Posted on 07/10/2013 12:26:52 PM PDT by Morgana
NORMAN, Okla.– After being given sole custody of a six-year-old girl, a convicted sex offender was placed under arrest and the child was taken away.
A few weeks ago, an Oklahoma County judge made a decision that shocked many Oklahomans after he awarded sole custody of a child to her father, Nicholas Elizondo, who was also a convicted sex offender.
Authorities say the little girl, Sarah, is now in the custody of DHS after Elizondo was arrested this past weekend in California.
Elizondo was pulled over for speeding on Sunday but Bakersfield police officers soon found a bullet in his car.
(Excerpt) Read more at kfor.com ...
That judge needs to be removed from the bench. He’s a psychopath.
Is the judge still a judge?
The United States of America, where you can be arrested and have your child taken from you because you have a bullet.
If you want to argue that the man should not have the child, that is a great argument to have.
But once we stop cheering for the ends justifying the means, maybe we could get back to being upset about our basic liberties being destroyed by an all-powerful state.
Because if they can arrest this guy and take his kid away for a bullet, they could arrest YOU and take YOUR kids away if you had a bullet.
So imagine if you managed somehow to drop a bullet into your car, and then you are driving in California. Say goodbye to your kids?
You’d have to become familiar with the entire context of the story to even begin to understand why the judge might have ruled this way.
The man was convicted of a lesser charge without a trial — a plea bargain that many people might well take if innocent because the cost of losing at trial is so great. It is clear that the judge in this case determined that the prior conviction was not indicative of reality. He could well have been wrong, but he didn’t ignore it.
And the mother of this child was shut out for another reason. There was a charge made that this man had abused another child. Evidence was then presented which suggested that charge was made up by the mother in order to win the custody battle. Again, we have no way of knowing who is lying.
BUT, I think we could understand why, if a mother lies about sex abuse in order to win custody of a child, that a judge might decide to punish the mother by granting custody to the falsely accused party. I think a child should not be punished by removal from the mother, but I understand why others might not think that.
Sometimes, when something looks entirely outrageous, it is because we don’t have all the facts presented to us. Or it could be the judge was crazy.
“Elizondo says he completed parole and probation in 2001 and that he only pleaded no contest to one of 11 charges to have the other 10 dismissed back in 1995.
“He believes police incited the child to say incriminating things to build a case against him.”
Importantly, the mother cut off visitation with the father because she says that, “After one visit, Knight alleges, Sarah came home saying that her half brother, 19, touched her private parts.”
So this means she has not only accused her ex-husband, but his son of molestation as well.
</sarcasm>
So... why was the daughter arrested?
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.