Sex offender's wife fights to keep unborn son

[awakening2lite]

click here for link to: Sex offender's wife fights to keep unborn son (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/11/unborn.custody.ap/index.html)

EXCERPT

The county child-welfare agency believes her child won't be safe because her husband is a sex offender who spent more than a decade in prison for rape in a case involving two teenage girls.

-----------------------------------------------

What do you think? Should she be allowed to keep the child or not?

[Dingy B Good]

How old was he when this aleged rape happened? was he 19 and the girls consented but the parents faught for charges of rape? If he truly raped the girls then maybe he is a ganger but I don't think to his son. Most men who rape girls don't do anything to boys but a few do. I think she needs to leave the husband and keep the child. I would fight for my child even if that meant leaving my husband and fighting it out in court until we could be back together but i dont think id be married to a sex offender in the first place so My opinion is if he truly raped those girls I would probably leave unless he was a truly changedman but it would make me worry if I had a daughter.

hard choiceI guess depending on the circimstances. but no matter what I would make the choice that kept me with my child. No matter what.

[SallyD]

I think if she is nuts enough to stay with a guy like that they probably should take the child. She certainly won't defend or protect the child.

[califgirl]

Who could possibly want to sleep with someone that has molested and/or raped children? Barf.

[emmeblu]

She is going to have the baby and there is no guarantee that she will stay away from the pervert even if she says she will. I think they should just take the baby anyway for the child's protection. This woman sure does not have good sense if she would sleep with someone knowing they are a child molester.

[califgirl]

Originally posted by emmeblu
She is going to have the baby and there is no guarantee that she will stay away from the pervert even if she says she will. I think they should just take the baby anyway for the child's protection. This woman sure does not have good sense if she would sleep with someone knowing they are a child molester.

I agree. If she doesn't use good judgement regarding her choices, why would her choices regarding a child be any better? jmo

[emmeblu]

Originally posted by califgirl


I agree. If she doesn't use good judgement regarding her choices, why would her choices regarding a child be any better? jmo

Right Califgirl. This woman must be a real piece of work!

[califgirl]

Originally posted by emmeblu


Right Califgirl. This woman must be a real piece of work!

No kidding. And wouldn't you be horrified to let the world know that you are married to a convicted molester? Maybe not, considering she did marry him. Ewwww.....

[beller]

Is she living with the guy?
I hate to say it but the state really has no right to take her child, as stupid as she is.
A former drug user does not lose rights to all children they may have later.
Convicted rapist have children and unless something is up they can keep them.
I think the woman is gullible and ignorant. But that is not a crime.
I did read this guy have proclaimed himself somekind of Indian chief. That may be a hint as to why the state is trying to take the child. He sounds like a dangerous flake wanting his own little clan to control and she is warped in the head.
It would be best if the child were put up for adoption before something happens. But I don't think any of this is legal.

[susan M]

Originally posted by PaperRosesR
hell, let's take kids away from people that were so "stupid" as to have children with other people who then refuse to pay child support........

:confused:

[Rinn129]

Well thier lawyer did say "Theres no evidence he has molested young children" which suggests his other crime was with someone who was under 18 but not a small child. Who knows? I think it makes a BIG difference. As someone else pointed out, if he's 19 and his g/f is 17 then its rape... but VERY different than a 19 year old and a 3 or 4 year old.

In 1980 he was 30 something.

[Boxing Helena]

Originally posted by awakening2lite
click here for link to: Sex offender's wife fights to keep unborn son (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/11/unborn.custody.ap/index.html)

EXCERPT

The county child-welfare agency believes her child won't be safe because her husband is a sex offender who spent more than a decade in prison for rape in a case involving two teenage girls.

-----------------------------------------------

What do you think? Should she be allowed to keep the child or not?


Sure let her keep it....Why would anyone want to crawl in bed with someone more than twenty years older than them.....YUK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

[dalma3604]

She already has a 21 month old daughter that is in state custody. Why? Some thing must have happened.:confused:

[SallyD]

Originally posted by blackbird
Previous crime in the 80's. Decade in prison. That brings us to the 90's. Apparently he has not re offended in the last decade.

SOME people do rehabilitate. This constant witch hunt forbidding one to start a new following a crime has gone too far IMO.

Social services should be spending their time and staff on the children they fail to visit frequently that end up dead!

That just means he hasn't gotten caught. Once you have proven yourself a child molester, you should not be allowed around children. Sorry, but I am sick of the criminals rights and I am more interested in the children's rights. It is about time we started to protect the children and I don't give a rat's as! about the molester.

[Pixie_Face]

What crime did the MOTHER commit? Why is the state hounding a pregnant woman threatening to take her baby? Hell, why not just force her to have a c-section so they can take it now? As for the 21 month old, I read that she is with a family member, not in state custody.

I also read that the Husband and wife are not living together, so why is the state so interested in breaking up this family? The father served his time, so why are they punishing his wife and kids?


Sounds to me like someone working for the state is on a power trip.

[BeesKnees]

Originally posted by Rinn129
Well thier lawyer did say "Theres no evidence he has molested young children" which suggests his other crime was with someone who was under 18 but not a small child. Who knows? I think it makes a BIG difference. As someone else pointed out, if he's 19 and his g/f is 17 then its rape... but VERY different than a 19 year old and a 3 or 4 year old.

In 1980 he was 30 something.

He pled to and was convicted of first degree rape, first degree sodomy, first degree assault, and host of other lesser charges. Statutory rape is not first degree.


“1st Degree Rape: Forcible compulsion where the perpetrator or an accessory uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon, or kidnaps the victim, or inflicts serious physical injury, or feloniously enters into the building or vehicle where the victim is situated. Felony.”

[califgirl]

Originally posted by crafty1011


My mother was married to a child molester and to this day defends him in private and denies the whole thing in public. She's very good at hiding secrets.

I suppose she needed to live in denial to hold on to her "man" and absolve herself of any guilt. There was a woman at work whose husband molested her daughter & she blamed the daughter! The guy went to jail, but she was waiting for the daughter to come of age, so she could reunite with her "soul mate". I think these women are just as sick as the molester, just in a different way. imo

[Dingy B Good]

Originally posted by BeesKnees


He pled to and was convicted of first degree rape, first degree sodomy, first degree assault, and host of other lesser charges. Statutory rape is not first degree.


“1st Degree Rape: Forcible compulsion where the perpetrator or an accessory uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon, or kidnaps the victim, or inflicts serious physical injury, or feloniously enters into the building or vehicle where the victim is situated. Felony.”

If this is true then the sicko doesnt need to be around children at all. But Unless the wife is with him. I dont see the need to take the baby. If she is with himthen y all means niether of them deserve to have children in their care. I dont care if he did serve his time if he did exactly what he pled to and was convicted of. He doesn't deserve to be allowed around children at all. It has been proven child molestors and raists are not able to be rehabilitated. So he should not be allowed to be around children. if the mother is not with him the state needs to leave her alone unless she has done something that warrants taking the child. if the child will not be safe in her care then yes. take the baby. otherwise. They need to leave her alone.

JMO

[karincc]

Originally posted by blackbird
Previous crime in the 80's. Decade in prison. That brings us to the 90's. Apparently he has not re offended in the last decade. ...

...Or not been caught, arrested, charged and prosecuted.

Given the reluctance victims of sex crimes sometimes have to come forward and press charges, I would not want to bet the safety of a little baby's life that this guy has been completely clean since he got out of prison. JMO.

[karincc]

Originally posted by califgirl


I suppose she needed to live in denial to hold on to her "man" and absolve herself of any guilt. There was a woman at work whose husband molested her daughter & she blamed the daughter! The guy went to jail, but she was waiting for the daughter to come of age, so she could reunite with her "soul mate". I think these women are just as sick as the molester, just in a different way. imo

I worked with a woman whose boyfriend molested her daughter, and she didn't want to believe it was true. She'd ditched the boyfriend for other reasons, but flat-out refused to believe that her daughter was telling the truth when the daughter accused the boyfriend (the case was never reported or prosecuted).

This woman was a major-league control freak and manipulator, and I always felt that the reason she so vehemently denied that her boyfriend molested her daughter was that to accept it as true would be to admit that maybe she wasn't the superb judge of character she claimed to be, and maybe she wasn't as smart and smooth and capable as she wanted people to think she was.

Sad.

[juiceee]

I don't know if your social services are the same as ours but if this scenario arose here - the baby would be under a 'care order' before birth and taken away immediately following birth.

This is not about the father or mother per se.

This is about an unborn baby who has to be protected from potential abuse. The parents have made their decisions, if they are not wise enough to make healthy and positive decisions for their unborn children, somebody has to step in and do so.

[Amicus]

She's lost one. I bet there is a state law that allows the second to be removed on an emergency basis at birth.

I usually designate myself as liberal but one doesn't need to see many of these cases before one start thinking that compulsory sterilization is a good idea under certain circumstances. The fifth or sixth crack addicted baby born from the same mother generally does it, especially when she announces that she is going to keep trying until she gets to keep one. The father who fails to support his children but impregnates woman after woman-- it's sickening.

[c_biscuit]

Even though the mother hasn't committed a crime, I would never leave ANY child in her care. Because she wouldn't think enough to not let her husband be around the child. She obviously doesn't believe he is dangerous, and that is a wrong decision right there. You can NEVER take chances with children.

If I knew two parents who were addicted to drugs, I would fight to get the children out of their custody. Now, I am not one for sticking my nose in other people's business, but when it comes to innocent kids being harmed or a strong possibility, that is when it's crossed the line.

[cathys]

BUT! The same law should apply to him as they do every other ****ed up child molester. He is not to be in a certain amount of distance from, children, schools, etc. So he's got to go. And if she allows him to be near the child, then she sould get charges of endangering a child. Beacause that is what she is doing.

[neoneyez]

My oh my how a women's right to choose suddenly disappears once she births the child.


It seems that abortion is a womans right because it sticks it to the man.

But when the child is born the mother loses her rights to the child because of a few people with an opinion.

Maybe she should have just aborted and that way nobody could be in her business.

[califgirl]

:rolleyes:

[shells]

Originally posted by neoneyez
Maybe she should have just aborted and that way nobody could be in her business.

Its not her business that you should be concerned about - its the unborn baby's.

The mother obviously is a bad parent and does not deserve children - end of story!

Originally posted by juiceee
I don't know if your social services are the same as ours but if this scenario arose here - the baby would be under a 'care order' before birth and taken away immediately following birth.

This is not about the father or mother per se.

This is about an unborn baby who has to be protected from potential abuse. The parents have made their decisions, if they are not wise enough to make healthy and positive decisions for their unborn children, somebody has to step in and do so. Exactly. In my state, sex offenders are not allowed to be around ANY minor children, for the rest of their LIFE.

Why isn't the ACLU concerned about the rights of the unborn child?

IMO

[rachlewis2]

Originally posted by califgirl
Who could possibly want to sleep with someone that has molested and/or raped children? Barf.


i know........barfing here myself!

[Athena]

This doesn't sound good. Also turns out that she had to relinquish custody of her first-born as well. She has only been married 3 years -- and if the girls he molested were children (not clear on how old they were - so was it statuatory rape or child molestation???)

If he was jailed for "child molestation" then her children should be taken from her. I wouldn't take a chance with a known offender (if child molester).

If he is a child molester don't know why she hasn't kicked him to the curb. JMO

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.


"Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services believes this child's physical and emotional health is in danger because of the abuse perpetrated by the natural father against other minor children," wrote agency attorney Karen E. Rismiller.

Rismiller said confidentiality rules prohibit her from commenting further."



http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/11/unborn.custody.ap/index.html

[awakening2lite]

Originally posted by Challenger2
Exactly. In my state, sex offenders are not allowed to be around ANY minor children, for the rest of their LIFE.

Why isn't the ACLU concerned about the rights of the unborn child?

IMO


HiYa Challenger :seeya:

I think you have just posted the question of the year:

Originally posted by Challenger2


Why isn't the ACLU concerned about the rights of the unborn child?

IMO

[neoneyez]

Originally posted by shells


Its not her business that you should be concerned about - its the unborn baby's.

The mother obviously is a bad parent and does not deserve children - end of story!

Actually according to those pro-choice it's nobodys business until the baby is actually born. Or does that count only so a man can't have a say? The story continues...

[califgirl]

Originally posted by neoneyez


Actually according to those pro-choice it's nobodys business until the baby is actually born. Or does that count only so a man can't have a say? The story continues...

Why are you looking for an arguement here about abortion? How is it that you claim to know what all pro-choice people think?

[c_biscuit]

I had heard about this but I don't know very many details...

What was he convicted of? Did she know about this before she got pregnant?

I'd have to know these things before having a solid opinion.

[MissMarchHare1]

Originally posted by c_biscuit
I had heard about this but I don't know very many details...

What was he convicted of? Did she know about this before she got pregnant?

I'd have to know these things before having a solid opinion.
rape and sodomy of 2 teen girls 2 decades ago.

[ladyheartfixer]

Can we have a link? and is this the case in PA?

[camracrazy]

Newest Link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/21/sexoffender.custody.ap/index.html

Background: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/11/unborn.custody.ap/index.html

[beller]

I wonder if there is more to it than they have said. I know the guy has made himself some kind of cheif of his own little cult. That maybe part of the worry.
The baby is a boy, he molested girls, the girls were around 16. I think the state has overstepped it's boundaries.
If they are so worried they should keep close tabs on the child which many of them fail to do. Right now all they have is he hathered a child. Mom was the one with custody. They could try to sever his rights if needed but not hers. Though she is stupid for getting pregnant by a molester and needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

[nana2]

if a parent wont protect a child..someone needs to
imo err on the side of caution ALWAYS with children
Im for removing a child if theres the slightest hint a predator has access to them

[drip~drop1]

Wasn't there another child as well thats been removed from the home?

I may be wrong, but I thought I heard that.

Originally posted by beller
I wonder if there is more to it than they have said. I know the guy has made himself some kind of cheif of his own little cult. That maybe part of the worry.
The baby is a boy, he molested girls, the girls were around 16. I think the state has overstepped it's boundaries.
If they are so worried they should keep close tabs on the child which many of them fail to do. Right now all they have is he hathered a child. Mom was the one with custody. They could try to sever his rights if needed but not hers. Though she is stupid for getting pregnant by a molester and needs to wake up and smell the coffee. I didn't hear this report myself, but my husband said it was on Crier, and was reported that the mother had a prostitution arrest in her past. Also drugs, I think.

Also, the father had molested one of his own children, in addition to the young girls mentioned.
Sorry I don't have more details, but I'll ask him tomorrow, and maybe I'll find a link.

IMO

[c_biscuit]

I don't know if legally the state overstepped their bounds... but morally and ethically, I'd say not.

This woman chose a molester to father her child, has been arrested for prostitution, and has prior drug use. Who can say that wherever she lives is a suitable home for a child? If she didn't exercise caution when choosing a father for her child, what else will she not care about when it comes to her child's safety and well-being?

Why isn't the ACLU concerned with the CHILD's rights? :eek:

Originally posted by c_biscuit
I don't know if legally the state overstepped their bounds... but morally and ethically, I'd say not.

This woman chose a molester to father her child, has been arrested for prostitution, and has prior drug use. Who can say that wherever she lives is a suitable home for a child? If she didn't exercise caution when choosing a father for her child, what else will she not care about when it comes to her child's safety and well-being? I totally agree. This guy already has 11 children. I wonder if he's paying child support. Maybe they're grown (at least some of them).

From everything I have read about pedophiles, they don't "recover", nor do they usually choose one sex over the other.

Many choose boys simply because boys don't tell, imo.

The commentators on the newstalk shows have obviously never looked into the facts of pedophilia. :rolleyes: I suspect the state knows those facts.

JMO

[c_biscuit]

Originally posted by Challenger2
I totally agree. This guy already has 11 children. I wonder if he's paying child support. Maybe they're grown (at least some of them).

From everything I have read about pedophiles, they don't "recover", nor do they usually choose one sex over the other.

Many choose boys simply because boys don't tell, imo.

The commentators on the newstalk shows have obviously never looked into the facts of pedophilia. :rolleyes: I suspect the state knows those facts.

JMO

Wow, I didn't even know he had 11 kids, I thought he just had the one and the soon to be from this woman.

It saddens and scares me that some women would actually want a man like this to father their children. Most of them probably didn't plan on getting pregnant... but when you do the deed with someone, you run the risk of them parenting your child. Who would want to sleep with this man anyway, let alone have his children?????

[emmeblu]

I am in absolute agreement with this baby being taken away from the mother. She used very poor judgment when she allowed herself to get pregnant by a child molester! The child's safety must take priority over everything else.

How sad for this unborn baby!:rose:

[r_drummond420]

In my openion there is no way in hell that this woman should keep her child or get the other one back. Just the fact that she married a child molester should raise questions about her psychological state of mind. I know that for those who can experience "love" as the saying goes (love is blind) have a tendency to overlook their loved ones faults and inadequacies but this is too far. She needs to accpt that this jerk is a monster and he's lucky he didnt touch my child or he wouldnt presently be breathing. This is the time to ask the question to the mother, whats more important, your own feelings of love and companionship or the safety and preservation of her childs innocence? For me theres no question, my child comes first.

[LADYLIBRA]

I'm a mother of 4; as a mother I wear many hats in a day. There's the hat of "mom," then there "wife," of course let's not forget your job "active duty military," and throw in "cook,maid,secretary,taxi service,and dog owner." Having said that- a child should never be taken away from the mother. Let's not forget Ted Bundy was allowed to marry and have a child all while on death row- should we tract his child's movement? I believe that there should be several home visits, social services should be on "high alert" the pediatrician should be well informed. But then politics come into play- if they take this child because of the father's history- then who's next, gay couples. If this is the case Michael Jackson should have all 3 of his children removed! Should Kobe Bryant's daughter be taken away, his wife is expecting her second child soon. The Yates' children- would have been saved? The Tom Greene in Utah that married his niece- should his children be removed? When you get involved in this particular situation the rules are so different certain lines are apparent. If you're rich you're excused. If you have the right influence you can be pardoned. So it's safe to "say" the child should be removed and politically everyone says what's in the "best interest of the child" the only intrests protected is votes