Just curious as to what all of you thought... it's certainly causing a lot of controversy!
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
I really dont know what to think of this. "Child welfare workers argued the infant boy's safety is in jeopardy because the father pleaded guilty to rape and sodomy two decades ago in New York. The agency also cited the mother's alleged history of drug abuse."
First of all, it was 20 years ago, and it wasnt child abuse. Has the man had a history of anything happening since then? If so, why didnt they site that? Second of all, what does "alleged history of drug abuse" mean? Did she smoke pot when she was 14, or do heroin while pregnant? Those are all things I would need to know before I could even come up with an opinion. But my gut reaction, just from the info in the article is that they were wrong to take the baby.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I don't think there's enough detail in the article to make a judgement frankly.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm with foundling.
I mean, they don't necessarily take children from mothers who have done drugs during the pregnancy. I'd really like to know on what grounds they did this.
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
In this article it says officials are providing evidence that the mother was using hardcore drugs and has worked as a prostitute- and that the father was thought to have molested his daughter.
But then I wonder, why hasn't the daughter been taken away???
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
If you are talking about the 21 month-old daughter, they are trying to. She is currently living with relatives in another state while the fight about it.
quote: Melissa WolfHawk also is fighting to regain custody of another child, a girl now 21 months old living with a family in Maryland, in a case that also began with questions about her husband's fitness as a father.
And sorry, but I don't care if it was 20 years ago. The guy was 31 at the time (1983) and wasn't found guilty, but actually pled guilty to rape, attempted rape, sodomy and attempted sodomy of 2 teenage girls. He should be a registered sex offender who isn't allowed anywhere near children.
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
If that's the case, then I think the ACLU needs to shut the hell up about it. This isn't the first time a person has had their child taken away, the only difference with this is that that they were planning on taking the child away before it was born.
And 21 months old?!? She's less than TWO and he's already thought to have done things to her?!
...
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Mariann, unfortunately that's not so uncommon.
And suspected ongoing abuse of another child makes it a different matter completely.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
To be fair, they are only investigating and he's only been suspected of abusing his daughter. Anyone who was outraged that a convicted rapist has children could phone in a tip to a child abuse hotline to get that ball rolling. Mom is a drug user and prostitute, so they take the kid away. It's possible the father hasn't done anything to his daughter.
(Whoa, who the hell wrote that? )
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Mariann, unfortunately that's not so uncommon.
And suspected ongoing abuse of another child makes it a different matter completely.
Yeah, I know. It's just not something I ever get used to. It takes a sick person to rape a teenage girl, but a freakin' *toddler*.
I need to go out for a jog. >.<
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kayla: To be fair, they are only investigating and he's only been suspected of abusing his daughter. Anyone who was outraged that a convicted rapist has children could phone in a tip to a child abuse hotline to get that ball rolling. Mom is a drug user and prostitute, so they take the kid away. It's possible the father hasn't done anything to his daughter.
(Whoa, who the hell wrote that? )
That's true. But while I believe sex offenders can be reformed, and I would sympathize with the both of them if this was someone else's doing, the fact is they made mistakes that allowed themselves to be placed in this situation. You can't do cocaine, or plead guilty of rape and sodomy of teenage girls, and then expect people to trust your ability to be a good parent- especially if someone calls in saying you've molested your daughter.
Sad, but true. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Crap.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
So were the rape/etc convictions were based on forced sex with obvious minors or consensual sex with party girls who weren't known to be underage?
As for the alleged drug abuse and prostitution: if the US and the state won't fund medical treatment for addicts and an education leading to a decent living wage -- or a minimum wage law that provides a living wage -- the politicians and prosecutors oughtta be the ones who get roughed up by the legal system.
[ October 26, 2005, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:And sorry, but I don't care if it was 20 years ago. The guy was 31 at the time (1983) and wasn't found guilty, but actually pled guilty to rape, attempted rape, sodomy and attempted sodomy of 2 teenage girls. He should be a registered sex offender who isn't allowed anywhere near children.
I, for one, am glad that not everyone judges me based on who I was TWO years ago, much less twenty, without seeing who I am now first.
{EDIT} Out of curiousity, even if he IS still the person he was 20 years ago (which I'm not ruling out, or even saying is unlikely), what is your proposed alternative to letting him keep his children? Take every child his wife has away from them? Forcing him to undergo a vasectomy? Forbidding him from having sex? Forcing his wife to have abortions every time she gets pregnant? Or just never letting him out of jail, ever?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Apparently, this woman also has an 8 year old son who is currently in foster care, being placed there after she married WolfHawk. He also has a 31 year old daughter and in probation reports, apparently it says that there are allegations he abused her, too, though he denies it.
While he has served his sentence and should be getting a "second chance" I have to wonder why he was ever let out in the first place. Rape of two teenagers with the use of a gun? 10 years? Let's just say that theoretically, I'm on board with the whole "he served his time" thing.
However, what about his kids? Can you imagine their life? I mean, Daddy is a registered sex offender. Would you want your kid to best friends with his kid? Can you imagine anyone ever letting their kid anywhere near his kid out of fear of him?
Sure, it seems like taking away the kid is another punishment, and depriving a child of his/her parents seems extreme, but I'm almost of the opinion that it would be better for the child to be removed from the home and put up for adoption.
I've never really thought rapists should be allowed to have children, but hey, that's just me. I don't know how I'd go about legislating anything like that. I mean, there is a huge difference between an 18 year-old having consensual sex with his 16 year-old girlfriend and a 31 year-old stranger raping 2 teenagers at gunpoint. I'm not sure that legislation would be able to make the distinction.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm of the opinion that if someone commits a crime so horrible he should not be allowed near his children, he shouldn't be living out of prison with everyone else.
People who can't stop committing sex crimes should be in prison. Period. Releasing them and having them register is a bad idea.
Now, if they can and do stop, if it was a one-time thing or they have been successfully treated, there's no reason they should be punished any more for past offenses.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Holy farking snit! That is not murky at all, is it? I mean, he must have pled guilty because he knew he'd get more time if it went to trial (which they probably wanted to spare the girlsfrom, anyway).
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:he must have pled guilty because he knew he'd get more time if it went to trial
Yeah, I don't think that's right in some cases. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Sure, it seems like taking away the kid is another punishment, and depriving a child of his/her parents seems extreme, but I'm almost of the opinion that it would be better for the child to be removed from the home and put up for adoption
I agree that the children would be better off being removed from these people. And even though the crimes took place a long time ago, I think they are just atrocious enough that he has to live with the consequences, no matter how reformed he is. After all, the two girls he raped don't become unraped after 20 years.
Basically, without being too graphic, the mother mentioned in the link tried to sell her daughter to what would have been a certain death.
She faces six years in prison, which I don't think is nearly long enough, and "further court action is under way to determine whether Zelentsova's custody should be stripped. She also has a 3-month-old son."
Don't people just instinctively know that certain things are just wrong? If not, what good is reform if they have clearly shown they are not capable of comprehending the most basic issues of morality.
Edit: added a warning to the link because it makes me sick just thinking about it
[ October 26, 2005, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: camus ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
AAAAAAH! That is NOT good parenting. :|
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
It doesn't seem all that murky to me. I don't think he should have gotten out in the first place.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I don't, either.
Now that he's out, though, the question is what rights he has.
And if he's done something else wrong, then he should be back in jail for that. Not just have custody taken away.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
And as a repeat offender, in my opinion, he should NOT ever be let out again.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: Don't people just instinctively know that certain things are just wrong?
No. Sometimes, people make bad choices consistently enough over a long enough period of time that they've shut up that inner voice that tells them when something is wrong.
And these people just never get it, either, and no amount of explaining or yelling or screaming ever gets through to them, either.
Some people really are that amoral.
quote:Originally posted by camus: If not, what good is reform if they have clearly shown they are not capable of comprehending the most basic issues of morality.
It isn't, and they won't.
And thanks for the warning on the link. I didn't follow it specifically because I don't need more disturbing stuff floating around in my brain.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:But while I believe sex offenders can be reformed, . . .
Out of curiosity, what do you base this belief on?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I'm of the opinion that if someone commits a crime so horrible he should not be allowed near his children, he shouldn't be living out of prison with everyone else.
Very well put.
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:But while I believe sex offenders can be reformed, . . .
Out of curiosity, what do you base this belief on?
In short, the chances of a released sex offender committing another act is small. A sex offender receiving treatment has even less of a chance than that. And even without those statistics, there's no reason to think that someone couldn't be "reformed" through therapy. There are plenty of psychological reasons why people rape or molest, and not everyone who commits those crimes are inherently sadistic- so with enough breakthroughs I do believe a person can be reformed.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
)