted sodomy in 1983, serving more than a decade in prison in New York.
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_1unbornoct22,0,3902321.story?coll=all-newslocal-hed
Quote:
At a federal court hearing Monday in Scranton, agency lawyer Karen Rismiller presented a parole report that listed a third assault victim. Both WolfHawks vigorously denied that assault occurred.
The agency also presented testimony by a doctor that Melissa WolfHawk admitted using methamphetamine and cocaine and engaging in prostitution. She denies those allegations.
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.