home

Mother Risks Loss of Child Because of Father's Past

By TChris, Section Social Justice
Posted on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 10:33:28 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

The Schuylkill County Department of Children and Youth Services has threatened to take away Melissa WolfHawk's baby as soon as it's born. Why? Because the baby's father was convicted of raping two teenage girls in 1983. He served his sentence for that crime, but that's not enough to satisfy the Schuylkill County social workers. The ACLU hopes to persuade a court that the County has no business meddling with the family when it lacks evidence that the baby will be endangered.

The ACLU argues that officials in Pennsylvania have no right under state law to question Melissa WolfHawk about her unborn baby, and that DaiShin WolfHawk should not be punished further. "There's just no evidence in this case that Mr. WolfHawk has engaged in criminal acts against very young minors," said attorney Paula Knudsen. "And while the charges that were lodged against him in the early 1980s are not excusable, he certainly has paid his time for those crimes and has moved on."

Social services agencies often penalize mothers (by threatening to take their unharmed children) who don't instantly divorce and disavow a spouse who has been accused of sexual assault. The paternalistic assumption that a mother will protect her husband rather than her children drives some social workers to interfere with parental rights when government intervention is unwarranted.

Should Melissa WolfHawk's children all be raised in foster care because of a crime that her husband committed two decades ago? Removing kids from biological parents is a drastic measure. It should be reserved for circumstances where danger is imminent, not (as it is here) speculative.

< New York Subway Threat a Hoax | Reservists Die in Iraq >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Mother Risks Loss of Child Because of Father's Past | 7 comments (7 topical)
    Re: Mother Risks Loss of Child Because of Father's (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    Removing children from their biological parents is drastic, but sometimes necessary, and more often than we do it now. The real problem is the lack of quality, loving foster homes. There are plenty, but not nearly enough. As for this case, what's to say? Can't take the kids away on his past alone. But let's make this clear, serving a few years in prison for raping someone IS NOT, IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, equal to the pain and trauma (that will often never be healed) inflicted on his victims. Period. I cannot stand when I hear people saying ANY violent crime has been paid for with prison. As heinous as innocent people locked away for years is, equally heinous is the idea that incarceration is some kind of cure for the crime. It doesn't even come close. There is justice for property crimes. There is not for violent crimes. Because the damage inflicted by violence, as I said, last far longer than a few years or even a decade in the pen. Also, criticizing social workers, who are SO underpaid, SO overworkd and overburdened with caseloads, is folly. Most social workers are caring professionals who are better at their jobs that we'd be at them if we had to do them tomorrow.

    Re: Mother Risks Loss of Child Because of Father's (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    Without knowing the facts surrounding her husband's conviction and his current conduct, it's not possible to rationally assess whether or not the state's proposed actions against the mother are reasonable. What is certain is that the state's policies are influenced by the absolutist, foaming-at-the-mouth viewpoints of people like "Dadler."

    Re: Mother Risks Loss of Child Because of Father's (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    Scott Ferguson, No foaming, just pointing out the difficult irony of supporting fair due process some times. And in difficult I mean the human costs, the lives we consign to misery in the name of a greater good. They certainly exist. As I said, I don't agree with the logic of this case, or the legality. Okey-dokey? Also, I think I'm clear about my point in the earlier post -- the cost of physical violence is great and lasting, far beyond property crimes. You cannot put a value or any quantifier on it beyond horrific, scarring, traumatic, lasting, whatever.

    Re: Mother Risks Loss of Child Because of Father's (none / 0) (#4)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    No foaming, just pointing out the difficult irony of supporting fair due process some times. And in difficult I mean the human costs, the lives we consign to misery in the name of a greater good. They certainly exist. As I said, I don't agree with the logic of this case, or the legality.
    The mother of this child is being doomed to a certain amount of misery as well as the child. The father, I am sure, is probably feeling no small amount of pain right now, either. Certain wrong-wingers will complain that the fact he is out of prisona at all as a crime, but who needs those Talibanicans? I feel for this entire family. A mopther who is potentially going to lose her child, a father who cannot outrun his past (despite displaying no evidence that he isn't rehabilitated), and a child who will be taken at a time when s/he needs to be with the mother... Yes, maybe they should have convixted this guy for life. Oh wait, we have.

    Re: Mother Risks Loss of Child Because of Father's (none / 0) (#5)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    Yikes! Mr. WolfHawk changed his name from Lentini and fashions himself the leader of an American Indian tribe that no one recognizes. He's been previously convicted of raping a teenager and now he's married to a woman 22 years his junior. He's unemployed and the courts have already taken another kid out of the family's custody. Am I the only one who thinks there might be more to this story than meets the eye?

    Re: Mother Risks Loss of Child Because of Father's (none / 0) (#6)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    Dadler, Well said. Quaker, Sure does. Too bad we can't count on people to report the unvarnished truth. Johnny, I think you'll find a mixed bag of both politcal parties disagreeing with you.

    Re: Mother Risks Loss of Child Because of Father's (none / 0) (#7)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:55 PM EST
    Yes Patrick, they will. If his crime had been a brutal asault, this would not even have made the news.

    Mother Risks Loss of Child Because of Father's Past | 7 comments (7 topical)