Officials Try To Take Baby - Dad Is Convicted Sex Offender

[GotZoom]

There are reports (in article) that mom is a prostitute and used drugs during her pregnancy. Not sure if this is true but the officials aren't using this as their reason for taking the baby.

What do we think about this? I'm not sure where I am with this.

---------
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Child-welfare officials obtained an emergency court order to seize a baby just 24 hours after he was born, contending the infant would be unsafe because his father is a convicted sex offender.

The hospital, however, refused to hand over the infant so soon after birth, according to a lawyer representing the mother, Melissa WolfHawk.

WolfHawk, 31, is due in court Friday for a hearing, said Mary Catherine Roper, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing the mother.

The child was born Tuesday, and Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services was granted the order Wednesday.

The agency expressed concerns that the boy could be in danger because his 53-year-old father, DaiShin WolfHawk, was convicted of rape and sodomy more than two decades ago in New York.

"Melissa is leaving the hospital tonight," Roper said Thursday. "Schuylkill County is going to show up at the hospital sometime tomorrow morning to pick up the baby, who will be released when the hospital is ready to release him."

A hospital administrator said Thursday he couldn't talk about the issue, citing patient privacy rules.

Roper said the child services agency also raised concerns about the mother's alleged history of drug abuse.

The WolfHawks had already gone to court because county officials were asking about the pregnancy. A federal judge placed a temporary restraining order on county officials to keep them from doing so.

DaiShin WolfHawk said he and his wife were "appalled" at the county's actions.

"Here's a baby being breast-fed by its mother, and they're saying that the mother's a danger to the baby," DaiShin WolfHawk said. "What were they doing? They were trying to grab the baby before it even had its shots, circumcised, anything."

The boy, whose name he declined to disclose, was born at Jennersville Regional Hospital in West Grove, about 60 miles south of Pottsville, where Melissa WolfHawk lives. Mother and child were still together at the hospital as of Thursday morning.

DaiShin WolfHawk pleaded guilty under the name John Joseph Lentini in 1983 to rape and sodomy in a case involving two teenage girls.

At Monday's hearing, the county produced a doctor's report that Melissa WolfHawk had acknowledged using cocaine and methamphetamine and working as a prostitute. The county also submitted a New York parole document indicating DaiShin WolfHawk sexually abused his daughter.

The WolfHawks have vigorously denied those allegations.

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

 

[dmp]

yeah - that's a rough issue...Is a man to be held accountable 'after' serving his time? Is the guy likely to re-offend? Lots of questions...

 

[Trigg]

I would be surprised if they can hold the conviction for rape against the father since, according to the article, that happened 20 years ago.

Also, when was the mother a prostitute and drug abuser? How far in the past was this??

 

[Hobbit]

That's bullcrap. He's served his time, and he's still a human being. If they're that scared he'll do it again, they should put surveillance on his house and arrest him if he does anything stupid, not pre-emptively. It's like "Minority Report," only without the psychics.

 

[Abbey Normal]

So let me get this straight. Daddy raped and sodomized two teenagers. And Mommy is a coke-head prostitute. Oh, yeah, junior has quite a future ahead of him.

And I can only imagine what drugs are being delivered to this baby along with that nuturing breast milk.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

So let me get this straight. Daddy raped and sodomized two teenagers. And Mommy is a coke-head prostitute. Oh, yeah, junior has quite a future ahead of him.

And I can only imagine what drugs are being delivered to this baby along with that nuturing breast milk.

But the point is, if these people are such a danger they should not be free. You can't restrict a free person after the fact out of fear for what might happen, it opens up a nasty Pandora's box.

These two clearly aren't candidates for good parents, but the mistake was letting them back into society.

 

[dmp]

But the point is, if these people are such a danger they should not be free. You can't restrict a free person after the fact out of fear for what might happen, it opens up a nasty Pandora's box.

These two clearly aren't candidates for good parents, but the mistake was letting them back into society.

Right - when we allow the government to completely dictate who should be parents, everybody needs to watch out. I'd suppose in 50 years, Christians who have children will have their kids removed from the home for similiar reasons:

"To teach a child there exist in the world absolute moral standards, ENDANGERS that child, because they become 'ophobes'."

etc..

 

[5stringJeff]

But the point is, if these people are such a danger they should not be free. You can't restrict a free person after the fact out of fear for what might happen, it opens up a nasty Pandora's box.

Abso-freakin-lutely right on. The government should not be able to tell two free people whether or not they can have kids.

These two clearly aren't candidates for good parents, but the mistake was letting them back into society.

The guy has served his time for his crimes, so I call it unreasonable to tell him that he can't parent any children. The mother is a bit different. The hospital should point her towards a drug rehab program, at the very least.

 

[Abbey Normal]

But the point is, if these people are such a danger they should not be free. You can't restrict a free person after the fact out of fear for what might happen, it opens up a nasty Pandora's box.

These two clearly aren't candidates for good parents, but the mistake was letting them back into society.

We had a similar discusssion in the Newark sex offender/Halloween thread. I can't argue with your statement that letting them back into society was a mistake, but until the courts staunch their bleeding hearts and mete out more appropriate sentences, what would you suggest we do to protect the most vulnerable and defenseless among us? I do not know enough facts to say that these two people should have their child taken away, but I cannot accept the general conclusion that because someone served a particular sentence they are necessarily allowed to have access to children, even their own. It depends on the crime they were convicted of, and their overall criminal history, but the children of addicts, and especially of sex offenders, must be safeguarded. Too much sickening stuff can happen to them behind closed doors, and then it's too late.

 

[Gunny]

We had a similar discusssion in the Newark sex offender/Halloween thread. I can't argue with your statement that letting them back into society was a mistake, but until the courts staunch their bleeding hearts and mete out more appropriate sentences, what would you suggest we do to protect the most vulnerable and defenseless among us? I do not know enough facts to say that these two people should have their child taken away, but I cannot accept the general conclusion that because someone served a particular sentence they are necessarily allowed to have access to children, even their own. It depends on the crime they were convicted of, and their overall criminal history, but the children of addicts, and especially of sex offenders, must be safeguarded. Too much sickening stuff can happen to them behind closed doors, and then it's too late.

ITA. As a society, it is OUR responsibility to protect the most defenseless from predators. The child's right to a normal, healthy life should be paramount to the parental right of possession.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

We had a similar discusssion in the Newark sex offender/Halloween thread. I can't argue with your statement that letting them back into society was a mistake, but until the courts staunch their bleeding hearts and mete out more appropriate sentences, what would you suggest we do to protect the most vulnerable and defenseless among us? I do not know enough facts to say that these two people should have their child taken away, but I cannot accept the general conclusion that because someone served a particular sentence they are necessarily allowed to have access to children, even their own. It depends on the crime they were convicted of, and their overall criminal history, but the children of addicts, and especially of sex offenders, must be safeguarded. Too much sickening stuff can happen to them behind closed doors, and then it's too late.

I don't disagree with you at all in your want to safeguard kids, but when you open the door of imposing sentences on someone after the fact, you open a can of worms that leads to thought-policing, as so many of you here like to call it.

If there are tragedies going on, the focus needs to be placed on changing the original sentencing, not imposing varied forms of vigilantism fix-ups. If kids are getting harmed by those who've already been convicted and released, then initial sentenes need to be increased, and that's where the outrage should be directed.

When you start handing down punishment outside of the judicial system, you jeopordize the entire thing. The focus should be on fixing and fortifying the levee, not trying to build another levee downstream.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

ITA. As a society, it is OUR responsibility to protect the most defenseless from predators. The child's right to a normal, healthy life should be paramount to the parental right of possession.

So then who becomes the judge and jury as to who is capable of providing a normal, healthy life? Should there be a checklist that people need to comply to? Some feel that blacks have a predisposition for criminal activity.. should we override the "parental right of possession" to make sure the black child leads a normal, healthy life? Do people who think blacks have a predisposition to crime get to make that call, or do people who don't think blacks have a predisposition get to?

When you start having these grey areas, the interpretation becomes a tool for pushing motives that not everyone agrees on.

 

[Gunny]

So then who becomes the judge and jury as to who is capable of providing a normal, healthy life? Should there be a checklist that people need to comply to? Some feel that blacks have a predisposition for criminal activity.. should we override the "parental right of possession" to make sure the black child leads a normal, healthy life? Do people who think blacks have a predisposition to crime get to make that call, or do people who don't think blacks have a predisposition get to?

When you start having these grey areas, the interpretation becomes a tool for pushing motives that not everyone agrees on.

"We the people" as an institution and a society violate the rights of convicted sex offenders every day. They are harrassed, forced to register with local police, they're all over the net, and even "wanted signs" posted around any neighborhood they live in.

Too bad. When they quit letting them out of prison, none of that will be necessary, nor will there be gray areas.

The alternative is to just let them go and hope they don't screw up some child's life, in many cases condemning the child to their same fate later in life, and after the fact, "whoops we were wrong" doesn't undo jack shit.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

"We the people" as an institution and a society violate the rights of convicted sex offenders every day. They are harrassed, forced to register with local police, they're all over the net, and even "wanted signs" posted around any neighborhood they live in.

Too bad. When they quit letting them out of prison, none of that will be necessary, nor will there be gray areas.

The alternative is to just let them go and hope they don't screw up some child's life, in many cases condemning the child to their same fate later in life, and after the fact, "whoops we were wrong" doesn't undo jack shit.

The other alternative would be to try and fix the problem that is making you do all this after-the-fact stuff in the first place.

 

[Gunny]

The other alternative would be to try and fix the problem that is making you do all this after-the-fact stuff in the first place.

"Fixing" in the form of rehabilitation? Questionable results at best. "Fixing" in the form of absolute prevention? Self-explanatory outcome.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

"Fixing" in the form of rehabilitation? Questionable results at best. "Fixing" in the form of absolute prevention? Self-explanatory outcome.

Fixing as in, if you think they should serve life in prison or have longer sentences, then you should work towards that. If that's your ultimate goal, then why try to subvert the system... it makes your motivations look suspect when you intentions are probably for the best. I'm not advocating anything, just the fact that a precedent shouldn't be set that the system should be disregarded whenever it doesn't suit our interests. You fix the system, not ignore it.

 

[Gunny]

Fixing as in, if you think they should serve life in prison or have longer sentences, then you should work towards that. If that's your ultimate goal, then why try to subvert the system... it makes your motivations look suspect when you intentions are probably for the best. I'm not advocating anything, just the fact that a precedent shouldn't be set that the system should be disregarded whenever it doesn't suit our interests. You fix the system, not ignore it.

As I previously stated, the precedent has already been set, and not by me. I just don't disagree with the motive nor action.

Where has the system been subverted?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

As I previously stated, the precedent has already been set, and not by me. I just don't disagree with the motive nor action.

Where has the system been subverted?

When you impose after-the-fact sentences, the system has been subverted.

 

[Gunny]

When you impose after-the-fact sentences, the system has been subverted.

Techincally, I have not. The society in which I live has. In principle, I agree with you. In practice, I can live with myself if it protects a child from harm.

 

[Mr. P]

Techincally, I have not. The society in which I live has. In principle, I agree with you. In practice, I can live with myself if it protects a child from harm.

But it won't, You're "we the people" part will though, and they are the legislature which dictate the sentence guide lines for crime. That is where to start, if you don’t, it’s no more than subtle vigilantism which does subvert the system.