Court Gives OK to Seize Newborn
A Pennsylvanian Court has given permission for the seizure of a newborn infant.
"Why," you ask. The father was convicted of rape and sodomy of two or three teenage girls 23 years ago. It is Schuylkill County child-welfare officials position that this conviction makes him an imminent threat to his three day old son. You should know that his wife, the mother, lives 17 miles away from this man, with her father. Yet Child-Welfare still believes that the child must be taken away from his mother.
Here is my problem with this "emergency" ruling:
1) The court has never forbidden this man from having children;
2) The court has never forbidden this man from getting married;
3) The court has never forbidden this man from being partially associated with children.
So, why is the court stepping in now when there hasn't been any threatening acts or violations of court orders or violations of the law? They are violating the mother's parental rights without any violation of the law on her (or anyone elses) part. What law has she violated?
Before you jump on your moral high-horse step back and think this through. Has she violated the law? Has she been convicted (or charged) with doing anything that has put her child's life/well-being at risk?
Sure, we can say that HE should never be allowed to have children (although that has nothing to do with his crime), to be around teenagers & children or in polite society, but what does that have to do with the mother who has not violated the law? If the court did not put any such restrictions on the convicted sex offender, how is it that the court is stepping in 23 yrs later? There are people that physically abuse & torture their children that get second and third chances under State law, yet here where there is no showing of danger the court says that the mother should lose her child.
You don't want convicted sex offenders to have children? Pass a law. Put it in as part of a life long sentence. By only taking a mother's child all the State is doing is creating two more victims.
Children need everyone's protection. Trying to protect children in this half-assed manner is wrong though.
"Why," you ask. The father was convicted of rape and sodomy of two or three teenage girls 23 years ago. It is Schuylkill County child-welfare officials position that this conviction makes him an imminent threat to his three day old son. You should know that his wife, the mother, lives 17 miles away from this man, with her father. Yet Child-Welfare still believes that the child must be taken away from his mother.
Here is my problem with this "emergency" ruling:
1) The court has never forbidden this man from having children;
2) The court has never forbidden this man from getting married;
3) The court has never forbidden this man from being partially associated with children.
So, why is the court stepping in now when there hasn't been any threatening acts or violations of court orders or violations of the law? They are violating the mother's parental rights without any violation of the law on her (or anyone elses) part. What law has she violated?
Before you jump on your moral high-horse step back and think this through. Has she violated the law? Has she been convicted (or charged) with doing anything that has put her child's life/well-being at risk?
Sure, we can say that HE should never be allowed to have children (although that has nothing to do with his crime), to be around teenagers & children or in polite society, but what does that have to do with the mother who has not violated the law? If the court did not put any such restrictions on the convicted sex offender, how is it that the court is stepping in 23 yrs later? There are people that physically abuse & torture their children that get second and third chances under State law, yet here where there is no showing of danger the court says that the mother should lose her child.
You don't want convicted sex offenders to have children? Pass a law. Put it in as part of a life long sentence. By only taking a mother's child all the State is doing is creating two more victims.
Children need everyone's protection. Trying to protect children in this half-assed manner is wrong though.
posted by Zanla | 10:21 AM
2 Comments:
I had a feeling that this case would get you thinking.
It astounds me that the court coul take this stance.
I read an article yesterday that said this was the second child that had been taken away. The other was not an infant. It makes you wonder how far the State goes and how quite it is kept.
Post a Comment
<< Home