Posted on 03/28/2013 1:59:18 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
OTTAWA — A couple has lost custody of their fourth child — seized by authorities at hospital after birth — for fear the father, a onetime juvenile sex offender, would molest his newborn son in the future.
The boy became a ward of the state on Feb. 28 and has been put up for adoption.
The Children’s Services of Lanark knew the couple was expecting because the mother was pregnant at a hearing in May about the custody of another baby, also seized after birth at hospital in 2011.
In that case, Ontario Superior Court Justice John McMunagle ruled in October that their newborn girl was in need of protection from the father and was put up for adoption by the state.
The judge ruled the father, who has a criminal record for sex crimes 17 years ago, presented too great a risk.
“The court find(s) that there is a risk that the child is likely to be sexually molested or sexually exploited, and that there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm resulting from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of (the parents),” the judge ruled.
Lawyers for the parents argued that their clients have never been given a “sufficient” chance to be parents.
McMunagle didn’t buy it and said another way of putting their submission would be to ask him to take a chance on the life of a one-year-old girl.
“Essentially, this court is being asked to take a chance and allow (the couple) to use (the girl) as a parental training tool,” the judge ruled.
McMunagle also said the parents lacked insight into challenges they’d have raising a child.
The judge noted they had not yet sought help for some of their own admitted problems, namely that the father drinks too much gin and the mother is addicted to bingo.
The judge’s ruling also referenced a recent sexual behaviour assessment that concluded the father’s likelihood of re-offending in a “violent manner is deemed to be in the high-risk range.”
McMunagle said the father did not complete recent sex behaviour tests because “it appears he did not like the initial results of the testing and has subsequently refused to complete the testing.”
A case summary filed in court revealed that, beyond the father’s criminal sex history, the couple had problems keeping their home in order, at least when they had one. They once lived in a tent at a trailer park.
A child-protection agent reported in 2011 that the state of their home was “deplorable, smelling of urine, feces and other unknown smells and extreme filth.”
There was no heat at the home, either.
They’ve had other problems at home too, with authorities in 2010 seizing around 30 animals from their house. They removed gerbils, mice, rats, snakes, dogs (including one that was in such bad health it had to be put down) and cats.
Some of the animals found in the house had been dead for a while.
The couple says they are better at running a home these days and have agreed to stay away from pets forever.
They lost custody of their fourth child in February.
All of their children, from several months old to age five, have been put up for adoption. The last three children were seized shortly after birth at hospital.
“It’s a heartbreaking experience,” the father told the Citizen. “They come in and take your baby. It’s like they are stripping your life away.”
The couple, whose identity is shielded by law, want their children back but say they can’t afford to mount a strong legal case.
The father said it was wrong for a court to punish him for future crimes a judge said he was likely to commit.
“And they’re not supposed to use my youth record against me from 17 years ago, but they do.
“And they’re talking about something in the future, something I haven’t done. I haven’t had even an allegation against me since I was a kid.”
He pleaded guilty for sex crimes against children when he was 12. “I was a kid. I didn’t know what I was doing, so I pleaded guilty. But there was no sex, it was experimenting as a 12-year-old boy.”
But his record shows otherwise, with him having been convicted of sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, assault with a weapon, sexual interference and uttering threats.
He says he’s a changed man and would never harm a child.
His young offender sentence had him in youth jail for 90 days, and then group homes.
Because of his sex crimes, he was banned from attending high school and instead took correspondence courses, alone at the kitchen table in the group home. He gave up after Grade 9. “You’d think they’d want me interacting with other human beings, learning how to act properly and respect people.”
He’s now an unemployed labourer currently living under house arrest at a roadside motel.
It’s a court condition after a night of fighting with his common-law wife, who called the police on him after a boozy night.
“We had just lost our fourth baby, so she sent me to the liquor store,” the father recalled.
He came home with a bottle of London Dry Gin, and “we got to drinking.”
Then they got to fighting, and then he got arrested. Still, they are together, though they are so far restricted to communicating only by telephone or Internet.
In a few weeks, they’ll be able to see one another in person, even if for only a few hours a week.
“After all we’ve been through, we’re staying together,” the father said.
Asked why he’s not working, he said, “It’s hard for someone like me to get a job because a lot of people know my past, and if they don’t, they know someone who does.
“I’m still paying for it every day. I can’t walk down the street without someone calling me a goof or a pedophile,” he said. Sometimes, he takes a beating, he said.
“But I’m not giving up and so here I am, wanting to work for it, and I’m looking for a lawyer who wants to help me get my kids back.”
Or a wise a prudent move based on their lifesyle?
From the way I read this story the Judge may be doing the right thing.
Too many things add up against this couple.
My first thought was that the judge acted wrong, but after reading about the animals, their living in a motel, jobless,
Of course any new couple is using their child as a learning experience. no one knows what parenthood is until they do it, but if they cannot take care of animals, thta is a bad sign.
They seem to be implying that even though he was only 12, the sexual abuse he was dishing out was pretty serious. He’d also have to be one messed up puppy to be doing that kind of crap at that age.
Once you lose one child, it’s over. They will grab your kids at birth and believe me, usually rightly so. Why is this broad continuing to procreate with a fiend?
Why are you instantly trying to make this racial? It never occuried to me once that the story in this couple was black. And I would highly doubt they are. In fact, the behavior described screamed out “white redneck” as I read it.
Open your mind a bit.
A SEX OFFENDER at the age of 12? And no repeats since then?
As poor parents as it seems they were, to take their child for THIS reason is not right.
“We had just lost our fourth baby, so she sent me to the liquor store,” the father recalled.
He came home with a bottle of London Dry Gin, and “we got to drinking.”
Then they got to fighting, and then he got arrested.
I believe that tells us much....whatever else is true this yob is in no way interested in following social convention or even just the common sense of being an adult
FTA: But his record shows otherwise, with him having been convicted of sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, assault with a weapon, sexual interference and uttering threats.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I doubt the man is telling the whole truth about his being a sex offender at age 12. Perhaps he molested a much younger child. Perhaps his record extends over several years.
In any case, it looks like the State is using his past as a tool to keep him from keeping his children.
From blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2013/01/04/14-quotes-amish-mafia/:
14. And the pièce de résistance: “Hey. Have you seen the black Amish?”
In fact, the behavior described screamed out “white redneck” as I read it.
A wrung below white trailer-park trash, I'd guess, given the article says they live in a tent in a trailer park.
I just assumed they were white trash. The tent, animals, etc...
"But his record shows otherwise, with him having been convicted of sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, assault with a weapon, sexual interference and uttering threats."
Oh... never mind.
The Amish are white people.
Reading everything else though makes me think the right decision was made.
If they lived in this country, that couple would be Obama voters.
The part about the 17 year old sex crime is BS. That’s not why the baby got yanked.
Yes, because no blacks live with animals, in a trailer park, have sexual assault records, abuse alcohol, or have had their children taken from them. Talk about needing to open one’s mind.
Of course they do. But I don’t instantly assume someone exhibiting this behavior is black. Mobs rampaging in the inner city? yes, they’re black. But the original poster instantly tried to put a racial slant on this. Which is stupid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.