Right to Parenthood?
County officials in Eastern Penssylvania (Schuylkill County to be exact) have taken away a woman's newborn child. Melissa WolfHawk and her husband DaiShin John Wolfhawk had their newborn baby taken from them almost immediately after Melissa's Caesarian section. The newborn's father served a decade in prison as a sex offender in New York 22 years ago, convicted in the rape and sodomy of two teenage girls.(Ms. WolfHawk had a son by a previous marriage, and Schuylkill County officials moved to take custody of him two weeks after the WolfHawks married.) Against her doctors' wishes, she left the hospital two days later to appear in court, but on Friday she lost her fight when a judge gave the boy to Schuylkill County.
"At issue, officials say, is not so much Ms. WolfHawk's fitness as a mother as her choice of mates."
Her lawyer said she had been breastfeeding the child and would deliver frozen milk to the county. "She's hoping it gets to the baby, but that obviously isn't the same as holding and breastfeeding her baby." The lawyer also said that "Ms. WolfHawk would be willing to sign an agreement to stay away from him if that would win her custody of her child."
Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, said he respected the right of agencies to take custody of endangered children, but said that the standard for removing a child had to be set "very high." "If somebody was convicted 20 years ago and has not reoffended, and the circumstances of the offense would not appear to make him a threat to young children, then this is troublesome," Mr. Allen said.
David L. Levy, the chief executive of the Children's Rights Council, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, said, "I am not aware of any case where a 20-year-old conviction, no matter how heinous, has been used to remove a child from the care of the perpetrator and from a mother who had nothing to do with that crime." "The state may think that because they're married, the only way to make the child safe from the father is to remove him from the mother," he said. "But what about her due process and constitutional rights? If they can show a present danger, I'd be the first one to support removal, but they need to show a connection between 20 years ago and now."
Thoughts???
"At issue, officials say, is not so much Ms. WolfHawk's fitness as a mother as her choice of mates."
Her lawyer said she had been breastfeeding the child and would deliver frozen milk to the county. "She's hoping it gets to the baby, but that obviously isn't the same as holding and breastfeeding her baby." The lawyer also said that "Ms. WolfHawk would be willing to sign an agreement to stay away from him if that would win her custody of her child."
Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, said he respected the right of agencies to take custody of endangered children, but said that the standard for removing a child had to be set "very high." "If somebody was convicted 20 years ago and has not reoffended, and the circumstances of the offense would not appear to make him a threat to young children, then this is troublesome," Mr. Allen said.
David L. Levy, the chief executive of the Children's Rights Council, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, said, "I am not aware of any case where a 20-year-old conviction, no matter how heinous, has been used to remove a child from the care of the perpetrator and from a mother who had nothing to do with that crime." "The state may think that because they're married, the only way to make the child safe from the father is to remove him from the mother," he said. "But what about her due process and constitutional rights? If they can show a present danger, I'd be the first one to support removal, but they need to show a connection between 20 years ago and now."
Thoughts???
posted by Adam Rodriguez at 9:48 AM
5 Comments:
Wow- that's rediculous. I wonder if there's a due process violation, or possible a "taking" under the 5th Amendment. This stinks of republican-brand big government.
Shouldn't the child have the right to be protected against seizure by the state without "probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation" (see: Amendment 4)?
A 22-year-old conviction on the part of the father is neither oath nor affirmation to suggest present or future wrongdoing in the upbringing of the child.
among other arguments that I don't have time to enumerate...
Sexual predators are the most likely to be repeat offenders. With children as victims, there's an especially high risk that he will (or has) committed further crimes that may never be discovered.
I'd like to hear more facts on this, but generally speaking, I do think child predators should be kept away from all children, FOREVER.
Applying the 4th amendment seizure to a human being, instead of property, seems novel. I suspect that there has been "due process" here - Social Services has procedures under the law, and most likely they were followed. I think your complaint is simply that the outcome was too harsh in this case.
Maybe this is "republian-brand big government," but I do happen to think that raping and sodomizing two girls casts some doubt on your fitness as a parent. In my view, the child's right to security (and the State's interest in protecting children) far outweighs a mother's right to raise children with a convicted child predator. Social Services made a judgment call here, and it's hard to say it's "unreasonable" without reviewing the full case.
Sex offenders of course should be kept away from children, especially their own. But 1) the mother is not a sex offender, 2) the father sex-offender seems to be straight, so he likely won't be a threat to his son. This is a very complex problem, but I can't shake the feeling that the mother is being unfairly screwed by all this.
Where's the kid's real father in all this? The court could have awarded joint custody between the mother & the biological father such that the step-father cannot have visitation rights. Is that a viable option? Family courts & child services administrations micro-manage to a high degree already so I don't think this would be such a novel solution.
Post a Comment
<< Home