Posted on 10/22/2005 7:40:18 AM PDT by HOTTIEBOY
POTTSVILLE, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Child welfare authorities seized a newborn from a hospital Friday and placed the baby in a foster home because his father is a convicted sex offender.
A judge granted the mother supervised visitation rights but prohibited visits from the father.
"There's no happy ending in these things. It's what we think is the best interest of the children," said Gerard Campbell, executive director of Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services. The agency took custody of the baby over the mother's objections....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
A judge granted the mother supervised visitation rights but prohibited visits from the father.
"There's no happy ending in these things. It's what we think is the best interest of the children," said Gerard Campbell, executive director of Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services. The agency took custody of the baby over the mother's objections.
The baby was born Tuesday and the agency obtained an emergency court order Wednesday authorizing it to take the infant. Child welfare workers argued the infant boy's safety is in jeopardy because the father pleaded guilty to rape and sodomy two decades ago in New York. The agency also cited the mother's alleged history of drug abuse.
Another hearing is set for October 31.
"I think they're sending the message that if you or any member of your family screws up, you can kiss your parental rights goodbye," said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Mary Catherine Roper, who represents the mother, Melissa WolfHawk.
WolfHawk, 31, declined to talk with reporters after a hearing before Common Pleas Judge Charles Miller.
The 53-year-old father, DaiShin WolfHawk, did not attend the hearing but said he was "just shocked" by the judge's decision.
"I thought I was living in America," he said.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Ridiculous. The man's crime was over 20 years ago.. are we saying that a person cannot procreate after being labeled a sex offender?
YES, AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE ARE.
I'll second that. A child's welfare is at stake.
If this was your child he raped and sodomised, I guarantee that you'd not be so casual about this. He wasn't just labeled, he IS one.
How do you know it was child? It only says rape and sodomy. If it had been a sex offense against a child they would have said so.
I read about the case earlier.
It is SOMEONE's child, whether the child is young or older. It happened to someone somewhere and he's surprised that his rights are being restricted.
I'll have to side with the ACLU on this one. This is unbelievable.
If you will read the ACLU (barf) lawyer's statement toward the end, he os obviously being sarcastic. He doesn't realize just how much sense his statement makes. I wonder if that lawyer has any children and if those children have ever been raped or sodimized? I'll bet he would change his views and stop defending these scumbags if that happened. But, I wouldn't wish that upon anyone, not even an ACLU lawyer.
"I'll have to side with the ACLU on this one."
With that statement alone, I would like to motion all FR rights be extinguished.
Any seconds?
I believe that was sarcasm (I hope).
I need to see the legal documents. It makes more sense that the newborn was taken because it was born addicted due to mothers drug use. If anyone comes across the documents please post or freepmail them to me.
"It's for the child's welfare" is a argument used by many liberals to do heinous things. Not accusing you - but it is too often a kneejerk excuse used by a Godless DPS and careless judges.
I know a family the DPS did this to that has no drug problems or sex offenses. Natch, I live in FL.
Agree with the ACLU. Parenting is a GOD given right, not to be treated lightly, even if the parent once raped someone way in the past.
It has always been my opinion that anyone CONVICTED of being a sexual predator, child molestor, or any sexual crime, should be neutered. Some dont agree with me and I dont know of any laws that do either, but from a practical standpoint, it would take care of a lot of repeat offense, and bring a stop to those genetic lines so inclined to commit those acts.
The crime was over 20 yrs ago, he did his time, finished parole and has apparently been clean in the intervening years. His victim was female and has been described as "teenage" in years. He wasn't raping little boys.
If we accept the media accounts as having all the pertinent facts, that he can't even have supervised visits with his newborn son is absolutely an abuse of government power.
Either there is much more than we know or this is an extension of the mentality which lead to this:
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.