Replies

This is routine. Typical case: an allegation of sexual abuse by parent is extracted from child by police. Without any other evidence this is sufficient for criminal charges and removal of child by DCFS. Since case may be (often is) weak, parent may indeed be permitted by the prosecutor to plead guilty to a lesser (often MUCH lesser) charge rather than run the risk of an unpredictable jury convicting him (or, yes, her) and the mandatory prison term that would entail. (This is sometimes called a "plea of convenience." The less polite term is an extortion.)

The return of the child now depends on the parent satisfying the State that he or she has "taken responsibility" for abuse that never occurred. This means confessing to a particularly horrible crime that never happened. When the desparate parent finally decides to parrot the required words and try to sham his or her way through group therapy, the State will say that doesn't count because the parent "doesn't mean it." Of course the State operates the psycho-social evaluation apparatus, too, backed up by still more court-recognized child advocacy volunteers and attorneys whose sole goal is to "play it safe" so there is absolutely no chance that the child is not "at risk." (Meanwhile, sexual abuse DOES go on in foster care, and not always by foster parents but by troubled OTHER children they are keeping.)

That road paved with good intentions has many, many stones with the mark "For the Children."

This is hardly "routine" since Gerald Amirault has been in jail for 16 years and is the last of the 80's wrongly accused "child abusers" to remain in jail past all reason, because of cowardly and corrupt politicians.

This case is certainly the biggest travesty in the nation and the only news outlet that cares is the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal because of the extraordinary Dorothy Rabinowitz.

That road paved with good intentions has many, many stones with the mark "For the Children."

So what would you do--make it impossible to convict for crimes against children? Would that cheer you up?

I've always felt uncomfortable about this case, too. I remember watching the prison interview of one of the women on television. She had dark hair, a hint of a weak chin, and looked like some All-American mom who should be making cookies for a PTA meeting. But her eyes had a look of deep hurt and innocence in them, and I believed her implicitly when she said she had done nothing.

But it is possible to go too far the other way, and that's what you dipsticks do who sneer sarcastically, "it's for the children."

Yes, much of it is for the children--the weakest and most helpless among us. There's not a thing wrong with that. What's wrong is knee-jerk overreaction either direction.

The "adult freedom uber alles" mindset is just as dangerous and destructive as the "it's for the children" witchhunts that likely led to unjust convictions in this case.

Strive for balance, people. Strive for balance.