Officials seize sex offender's baby - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

maleficent · 10-24-2005, 05:52 AM

Quote:

POTTSVILLE, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Child welfare authorities seized a newborn from a hospital Friday and placed the baby in a foster home because his father is a convicted sex offender.

A judge granted the mother supervised visitation rights but prohibited visits from the father.

"There's no happy ending in these things. It's what we think is the best interest of the children," said Gerard Campbell, executive director of Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services. The agency took custody of the baby over the mother's objections.

The baby was born Tuesday and the agency obtained an emergency court order Wednesday authorizing it to take the infant. 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.

Another hearing is set for October 31.

"I think they're sending the message that if you or any member of your family screws up, you can kiss your parental rights goodbye," said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Mary Catherine Roper, who represents the mother, Melissa WolfHawk.

WolfHawk, 31, declined to talk with reporters after a hearing before Common Pleas Judge Charles Miller.

The 53-year-old father, DaiShin WolfHawk, did not attend the hearing but said he was "just shocked" by the judge's decision.

"I thought I was living in America," he said

This just seems wrong to me, I'm all for protecting children, and for removing them from the home when it's proven that the parents are not doing their job... but to remove a child for something the guy did 20 years ago... doesnt seem right. And as for the mother's 'history of drug abuse' .. was that 2 weeks ago, or 2 years ago...

Jinn · 10-24-2005, 05:58 AM

Quote:

because the father pleaded guilty to rape and sodomy two decades ago in New York.

And this is why the label 'sex offender' is so dangerous. At 18, you could be a sex offender for having sex with your 17 year old girlfriend. Then, when you had a kid at age 38.. blamo -- they take them away? He was convicted of rape and sodomy, not child molestation.

On a side note he has a really cool name.. "DaiShin WolfHawk" ..?

maleficent · 10-24-2005, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

And this is why the label 'sex offender' is so dangerous. At 18, you could be a sex offender for having sex with your 17 year old girlfriend. Then, when you had a kid at age 38.. blamo -- they take them away? He was convicted of rape and sodomy, not child molestation.

Well the father was 33 when he got convicted, not 18... but I do agree... It might have been a plea bargain to get it down to rape and sodomy... but...

canuckguy · 10-24-2005, 06:01 AM

I'm a believer in once a pedo, always a pedo. But you never know if it was a wrong conviction or if he truely has turned his life around. Need more info to decide if it was right or wrong to remove the child, but this maybe one of those times were it might be better for the child to stay in the home. 20 years ago and he has not been arrested is along time. Maybe he made some bad decisions back then, or maybe he just has not been caught recently. Hard to tell.

Glory's Sun · 10-24-2005, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian1975

I'm a believer in once a pedo, always a pedo. But you never know if it was a wrong conviction or if he truely has turned his life around. Need more info to decide if it was right or wrong to remove the child, but this maybe one of those times were it might be better for the child to stay in the home. 20 years ago and he has not been arrested is along time. Maybe he made some bad decisions back then, or maybe he just has not been caught recently. Hard to tell.

Can I ask where in that article you saw that he was a pedo?? Sex offender != pedo.

Jinn · 10-24-2005, 06:43 AM

"The term "sex offender" refers to any person convicted of Rape, Rape of a Child, Child Molestation, Sexual Misconduct with a Minor, Sexual Violation of Human Remains, Incest, Communication with a Minor for Immoral Purposes, a Felony with a finding of sexual motivation"

That's Washington. Maybe he fucked a corpse. Does that mean he's going to molest his child? I daresay no.. "sex offender" is FAR too ambigious -- most people ASSUME it's child molestation when it is quite likely something completely different..

In many states: If you relieve yourself on the side of the road, you are guilty of lewd behaviour; If you are caught skinny dipping in your apartment complex, you are guilty of indecent exposure; If you walk around your OWN HOME in the nude and a neighbor sees you - Well, in all of these examples, you are a sex offender.

Redlemon · 10-24-2005, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

Can I ask where in that article you saw that he was a pedo?? Sex offender != pedo.

This news release is biased, but contains that fact:
U.S. Newswire : Releases : "National Center for Missing and Exploited Children..."

Quote:

In a stunning turn of events, the head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) was quoted last week taking the side of a convicted rapist in a child custody battle playing out in state and federal courts in Pennsylvania. Ernie Allen, president and CEO of NCMEC, appeared on ABC News and said this about keeping a convicted rapist of teenagers away from his own child: "If we create an environment in which someone convicted of a sexual offense effectively cannot live in society in a normal way, what we're doing is forcing them out. We may even be increasing the likelihood of their re-offense."

Michael Paranzino, president of the anti-crime group Throw Away The Key, reacted with shock and outrage to Allen's remarks. "We've all said boneheaded things we regret, but this is not just silly, it is dangerous," Paranzino said. "If Ernie Allen were right, then Megan's Law would have to go, child molester buffer zones around schools and playgrounds would have to go, GPS tracking of sex offenders would have to go, and lifetime probation for sex offenders would have to go. Fortunately, in this case, Ernie Allen is dead wrong."

The case that led to Allen's unfortunate remarks concerns convicted rapist DaiShin WolfHawk, 53, who was known as John Joseph Lentini when he pleaded guilty to rape, attempted rape, sodomy and attempted sodomy of two teen-agers in the 1980s. In addition, according to the Associated Press, New York state parole records indicate he sodomized his own daughter, a charge WolfHawk denies. His wife recently had a baby, and Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services in Pennsylvania has taken custody of the baby. The ACLU is representing the mother of the baby, who currently does not have custody of her other two children either.

"There is no evidence that treating rapists and child molesters with the tough measures they deserve in any way leads to their astronomical reoffense rates," Paranzino added. "In fact, it is because their reoffense rates are so high that tough measures need to be taken."

NCMEC is a leading organization in the field of child protection, and received more than $30 million in taxpayer funds last year. Video and text of Allen's quote is available here: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1222311. To learn more about the nonpartisan, nonprofit Throw Away The Key, visit their Web site at http://www.throwawaythekey.org.

Glory's Sun · 10-24-2005, 07:26 AM

Quote:

he pleaded guilty to rape, attempted rape, sodomy and attempted sodomy of two teen-agers in the 1980s. In addition, according to the Associated Press, New York state parole records indicate he sodomized his own daughter, a charge WolfHawk denies.

ok.. so I can see this a little differently now. However, I would like to see other sources on this as you say this one is biased.

Quote:

In fact, it is because their reoffense rates are so high that tough measures need to be taken."

I think we've seen enough threads on this to know this is not really true. Sex offenders don't reoffend as often as the media likes to portray.. but then, stats are just stats, anyone can modify them.

I think the key here should be when does the person stop being a sex offender... I mean.. can you never become a normal citizen again? This is why I don't like lifetime registries for any crime. To put a lifelong tag on someone mearly tells them they have no hope of ever being a "normal" person again. Gee way to rehabilitate.. send them to prison, set them on the street with no money, tell them to find a job when 99% of people won't hire sex offenders then label them for life.. gee ain't America grand?

I think another key to this story is the fact that the mother in this case doesn't have custody of her other children as well. Perhaps the Child Welfare agency couldn't quite get the case seen in court based on her drug charges until they used the Sex Offender Trump Card. It's a bit murky if you ask me. I just don't see how if the man hasn't committed any new offenses in two decades, how he can't simply be entitled to his own flesh and blood.

Now about throwawaythekey.org .. talk about a sensationalist site. With the so called stats and the scenario's they placed on their site.. who wouldn't want to join. Hopefully people will be smart enough to dig a little deeper before joining the crowd of witch hunters.

Perhaps it would be different if the media would do an expose on the millions upon millions of sex offenders who live meaningful lives and who are better than most "normal citizens". I'm not sticking up for the child molestors or the rapists.. don't even try to twist this. I'm mearly saying that for every 1 or 2 you hear about on the television... there are probably 1million or moreworking 10x as hard as you are trying to earn a living and stay out of trouble.

canuckguy · 10-24-2005, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

Can I ask where in that article you saw that he was a pedo?? Sex offender != pedo.

omg, I am sorry but fuck I don't even know why I bother to read these threads. Everytime there is a thread about sex offenders it turns into the teenage boy having sex with his teenage girl friend why it should not be listed as a sex offence. Yes I think we can all agree that it is stupid for the boy to be listed as a sex offender!
Can we just assuming that since they are taking a CHILD, out of the house that he is a child sex offender and not a normal rapist.

Jinn · 10-24-2005, 08:04 AM

Quote:

...Everytime there is a thread about sex offenders it turns into the teenage boy having sex with his teenage girl friend why it should not be listed as a sex offence. Yes I think we can all agree that it is stupid for the boy to be listed as a sex offender!

Then why the fck is he? If we 'all agree' then why does this ambigious term continue to propogate? Probably because not everyone agrees... the fact that I could have been a "convincted sex offender" for urinating on the side of the road is a PROBLEM if you ask me. And no, we can't just ASSUME he raped a child.

Glory's Sun · 10-24-2005, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian1975

omg, I am sorry but fuck I don't even know why I bother to read these threads. Everytime there is a thread about sex offenders it turns into the teenage boy having sex with his teenage girl friend why it should not be listed as a sex offence. Yes I think we can all agree that it is stupid for the boy to be listed as a sex offender!
Can we just assuming that since they are taking a CHILD, out of the house that he is a child sex offender and not a normal rapist.

No we can't assume that. jesus.. I'm not sure if you live in America but if you do I hope to god allah satan or whatever the fuck is out there that you never serve on a jury. I'm not attacking you but seriously, a Child was taken out, ok so what about the mother? Should we assume she's still a crackhead and she's gonna get her kids killed because she has a history of drugs? Or maybe she'll get into a wreck because she's trying to hit a rock while she's driving. Assuming is pure bollocks. This is why people need facts and this is why I hate sensationalist media. It does nothing but breed this type of attitude. Oh well.. I guess since the person was arrested I assume that they did it..blah blah blah. You know here it's supposed to be innnocent until proven guilty. Ok ok I digress this really doesn't fit this article. We know the guy was guilty.

perhaps you should read your other post

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian1975

But you never know if it was a wrong conviction or if he truely has turned his life around..

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian1975

20 years ago and he has not been arrested is along time.

again.. don't whine about getting attacked..this is merely a counter against your claim of assumption.. kthanx

canuckguy · 10-24-2005, 08:08 AM

your not attacking me by saying I should never sit on jury? wow hate to see when you really flame me.

canuckguy · 10-24-2005, 08:09 AM

Well since we don't really know any of the facts, what is there to discuss unless we assume?

Glory's Sun · 10-24-2005, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian1975

your not attacking me by saying I should never sit on jury? wow hate to see when you really flame me.

How is that a personal attack when ,given the attitude you presented about assuming he was a child rapist, you would be a completely biased juror? Biased jurors are a diesease in America.

canuckguy · 10-24-2005, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

How is that a personal attack when ,given the attitude you presented about assuming he was a child rapist, you would be a completely biased juror? Biased jurors are a diesease in America.

umm, well I would hope that if I was sitting on a jury that I would have more facts at my disposal to make a educated decision and not just a post on a freaking internet forum! and like my previous post said that we did not know all the info, but by going by the article since they are removing a child i would assume (right or wrong) he was a child sex offender. How many stories do we read that say sex offender, with child being removed from a home and the sex offence was he raped a 30yr at a party? Too much to assume.

Glory's Sun · 10-24-2005, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian1975

umm, well I would hope that if I was sitting on a jury that I would have more facts at my disposal to make a educated decision and not just a post on a freaking internet forum! and like my previous post said that we did not know all the info, but by going by the article since they are removing a child i would assume (right or wrong) he was a child sex offender. How many stories do we read that say sex offender, with child being removed from a home and the sex offence was he raped a 30yr at a party? Too much to assume.

You're right.. it's too much to assume. So tell me ... why would we assume anything??

canuckguy · 10-24-2005, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

You're right.. it's too much to assume. So tell me ... why would we assume anything??

Well to make an ass out of you and me? ass-u-me

Its all good, too little info to really discuss if it right or wrong for the child to be removed. or to know what the sex offence really was.

Jinn · 10-24-2005, 08:36 AM

Anyone can argue in an "omg internet forum!!11one" that an issue cannot be discussed because the specifics are not known.

I personally believe there are TWO issues at hand; the trivial issue of whether this was right in this specific instance, and the larger issue of the "sex offenders" label being used to remove children. Since you're incapable (unwilling) of discussing the former, how do you feel about the latter?

Glory's Sun · 10-24-2005, 08:43 AM

To jump the gun.. and answer JinnKai's question regarding "the latter", I feel that there is no definate answer to that. There are pro's and con's to using the sex offender status to remove a child. Perhaps it should be layerd. If the offender is a level II or higher then there is no exception the the rule (hopefully if they had reached level III status they wouldn't be on the street). If they are a level I offender and the offense wasn't with a blood relative and the mother has no objections, then the father can have rights to his child. If the offense was an incest type offense, then the court would need to use it's discretion based on time served, age of victim, and length of non-reoffense and parole/probation status/record. If the offender showed a willingness to do what he/she was supposed to do on parole/probation then the offender should have a chance to father his child. I could go on and on, but with the way sex offenders are getting treated now days, I doubt any of this would ever be considered in the political forum of this *coughshittycough* judicial system.

canuckguy · 10-24-2005, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Anyone can argue in an "omg internet forum!!11one" that an issue cannot be discussed because the specifics are not known.

I personally believe there are TWO issues at hand; the trivial issue of whether this was right in this specific instance, and the larger issue of the "sex offenders" label being used to remove children. Since you're incapable (unwilling) of discussing the former, how do you feel about the latter?

no matter what i say i will be wrong. so yes you are right.

to answer your question.

- i don't know if it was right as i don't know what type of sex offender he was.
-in some (not all) situations yes a child should be removed. whether the kid should be removed in this article, who know. is the mother on drugs? off drugs?.....too many questions to make a decision unless we assume.
- i am incapable? so i am too stupid to answer?

Jinn · 10-24-2005, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian1975

no matter what i say i will be wrong. so yes you are right.

....

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

If they are a level I offender and the offense wasn't with a blood relative and the mother has no objections, then the father can have rights to his child. If the offense was an incest type offense, then the court would need to use it's discretion based on time served, age of victim, and length of non-reoffense and parole/probation status/record.

Thank you for raising the demeanor the discussion again, but should we include this level I status in other civil/criminal decisions? At the point his children were seized, he hadn't commited an additional crime. Can we use level I status for something like sodomy of human remains (necrophilia) to (via the judiciary) prevent them from working at a mortuary? I have a feeling that the company would refuse employment, but if they did not -- should the legal system have the right to remove him? It seems analagous to this situation, and I'm curious how far you'd allow the "removal of rights" to go..

stevo · 10-24-2005, 08:56 AM

I'll jump in and say that the state was right in this case to take the child away and that the sex offender label works. And I don't buy the "I pissed on the side of the road and was labeled a sex offender" If the offense is of a sexual nature than you are a sex offender. period.

Jinn · 10-24-2005, 08:58 AM

I apologize, you edited that after I posted so I was unable to respond:

Quote:

- i am incapable? so i am too stupid to answer?

Perhaps the language of my original statement was unclear:

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

Since you're incapable (unwilling) of discussing the former, how do you feel about the latter?

Quote:

Originally Posted by incapable

(followed by `of') not having the temperament or inclination for; "simply incapable of lying"

Because you were unwilling to discuss the first issue (you purported that there was not enough evidence) I noted that you were incapable-- see definition above-- and asked your opinion on the secondary issue. I apologize if you interpreted this as an attack on your intelligence.

Glory's Sun · 10-24-2005, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

....

Thank you for raising the demeanor the discussion again, but should we include this level I status in other civil/criminal decisions? At the point his children were seized, he hadn't commited an additional crime. Can we use level I status for something like sodomy of human remains (necrophilia) to (via the judiciary) prevent them from working at a mortuary? I have a feeling that the company would refuse employment, but if they did not -- should the legal system have the right to remove him? It seems analagous to this situation, and I'm curious how far you'd allow the "removal of rights" to go..

Well.. if they are a level I offender then after 10 years (unless the state has a lifetime registrar) the offender won't be held for his actions. If they are a level II or III then they are high rate offenders and IMO that's when the system (heh yeah.. the system.. whatever that means) failed and they are a threat to society.

Now on to the question at hand. I believe that given the time frame of this particular instance, there shouldn't be any issue. The man has gone 20 years without committing a sex offense. 20 years is more than he would have served in prison for his original offenses. To me that says alot. Now, had the man still been on parole/probation when this occured then yes the Level I status could have a legitimate factor in the preceding. I do know that if an offender has completed a class, and is still on probation but hasn't failed any drug tests and cooperated with police sometimes the judge will allow certain areas of their probation to be overtured. (I.e. living with children, especially if it is their own) It's rare but good deeds deserve a reward.

I'm so sure I really answered your question as it's a mud pit of a question. It's so sticky to really determine what would be the best case. I mean in one hand you have the rights of the offender/felon (which yes I believe they should have rights.. to say they shouldn't goes against the very core of our existence.) ---rabbit trail-- I'd also like to know how a state/government can tax a felon when according to probation laws a felon cannont vote in governement elections--isn't that taxation without due representation?

--end rabbit trail--- and on the other hand we have the rights/worries of the everyday citizen. I guess if you need an answer.. we can't convict someone for what they may do.. if we start doing that.. the entire population would be on death row.

Jinn · 10-24-2005, 09:01 AM

PHEW! The replies in this thread are *quick*!

Quote:

and that the sex offender label works. And I don't buy the "I pissed on the side of the road and was labeled a sex offender" If the offense is of a sexual nature than you are a sex offender. period.

Urinating on the side of the road is public indency / lewdness in most states, and is a "sexual crime." Being convicted of this, or something like statutory rape (the 18 year old and the 17 year old scenario) means you're a "sex offender." Do you really believe a child should be removed in this case? What do you IMMEDIATELY think of when you hear someone is a "sex offender?"

canuckguy · 10-24-2005, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

I apologize, you edited that after I posted so I was unable to respond:

Perhaps the language of my original statement was unclear:

Because you were unwilling to discuss the first issue (you purported that there was not enough evidence) I noted that you were incapable-- see definition above-- and asked your opinion on the secondary issue. I apologize if you interpreted this as an attack on your intelligence.

no worries, I understand now after rereading it. It is just that anytime it comes to an issue of child crimes, it makes me very defensive (bitchy, closed minded..etc). as a parent and someone who has dealt with sex offenders in the past my very deep personal feelings probably jade my opinion to the extreme! And it limits my ability to give a true unbias answer or discussion (which you can tell by my posts!).

sorry if any of my posts offends anyone. personal attacks and whining have no place on this forum. i should learn to ignore these types of threads that play with my emotions.

Jinn · 10-24-2005, 09:07 AM

Quote:

we can't convict someone for what they may do.. if we start doing that.. the entire population would be on death row.

My opinion on the matter resolves to that. I'm a strong believer in forgive and forget, and continuing to prosecute (persecute?) someone for previous actions after they've made amends reeks of revenge and not rehabilitation. Violent sex crimes and sex crimes against minors ARE heinous crimes, but I think that their punishment should be clearly laid out, served, and forgiven. This is our establishment for every crime I can think of; why are 'sex crimes' different? Should we prevent people convinced of accidental vehicular manslaughter from ever driving, in the possibility that they'll recommit?

When I was doing research earlier, I came upon a post on someone's blog somewhere in cyberspace, and the person had very valid points:

Quote:

Originally Posted by some random person on some webpage somewhere

Hysteria is a funny thing - easy to start but difficult to quell. A common myth about sex offenders are that all these people commit act against children. Of all sex offenders, pedophiles are statistically a minor group. Another common myth is that of recidivism. A recent national study used by the State of New Jersey Dept. of Corrections quoted the recidivism rate of all sex offenders at 8 - 18%.

By contrast, thieves reoffend at a rate of approximately 40%. Murderers also reoffend at a much higher rate than sex offenders. Rape 'victims' recant at a rate up to 50% (meaning THEY LIED), and those are just the ones that admit they lied. Who wants to do that?

Non violent offenders RARELY reoffend, regardless of their sentence (incarceration versus probation).

...
When reckless drivers, drunks (DUIs), wife-beaters, bigots and child abusers are prevented from living near the rest of us, then there will be equity.

Glory's Sun · 10-24-2005, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I'll jump in and say that the state was right in this case to take the child away and that the sex offender label works. And I don't buy the "I pissed on the side of the road and was labeled a sex offender" If the offense is of a sexual nature than you are a sex offender. period.

You're right.. if the offense is of a sexual nature than you are a sex offender. period. So then my question here would be, should all sex offenders just be lumped together? Rapists/child molestors lumped together with public pissers? That doesn't bode well for the country as a whole. If I were to take your statements literally (correct me if I've misread them) then sex offenders/felons/dui offenders/people owning a gun without a license should all have seperate databases and they should all be treated as threats to society.. oh and by the way, since you're on this list thingie.. you aren't entitled to a life like a normal human and as a special bonus you can't have a family either.

Yes I added the felons/dui offenders etc because sex offenders are felons. However, Dui offenders can be just as dangerous. If you have several DUI's then you should be on a database and never be allowed to operate a car again. That would be fair in my eyes. Yeah you "accidentally" killed that kid because you were high/drunk... let's let you have your license back. Damnit I go on too many rabbit trails.. geesh

Jinn · 10-24-2005, 09:15 AM

OK you said it once so I was like.. whatever I don't know what that means.. but now you've said it twice..

What is a rabbit trail?

Glory's Sun · 10-24-2005, 09:16 AM

Jinn--thanks for some of those stats.. no matter how many pages I can pull showing the low recedivism rates of sex offenders the media will continue to show them as some sort of boogey man. I've heard of one state that will now force sex offenders to have pink license plates.. now tell me .. what the fuck is that going to do? Gee, look there's a pink plate.. let's run him/her off the road!! YEE HAW! Thanks for encouraging vigalante justice.. really thanks.

It's like we're living in the days of the scarlet letter all over again. I must pause here to grant one idea credibility, --- if the offender shows an unwillingness to learn and no apathy or guilt for his offenses then the punishment should be increased. Without apathy and guilt I feel there is no chance for rehabilitation-- To label these people for life or even for 10 years just sets a precedent that if you fuck up at all.. you'll never be able to join normal society again.

a rabbit trail is when I go off on a tangent instead of sticking with my regular thought process of the topic. sort of similar to a hijack.. except it could still have some point to the OP.

Ustwo · 10-24-2005, 09:23 AM

The only issue here is why someone so dangerous to their own child is walking the street to begin with.

Quote:

New York state parole records indicate he sodomized his own daughter,

Any questions?

Jinn · 10-24-2005, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by me, 14 posts ago

I personally believe there are TWO issues at hand; the trivial issue of whether this was right in this specific instance, and the larger issue of the "sex offenders" label being used to remove children.

Any questions?

Glory's Sun · 10-24-2005, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The only issue here is why someone so dangerous to their own child is walking the street to begin with.

Quote:

New York state parole records indicate he sodomized his own daughter,

Any questions?

Quote:

a charge WolfHawk denies.

yup, I have a few. If the man pleaded guilty to all those other charges.. what's the harm in one more charge? Why would he even bother denying the charge dealing with his daughter? It wouldn't matter at that point. So I'm going to go ahead and walk down the assumuption trail and assume he didn't have sex with his daughter.

Poppinjay · 10-24-2005, 10:09 AM

Guccilver, I agree with you on things like pink license plates and whatnot. Not only do they encourage vigilante justice, they tempt law abiding citizens to commit assault and thereby enter the criminal system also.

However, I can see this guy refuting the sodomy of his daughter while not denying the other charges due to social mores and outside pressure.

I think if a person is making a legal decision about custody, they have to look at the legal ruling, which is that this guy sodomized his daughter.

raeanna74 · 10-24-2005, 04:29 PM

If he is such a dangerous criminal that he was convicted of rape, and he's STILL so dangerous that they removed his newborn from his home, Then what the hell is he doing OUT OF PRISON! Why are they jumping in so early to protect his child but they don't care to protect any other citizens. He's been convicted, he's done his time, he should not be forced to pay like this again if he's safe enough to be out of prison.

analog · 10-24-2005, 08:26 PM

I'm all for taking children away from stupid people.

When he was about 33, he had sex and attempted to have sex with, and commit sodomy on the same, two teenage girls. Their age does not allow consent, therefore it was not consentual, and therefore rape. Since they were also underage, it is pedophilia. Short, sweet, to the point- he had sex with two underaged females, plead guilty, and was convicted. Done. Done fucking done over and over... done.

The question, as I see it, is what kind of statute of limitations do we put on a person convicted of a crime, and to what extent do we go to assure a reoffense won't happen?

1. Someone murders their family. Do you not allow them to have another family? I'd say there'd be no way they could take the kids in that case, but they did in this one.

2. Someone walks into a crowd and randomly shoots two people. While a conviction would only ensure jail for maybe a decade or two, the offender is allowed back into the conditions which existed during the offense... so if we don't permanently remove every murderer so they can't EVER murder anymore, why in this case would they remove the kid, assuming he'd want to rape it at some point?

3. Let's not forget that the article also mentioned she's a drug abuser, and has two other children that are not in her custody. Sounds like a great household.

I think the bottom line here is this:

a) mom's a druggie, already has 2 kids she's not allowed to have, #3 wouldn't be a big leap. we're not talking about perfect ms. soccer mom, here. there's already got to be a good reason why she's not allowed to keep her first two.

b) dad's got a record of rape of a minor.

Why is this so hard? It's a scumbag family. Take the kids away. Done. Let it be known that if you're scumbags, your kids will be taken from you.

analog · 10-24-2005, 08:29 PM

MOD NOTE:

Oh, and stop all the bickering and fighting. Next people to do it get a two-day time-out. You all know better than that.

Lead543 · 10-24-2005, 09:40 PM

From what I've seen of the child welfare system they don't take kids away without good reason (at least in Canada), because honestly, no one wants to get sued for removing a child without any good reason.

The Dad is a convicted sex offender, he'll live with that title the rest of his life. Regardless of how long ago it was or whether or not he's recovered he still acted inpropriately with children and that still makes him at risk to act that way with his child.

And honestly, in a case involving sex and children, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

BBtB · 10-25-2005, 12:10 AM

Analog I am not going to quote your whole post but I am just going to say, I wish life was as black and white as that... I really do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lead543

From what I've seen of the child welfare system they don't take kids away without good reason (at least in Canada), because honestly, no one wants to get sued for removing a child without any good reason.

The Dad is a convicted sex offender, he'll live with that title the rest of his life. Regardless of how long ago it was or whether or not he's recovered he still acted inpropriately with children and that still makes him at risk to act that way with his child.

And honestly, in a case involving sex and children, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Hmmm, Well I have had personal experience with the child welfare system in America and I will say they strongly enforce the take the kids now and ask questions later policy. I had my first born child taken while a day old, from the hospital, and for the record I have no criminal background, not so much as a parking ticket. Also CPS in America fears no lawsuit (They happen but they are notoriously hard to win)
Now from what I have read of this case it is really to complex for any of us to make a firm judement of this man. Sexual predator is to vague a label to simply say that because of that he should not have a child. That and simply because he was charged with something does not mean he did it. The first article never states what his specfic charges where and the second article lists charges as "rape, attempted rape, sodomy and attempted sodomy of two teen-agers". No where in the list of charges is his daughter. All that is said about his daughter is that the AP quoted the New York Parole board of "indicating" he sodmized her. Now I am no lawyer but I believe there is a huge difference between "indicating" someone did something and "charging" them with doing something. Maybe I am naive but I think if the evidence was there why would have jumped at adding that to the list of charges. Also, no where in either article does it say the rape was statutory rape. That is sex, consenual or not, with an underage person. They could have just as easily been two 19 year olds as two 14 year olds. As for the mother, ambiguous references to past drug abuse does not mean much to me. I am an ex drug user and I feel fine. I know a number of current drug user who are productive members of society and yes good parents too. Questions that have to be asked and answered here are, What drugs, Was she selling or just using, How long ago, Is she clean now? In another act of vaguely disparaging these people they threw in her not having her other two children. Why not? Where they taken by CPS? Maybe she just lost them in a custody battle with the father. Maybe he simply makes more money then her, had a better lawyer. I think some of us are under the impression that they were taken by CPS because of her "drug history", but that was never said anywhere.
The real question that needs to be raised at this point is, why does CPS take children from parents to begin with? The answer, of course, is right or wrong they believe the children are in some sort of immediate danger. Is this boy in danger from his parents? Perhaps. My entire above paragraph was about the amount of information that we do not have and how much all those little variables drastically effect this case. However lets just consider the basics. What is the possible harm to the child? What exactly are we afraid will happen to the boy? Because a man raped someone in the past does that mean he will do it again? Does that mean he will possibly sexually molest his child? Or maybe he wont but maybe he will just raise his child in such a way that the boy will be a rapist himself? As for the mother, what of her? It is my impression from the article that the only reason she lost custody was the father (which btw is what happened to me with my daughter for those wondering) . Yes there is some alleged drug history but that certainly is not the center of attention. Yet we since it has been brought up lets ask the same questions about her. Can a past (or even current) drug user raise children? We of course can not answer that question here, drug user and history are every bit as ambiguous terms as sexual offender. The biggest questions here are what drugs and is she clean? As for the other children, all that was ever said is that they are "not in her custody" not that they were taken by CPS for any reason. There are any number of reasons they may not be in her custody. Anywhere from taken by CPS for whatever reason, father has custody or elective adoption. None of these mean she necessarily must be shunned from society or have her child taken.
Being forced to stand in front of a judge and watch as lawyers decide whether or not you should have your child is a terrible and terrifying ordeal, justified or not. Being told when you can see your child and for how long, which is rarely longer then an hour and week and sometimes as little as an hour a month, is simply heartbreaking. I hope for the childs sake the courts do whatever is right. I do not know enough to say what that is. I do know that the foster system in America is deplorable and in the least hopefully their is a suitable next of kin to keep him out of that. My heart goes out to this family and I hope they manage to get through this with their sanity in tact.

(PostScript: For these wondering, through a snafu and the grace of God my daughter is home now. She spent about 2 months in the system and her maternal grandmother who had placement of her screwed up a little. They had an emergency court hearing and decided to give my girlfriend and me "placement" while DHS still holds "custody". Basically she is still considered in the system but is home and this should be past us in another 3 or 4 months. Though had it not been for the mess up we were told we wouldn't have been considered for placement for another 6 months.)

yabobo · 10-25-2005, 06:04 AM

IMO.......If you did the crimes as alleged..If you admit guilt, in hurting a child
we should not be discussing this issue. Twenty years ago,the 53-year-old father, DaiShin WolfHawk should have been castrated at the very least. I like prison without parole.

I live only one and one half miles from Jessica Lundsford in Florida. My opinions have become extreme after her case unfolded.

The child welfare system is not perfect. It never will be. I don't except the over worked excuse.

10-24-2005, 06:43 AM	#6 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	"The term "sex offender" refers to any person convicted of Rape, Rape of a Child, Child Molestation, Sexual Misconduct with a Minor, Sexual Violation of Human Remains, Incest, Communication with a Minor for Immoral Purposes, a Felony with a finding of sexual motivation" That's Washington. Maybe he fucked a corpse. Does that mean he's going to molest his child? I daresay no.. "sex offender" is FAR too ambigious -- most people ASSUME it's child molestation when it is quite likely something completely different.. In many states: If you relieve yourself on the side of the road, you are guilty of lewd behaviour; If you are caught skinny dipping in your apartment complex, you are guilty of indecent exposure; If you walk around your OWN HOME in the nude and a neighbor sees you - Well, in all of these examples, you are a sex offender. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel Last edited by Jinn; 10-24-2005 at 06:45 AM..

10-24-2005, 08:36 AM	#18 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	Anyone can argue in an "omg internet forum!!11one" that an issue cannot be discussed because the specifics are not known. I personally believe there are TWO issues at hand; the trivial issue of whether this was right in this specific instance, and the larger issue of the "sex offenders" label being used to remove children. Since you're incapable (unwilling) of discussing the former, how do you feel about the latter? __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

10-24-2005, 08:56 AM	#22 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	I'll jump in and say that the state was right in this case to take the child away and that the sex offender label works. And I don't buy the "I pissed on the side of the road and was labeled a sex offender" If the offense is of a sexual nature than you are a sex offender. period. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

10-24-2005, 09:15 AM	#29 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	OK you said it once so I was like.. whatever I don't know what that means.. but now you've said it twice.. What is a rabbit trail? __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

10-24-2005, 10:09 AM	#34 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Guccilver, I agree with you on things like pink license plates and whatnot. Not only do they encourage vigilante justice, they tempt law abiding citizens to commit assault and thereby enter the criminal system also. However, I can see this guy refuting the sodomy of his daughter while not denying the other charges due to social mores and outside pressure. I think if a person is making a legal decision about custody, they have to look at the legal ruling, which is that this guy sodomized his daughter. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

10-24-2005, 06:01 AM	#4 (permalink)
canuckguy I read your emails. Location: earth	I'm a believer in once a pedo, always a pedo. But you never know if it was a wrong conviction or if he truely has turned his life around. Need more info to decide if it was right or wrong to remove the child, but this maybe one of those times were it might be better for the child to stay in the home. 20 years ago and he has not been arrested is along time. Maybe he made some bad decisions back then, or maybe he just has not been caught recently. Hard to tell.

10-24-2005, 08:08 AM	#12 (permalink)
canuckguy I read your emails. Location: earth	your not attacking me by saying I should never sit on jury? wow hate to see when you really flame me.

10-24-2005, 08:09 AM	#13 (permalink)
canuckguy I read your emails. Location: earth	Well since we don't really know any of the facts, what is there to discuss unless we assume?

10-24-2005, 08:43 AM	#19 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	To jump the gun.. and answer JinnKai's question regarding "the latter", I feel that there is no definate answer to that. There are pro's and con's to using the sex offender status to remove a child. Perhaps it should be layerd. If the offender is a level II or higher then there is no exception the the rule (hopefully if they had reached level III status they wouldn't be on the street). If they are a level I offender and the offense wasn't with a blood relative and the mother has no objections, then the father can have rights to his child. If the offense was an incest type offense, then the court would need to use it's discretion based on time served, age of victim, and length of non-reoffense and parole/probation status/record. If the offender showed a willingness to do what he/she was supposed to do on parole/probation then the offender should have a chance to father his child. I could go on and on, but with the way sex offenders are getting treated now days, I doubt any of this would ever be considered in the political forum of this coughshittycough judicial system.

10-24-2005, 09:16 AM	#30 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	Jinn--thanks for some of those stats.. no matter how many pages I can pull showing the low recedivism rates of sex offenders the media will continue to show them as some sort of boogey man. I've heard of one state that will now force sex offenders to have pink license plates.. now tell me .. what the fuck is that going to do? Gee, look there's a pink plate.. let's run him/her off the road!! YEE HAW! Thanks for encouraging vigalante justice.. really thanks. It's like we're living in the days of the scarlet letter all over again. I must pause here to grant one idea credibility, --- if the offender shows an unwillingness to learn and no apathy or guilt for his offenses then the punishment should be increased. Without apathy and guilt I feel there is no chance for rehabilitation-- To label these people for life or even for 10 years just sets a precedent that if you fuck up at all.. you'll never be able to join normal society again. a rabbit trail is when I go off on a tangent instead of sticking with my regular thought process of the topic. sort of similar to a hijack.. except it could still have some point to the OP.

10-24-2005, 04:29 PM	#35 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	If he is such a dangerous criminal that he was convicted of rape, and he's STILL so dangerous that they removed his newborn from his home, Then what the hell is he doing OUT OF PRISON! Why are they jumping in so early to protect his child but they don't care to protect any other citizens. He's been convicted, he's done his time, he should not be forced to pay like this again if he's safe enough to be out of prison. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

10-24-2005, 08:26 PM	#36 (permalink)
analog Banned	I'm all for taking children away from stupid people. When he was about 33, he had sex and attempted to have sex with, and commit sodomy on the same, two teenage girls. Their age does not allow consent, therefore it was not consentual, and therefore rape. Since they were also underage, it is pedophilia. Short, sweet, to the point- he had sex with two underaged females, plead guilty, and was convicted. Done. Done fucking done over and over... done. The question, as I see it, is what kind of statute of limitations do we put on a person convicted of a crime, and to what extent do we go to assure a reoffense won't happen? 1. Someone murders their family. Do you not allow them to have another family? I'd say there'd be no way they could take the kids in that case, but they did in this one. 2. Someone walks into a crowd and randomly shoots two people. While a conviction would only ensure jail for maybe a decade or two, the offender is allowed back into the conditions which existed during the offense... so if we don't permanently remove every murderer so they can't EVER murder anymore, why in this case would they remove the kid, assuming he'd want to rape it at some point? 3. Let's not forget that the article also mentioned she's a drug abuser, and has two other children that are not in her custody. Sounds like a great household. I think the bottom line here is this: a) mom's a druggie, already has 2 kids she's not allowed to have, #3 wouldn't be a big leap. we're not talking about perfect ms. soccer mom, here. there's already got to be a good reason why she's not allowed to keep her first two. b) dad's got a record of rape of a minor. Why is this so hard? It's a scumbag family. Take the kids away. Done. Let it be known that if you're scumbags, your kids will be taken from you.

10-24-2005, 08:29 PM	#37 (permalink)
analog Banned	MOD NOTE: Oh, and stop all the bickering and fighting. Next people to do it get a two-day time-out. You all know better than that.

10-24-2005, 09:40 PM	#38 (permalink)
Lead543 Registered User Location: Calgary	From what I've seen of the child welfare system they don't take kids away without good reason (at least in Canada), because honestly, no one wants to get sued for removing a child without any good reason. The Dad is a convicted sex offender, he'll live with that title the rest of his life. Regardless of how long ago it was or whether or not he's recovered he still acted inpropriately with children and that still makes him at risk to act that way with his child. And honestly, in a case involving sex and children, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

10-25-2005, 06:04 AM	#40 (permalink)
yabobo Lust Puppy Location: in your closet and in your head...	IMO.......If you did the crimes as alleged..If you admit guilt, in hurting a child we should not be discussing this issue. Twenty years ago,the 53-year-old father, DaiShin WolfHawk should have been castrated at the very least. I like prison without parole. I live only one and one half miles from Jessica Lundsford in Florida. My opinions have become extreme after her case unfolded. The child welfare system is not perfect. It never will be. I don't except the over worked excuse. __________________ Why do they sterilize the needle for lethal injections? Only in America......do we use the word 'politics' to describe the process so well: 'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures'.