Authorities Seize Sex Offender's Newborn

POTTSVILLE, Pa. (Oct. 21) - Child-welfare authorities seized a newborn from a hospital Friday and placed the baby in a foster home because his father is a convicted sex offender.

A judge granted the mother supervised visitation rights but prohibited visits from the father.

"There's no happy ending in these things. It's what we think is the best interest of the children," Gerard Campbell, executive director of Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services, which took custody of the baby over the mother's objections.

The baby was born Tuesday and the agency obtained an emergency court order Wednesday authorizing it to take the infant after arguing that his safety is in jeopardy because the father pleaded guilty to rape and sodomy two decades ago in New York. The agency also cited concerns about the mother's alleged history of drug abuse, the mother's lawyer said.


http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051021190809990003

As a father, I can't imagine what I'd do in his shoes. Something like that might be enough to make me snap and shoot a few social workers.

The guy did his time, was set free, and has lived a legitimate life since then. To step in and steal his children is nothing short of criminal.

The OP cites AOHell, for crissakes.

Take a look at oldleftylawyer's post here, before jumping to conclusions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=175x7735

No trials, no juries, no evidence. In the case of the mother, it's actually an allegation based on hearsay. This child is being taken from his family because of an accusation, nothing more. No criminal investigation has taken place, no charges have been filed, and no court has had any chance to chime in on the validity of the accusations against the parents. One person says that the mother once said that she'd worked as a prostitute, and based on that they try to strip custody. The father is accused of a crime for which no charges have ever been filed, and based on that they ban him from seeing his newborn baby.

If the mother is actually a druggie, the doctors should be able to determine that right away...it will show up in the baby. If there are no drugs in the babies system, they have ZERO right to interject themselves between the mother and the child.

If they're going to try and keep the father away because of an unsubstantiated accusation of molestation, then they should charge him and let him fight out the validity of that accusation in a court of law. This whole "we're not going to charge you but we're going to take your kids anyway" bullshit is so far beyond the pale that it's not funny.

"The agency already has custody of Melissa WolfHawk's 8-year-old son, and Maryland officials have custody of her 1-year-old daughter."

http://www.zwire.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=2626&dept_id=532624&newsid=15427465

That doesn't happen without hearings and cause.

There's more going on here than the fact that the husband tried to coerce sex with some teenaged girls...

...but should a convicted rapist and a drug addict really be breeding?

Yes, but no doubt his parents shouldn't have.

We can't of course go back in time and change the fact he was born; that's why I say his parents shouldn't have bred. OTOH, we don't know how his siblings turned out.

It's that old hereditary/environment debate.

He did his time and has not repeated his crime. And what-- do you believe in eugenics? Why shouldn't he have the same reproductive rights as anyone else?

There is so much we don't know and will not know until the case develops. Why did she lose her other 2 kids? Has he reoffended or was the sodomy of teenagers 20 years ago his only offense? FYI, his real name is Joseph Lentini and his tribal affiliation is not recognized by any nation.
I strongly suspect that there is more to this than just his one prior offense (although sodomozing two teenage girls is a pretty big offense). The defense attorneys are saying whatever they can to get public sympathy going but the prosecutors in this case will probably not divulge any other information they have.
I remain open minded about the reasons they may have had for taking the child into custody...I may change my mind as more information comes out.
--JT

where the State has looked the other way or were lazy when it came to the safety of children. It might be an over-reaction but I don't think any caseworker wants to be the one to overlook this. If the mother has lost custody of 2 other kids and the father is a sex offender those are alarms. Let's just hope that the parents are given the chance to clear their names and get their child back if everything is in order.

discussion here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=175x7735