Sex offender's wife in child custody fight

AP ^ | 10/11/5 | MARK SCOLFORO

[wideawake]

They can require him to have supervised visits but I am still a little uncomfortable with that unless they can prove that he has committed other assaults since he was released and that he is a definite danger to his own kids.

A rapist, by definition, is dangerous.

And they don't have to prove that he has reoffended - he is a sexual predator by definition and he can never own a gun again, or vote again or enjoy a host of other rights which he forfeited by committing a sickening, cowardly crime.

He can't even vote in a primary for the local dogcatcher, but he should be guaranteed unsupervised access to small children?

Get real.

Since when do conservatives advocate punishing people for a crime they did not yet commit?

Since when do conservatives ignore reality? Sex offenders reoffend 99% of the time.

There is a slight chance he might not reoffend - in other words, the kids have a 1% chance that he won't molest them. Only a sick, demented bastard would place kids in that kind of situation.

The father is also clearly mentally unbalanced in other ways, since he considers himself the chief of an Indian tribe that never existed.

Wake up.

The mother has a clear choice: continue associating with a violent lunatic or continue associating with her kids.

A fit mother would make the right choice immediately.

[monday]

"You support a convicted pedophile? He rapes and sodomizes children, and you support his having a new victim in his home?"

Please reread the article. His wife was never convicted of anything and she lives 20 miles away from him. He was convicted of raping teenage girls. That is bad, but it doesn't say whether it was statutory rape or forced. In 1983 he would have been in his twenties. He could have gone to jail for having sex with his teenage girlfriend/s. Pedophiles have sex with prepubescent children, not teenagers so I don't see how you can call him a pedophile.

Finally, why do you support taking a woman's children away from her when she has never done anything wrong? I think we are defending her and her children, not the rapist.

[Albion Wilde]

Earlier thread, same topic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1500620/posts

[SmithL]

This IS the earlier thread. The other came later.

[SmithL]

Finally, why do you support taking a woman's children away from her when she has never done anything wrong?

Marrying and having children with a child-molestor is doing something wrong.

[monday]

"Marrying and having children with a child-molestor is doing something wrong."

If you had said "Marrying and having children with a rapist is doing something wrong." I would agree with you, but she didn't marry a "child-molestor".

[Albion Wilde]

This IS the earlier thread. The other came later.

Never mind.

[SmithL]

Being an adult having sex with a child makes him a child molestor.

[ellery]

So now we're encouraging the government to take preventative action against people (the mother) who have not committed any crime? They'll be taking the babies of women married to people with firearms offenses next -- just watch.

The root problem here is this ridiculous registered sex offender business. If child predators cannot be rehabbed (and I believe that they cannot), then they should never be let out of prison alive in the first place. If this woman's husband is truly a child predator, then he should still be in jail or he should have been executed. Then we wouldn't have to decide whether we should give the government power to seize the children of innocent, albeit stupid, people.

[Gondring]

DaiShin John WolfHawk, aka John Joseph Lentini

[ellery]

What about the child's right to be raised in a safe and happy environment. I know we can't pick and choose our parents and there is just no way to foresee trouble, but in cases where it's highly likely that the child is in danger, what else can you do? Turn a blind eye and hope the child's life isn't ruined by a pervert? Too bad "mom" doesn't have two brain cells to rub together.

You place the restrictions on the offender, not an innocent party who happens to be stupid enough to associate with him. So far, stupidity alone isn't a crime, and certainly not one that's punishable by having one's children seized by the government. And furthermore, considering the statistics on children being molested/raped/beaten/killed/lost in the foster care system, I don't know that the state taking these children represents a step up for them.

What it comes down to is that this guy should never have gotten out of prison at all, except in a body bag. Since the state already screwed up by releasing him (ostensibly as a registered sex offender), then they need to restrict HIM from seeing the children -- NOT the mother who has not committed any crimes.

[ellery]

I suspect, and I'm sure seasoned Children's Services personnel do too, that he spends most of his spare time, including his nights, at his wife's home.

Then it's simple: send him back to prison where he belongs on a parole or sex offender registry violation. That's a much more reasonable solution then setting another precedent where the government gets to punish people who have not committed a crime for something that might happen in the future. Having him back in prison would protect the rest of our children from him, too -- a societal benefit NOT conferred by the state seizing this woman's children only.

Or might the state consider taking my children too (for their own protection, of course), if I live near him? Or maybe they'll take this guy's nieces, nephews, cousins, etc. from their parents, too, if their parents still associate with him? That's the (il)logic here -- why not just take the offender himself out of the mix???

[derllak]

You make a very good point! The freak should have had what little balls he had, cut off when he was released! I'm just so afraid for that child, well intentioned that his/her idiot mother may be.

[ellery]

I'm afraid for that child, and for all the other children who live in this guy's vicinity. If he's a child predator, he needs to be taken out of commission for everyone's sake. I'll never understand why the obvious solutions are so difficult. Sigh.