UPDATE: Pa. child in foster care allowed to visit sex offender father

Linda7NJ · #1 11-29-2005, 01:41 PM

http://www.courttv.com/news/2005/1129/wolfhawk_ap.html

SewingDeb · #2 11-29-2005, 01:55 PM

Why? Another judge with questionable wisdom.

Paradise · #3 12-01-2005, 11:34 AM

I see it this way, it's his child, and they're supervised visits so I guess there's not much harm in letting him see his child. I wonder if the mother left him, cause it says she relocated to MD? There hasn't been anything in my local newspaper about it lately.

SewingDeb · #4 12-01-2005, 11:56 AM

I have a hard time seeing the wisdom in a child visiting with convicted sex offender, his or not. He should not be allowed around children, that is the whole reason the baby was taken into foster care at birth in the first place. Otherwise, why not let her keep the baby?

forthekids · #5 12-01-2005, 05:53 PM

Who really knows the real conviction though? Was his victim a child, a woman similar age to him? What was the entire story? Without knowing this it is hard to make a judgement. Also, the man served his time and the crime was commited 20yrs. ago. What is the point of the judicial system if someone is continually penalized by governement systems? I guess I'm basically saying that this story doesn't have enough background or anything to it to make a sound judgement.

This story also makes me curious about the procedures within this state for removing children? It seems like there would have to be more to the story than a 20yr. old rape conviction for a child to be removed.

Amraann · #6 12-01-2005, 08:46 PM

Here is what I think...

It matters not who this person raped or their age..
IMO if you do such a thing you have no right being around children or raising them.

Paradise · #7 12-02-2005, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forthekids

Who really knows the real conviction though? Was his victim a child, a woman similar age to him? What was the entire story? Without knowing this it is hard to make a judgement. Also, the man served his time and the crime was commited 20yrs. ago. What is the point of the judicial system if someone is continually penalized by governement systems? I guess I'm basically saying that this story doesn't have enough background or anything to it to make a sound judgement.

This story also makes me curious about the procedures within this state for removing children? It seems like there would have to be more to the story than a 20yr. old rape conviction for a child to be removed.

I agree, the details surrounding his prior convictions are sketchy, and he doesn't seem to offer anymore information about them then absolutely necessary.