Posted on 07/25/2003 10:39:04 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Authorities accuse couple of illegal incestuous union
A Mobile County grand jury has said that a Theodore husband and wife may really be father and daughter and ought to be tried for incest.
Carrol Eugene Ferdinandsen, 53, and Alice Faye Ferdinandsen, 30, were arrested Thursday and charged with incest and fraud in connection with their May 2 marriage in a civil ceremony in Mobile County. They were indicted in June.
According to Mobile County court records, Alice was the third child of Carrol and Shirley Faye Ferdinandsen, and her mother filed for divorce when Alice was only 4 months old. Her mother said Thursday that she later met and married Charles Stewart, who Alice listed as her father on her marriage license application.
Up to that point, Alice had used "Ferdinandsen" as her last name, according to court records.
Incestuous marriages are forbidden in all states, in part due to fears about genetic mutation and child abuse. They still occur, though rarely, according to a survey of news articles from around the country.
The Ferdinandsens could not be reached for comment Thursday. They were still being held in the Mobile County Metro Jail, with bond set at $8,500 for each, officials said.
Family members said they had heard about the marriage and disapproved of the relationship.
"My father is completely convinced that she's not his daughter, no blood relation at all," David Ferdinandsen, who said he is Carrol's son and Alice's older brother. He's tried to discourage his father from the relationship, he said, but his father won't listen.
Alice's mother, whose last name is now Crayne, said Carrol is definitely Alice's father. She didn't meet Charles Stewart until Alice was 3 or 4 years old, she said.
"I told her she was stupid for marrying her own daddy," Shirley Crayne said. "I told him he was crazy and stupid. I told her I didn't ever want to hear from her again."
Crayne started crying during an interview Thursday. It hurts so bad, she said, because Alice is her youngest child and she worked hard taking care of the children when they were young.
After the divorce, the couple's three children were placed in foster care, David Ferdinandsen said. They were there for five years, he said. They went to live with their mother, and later moved in with their father, he said.
Crayne said Alice sometimes called Carrol "Daddy" and sometimes just "Carrol."
Crayne said she would scold her daughter when she used her father's first name.
During the 1980s, Carrol and Alice went to Illinois, staying for months, David Ferdinandsen said. When they returned, Alice went back to school, he said.
According to Mobile County Circuit Court records, Carrol pleaded guilty to second-degree rape in 1989. The records do not identify the victim and prosecutors could not be reached for comment Thursday. He spent a year in jail.
Alice moved to Texas, where she got a boyfriend and a job at a hamburger stand, her mother said. But in the mid-1990s, Carrol came looking for her and she ended up moving back with him to Theodore, according to her mother and brother. They've been together ever since, relatives said.
Crayne said she never heard that Carrol claimed that Alice wasn't his daughter until just a few years ago. Now Alice believes it, too, she said.
Have fun. Regards
You sure??
I think you remember wrongly.
Anyway, Pop got boozed up and the girls were all sad for they thought they'd NEVER get married now, so they each lay with Lot in his drunked up state and each got pregnant.
From these two incestuous unions came Amnon and Moab; the start of the line of Moabites and Ammonites; neihter bunch much good for anything.
From the article: "Incestuous marriages are forbidden in all states, in part due to fears about genetic mutation."
In Lawrence, the rights of two individuals to enter into a private and intimate relationship were defined. Incest laws protect the rights of innocent individuals, the possible offspring of the relationship.
In some States, in order for first cousins to marry, they must first prove that there are no possibilities of an issue from the marriage.
The SCOTUS decision in Lawrence vs. Texas addressed a very specific point, it did not create the sort of slippery slope we are so fond of predicting here in FR.
Yes they did say, and said explicitly, it does not create that sort of slippery slope but the reasoning, those firm principles upon which it rests are not terribly firm. Ultimitately it creates a constitution that says whatever the judge says that it says.
Heck you probably could have overturned the Texas law based on 14th Ammendment but they over reached and that will come back to bite us.
So they will go with "compelling state interest" as their reasoninh, which means whatever 5 of 9 say it does.
You may not like the reasoning, but the reasoning was firm.
There was obviously no compelling State interest in keeping sodomy illegal for a small minority of the population, and legal for the vast majority.
The State on one hand, recognized the right of some citizens to engage into what Texas defines as "deviant sexual intercourse", but not others.
It might not be easy to prove their is a high enough risk of genetic mutations. See some of the posts on this thread. Plus, does that mean their is a ``compelling state interest'' in eugenics?
What if the father got a vasectomy(sp?) or if she was barren?
Hmmm. Father and daughters have sex. Daughters get pregnant. Sounds like incest to me.
God had been watching Lot's back in numerous ways just before this act of incest. Why would God allow this incest to occur if He did not approve? He certainly did not hesitate to protect Lot earlier.
Yes, Moabites and Ammonites turned out to be some real bad dudes but so what? The kids of many biblical non-incestuous unions turned out bad too. Cane was one of the first of many such examples.
I would have bought that reasoning, heck even agreed with it. I already said the Texas and 3 other states laws could be struck down via the 14th Ammendment. The court went quite a bit further than just striking it down based on disperate treatment between heterosexual and homosexual couples engaging in sodomy.
All states define incest as devient sexual intercourse.
I do not believe that is true.
What if the father had married his son?
I hadn't even thought about that one. I would suspect if they want to be true to Lawrence v. Texas then it would be ok.
If papa is shooting blanks no genetic mutation is possible. The very week argument of "compelling State interest" evaporates. I assume that even you would not object to an incestous marriage where one or both parties are sterile.
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.