Government Wins Custody of Sex Offender's Newborn Boy

[NNN0LHI]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBF8RZ91FE.html

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - Child-welfare officials obtained an emergency court order to seize a baby just 24 hours after he was born, contending the infant would be unsafe because his father is a convicted sex offender.

The hospital, however, refused to hand over the infant so soon after birth, according to a lawyer representing the mother.

The child was born Tuesday, and Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services was granted the order Wednesday. The agency expressed concerns that the boy could be in danger because his 53-year-old father, DaiShin WolfHawk, was convicted of rape and sodomy more than two decades ago in New York.

"The county then tried to take the baby immediately, but the hospital then told them they weren't taking a newborn within 48 hours of birth," said Mary Catherine Roper, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents 31-year-old mother Melissa WolfHawk.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. huh?

Why are they taking a baby away from its mother? Was she also convicted of a sex offense?

[helderheid]

2. I was confused about that too

[MountainLaurel]

3. She's living with him

And since he's got a history of raping young children, they're considering it to be child endangerment.

[sandnsea]

9. He was never convicted of child molestation

This sounds like a case of a social worker making a judgment based on personalities, not evidence. Fathers usually have rights to see children, even when they've been convicted of crimes.

[radwriter0555]

4. The mother lives with the father, thereby endangering the child's life.

"At Monday's hearing, the county produced a doctor's report that Melissa WolfHawk had acknowledged using cocaine and methamphetamine and working as a prostitute, and a New York parole document indicating DaiShin WolfHawk sexually abused his daughter."

You know, in some cases, it's okay to be cautious....

[helderheid]

6. hell yeah

sounds like they saved that baby's life.

I F*CKING HATE CHILD MOLESTERS!

[Skidmore]

5. I understand that this sounds unfair and a violation of civil

rights, but having survived child sexual abuse, I can tell you that if you can prevent it from happening, do so. No child deserves to be exposed to that risk. Recidivism is high for these offenders.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. I agree with that

but the posting didn't give information about the birth mother. I'm at work and sometimes can't take time to read links. From the information I now have, it makes sense that the government did what they did.

[sandnsea]

10. From what I can tell

He's not a child molestor. He's a rapist. Still disgusting, but not the same thing.

[Heddi]

11. Child molestor AND rapist

from the article:

DaiShin WolfHawk pleaded guilty under the name John Joseph Lentini in 1983 to rape and sodomy in a case involving two teenage girls.

...and a New York parole document indicating DaiShin WolfHawk sexually abused his daughter

So yes, he not only raped children, but molested them as well. I find it hard to believe your comments about rape and child molestation not being 'as bad' as one another :eyes:

[sandnsea]

13. Okay, I missed that

I missed the molestation, sorry. I said a rapist is different than a child molestor, not that one wasn't as bad as the other. It is possible for someone to be a rapist and never molest a child, and it was a 20 year old rape. The rape, by itself, generally isn't sufficient to not allow a father to visit or raise their child. But the molestation of the daughter, that puts it in a different situation altogether. I missed it in the article.

[Verve]

7. Hmm..I'm all for protecting children but this may have gone too far.

Most sex offenders have specific victims they prefer. This article states that the father raped and sodomized 2 teenage girls over 20 years ago. It also says something about a daughter being molested. Nothing about young boys. This infant is a boy.

The mother admitted to drug use and previous prostitution. Are their drugs in her system now? Was the child exposed to drugs in the womb? That would be a stronger case for taking the baby away than to say his father is a sex offender.

If this baby stays with his parents he is likely to have a rough life. Yet, how much better would foster care be especially if he is in no immediate danger of being molested or abused.

CPS is so understaffed! They really need to prioritize their cases and immediately help the children most in need. There are just too many children who are being abused now that aren't receiving the help they need. That's who they should be focusing on. Unless this infant is in immediate danger they should not be taking him away.

However, maybe this article is not giving all the facts and their is a strong likelihood that this baby's life could be in danger.

Also, not taking the baby away does not mean not monitoring this family to ensure this baby is receiving adequate care. That needs to be done if the child is allowed to stay with the parents.

[Heddi]

12. most sex offenders, but not all

My rapist/molestor (he did both) had no preference as far as gender went. Girls were equal targets as boys were, and he used us and our bodies and minds as he pleased.

Also, and I would like to stress this: He pled guilty 20 years ago. While there have been no further charges since then, that does not mean he has not reoffended. Just the NATURE of child molestation/child rape lends it to be one of the MOST under-reported crimes in this country. Not only do most children NOT tell, when they DO tell, it's years down the road when they're adults and there's nothing but a he-said, she-said , or he-said he-said situation where nothing can be proven since the crime happened so long ago.

I am all for people "paying their price", serving time, and being able to get on with their life after they are released from prision--however, I do not believe that with regards to child sex offenders. They have SUPER HIGH recividism rates and there IS no cure for pedophillia aside from the perpitrator having the self-will to not commit any further crimes.

I do not agree with children being arbitrarily taken away from their parents--however, I do not have an issue in this case. The fact that this man is a violent sexual offender puts that child at such HIGH risk every DAY that he spends in the presence of this man. And CPS has NO way to monitor this child 24 hours a day for the next 18 years of his life to make sure that nothing inappropriate happens. Hell, I had horrid things done to me while my mother was in the NEXT ROOM and she NEVER HAD ANY IDEA IT WAS HAPPENING UNTIL I TOLD HER MANY YEARS LATER. Pedophilles and their ilk are not only great manipulators, but they're EXCELLENT at exploiting ANY situation they can to get at and with a child.

Not only would this CHILD be in danger living in that house, but so would EVERY SINGLE FRIEND he had come over to the house.

This is an unpopular ruling, but I wholeheartedly agree with it. If the man was so interested in keeping the child, perhaps he should have thought about the consequences of raping 2 teenage girls, even if it was "only" 20 years ago. Every act has a consequence. He has proven himself to be unsuitable to be around children. That was not something that CPS did--it was because of HIS actions (which he pled guilty to, mind you). HE brought this upon himself. No one to BLAME for this but HIM and the actions HE chose to participate in.

[ultraist]

15. self delete

[ultraist]

14. If the child is in imminent danger, the state does have a right to remove

the child. I would say, based on the mother's drug use and the father's criminal history, one could reasonably conclude, the child was in imminent danger.

Abuse does not have to occur for a child to be removed. Of course, it's a judgment call, that's why a court has to order it, based on reports from Social services.

The parents will have an opportunity to go to court and have a court appointed attorney.