Discussion in 'Crimes-Spotlight on Children' started by Kymistry35, Mar 23, 2009.
I can't open the link, it says I need to be a member?:waitasec:
Same here- can you do a copy and paste??
Sorry, didn't realize you had to be a member to read it.
Charges against a Louisburg man arrested on sexual assault of a toddler were dropped in Franklin County, but the matter remains an open issue in Tennessee.
Franklin County’s Department of Social Services and the Sheriff’s Office joined in May 2007 to charge Maron R. Levister, of 1001 S. Main St., with first-degree rape of a child, carnal knowledge, sexually assaulting the girl, who was 4 at the time, and taking indecent liberties with the child.
According to the case file, the area’s District Attorney’s office dismissed charges against Levister because there was no physical evidence.
According to the case file, the girl’s mother had taken the child out of Franklin County schools around Feb. 13 and moved to Jefferson County, Tenn.
On March 6, Judge Randolph Baskerville issued an order giving Levister custody of the toddler in question, who is now 6.
When Levister went to Tennessee to assume custody, a local department of social services in that state sought and received temporary emergency custody of the child, after talking with the child, who recounted allegations of abuse.
On Tuesday, a court in Tennessee is scheduled to determine whether the girl remains in the custody of Tennessee social services or is transferred to Franklin County’s DSS office — where family members live — while an investigation into the child’s welfare is conducted.
That court could also decide to return the toddler to Levister’s care.
OMG! unbelievable! I would go into hiding with my child, there is NO way he would get her back, EVER.
I agree 100% lovejac, he would never get my child.
1. Is Levister the child's father?
2. The article says the child "recounted" the abuse. Is that correct? Or should the article have said "recanted"? The two words are so similar yet mean completely opposite things.
There has to be more to this story then we are getting....there was no physical evidence of rape and for a child that young to have been raped there would have been signs!
Is this a possible exwife trying to get even with ex hubby by having the child tell this story? I hope not for the ex hubby and little girls sake!
something just doesnt add up here....
Penile penetration isn't required for a charge of first degree rape. Penetration by anything is rape. So it is entirely possible for there to be no visible signs of the rape.
But then... you would be breaking the law and your child would be listed as abducted...
While I totally agree with your opinion (I would do the same thing), am just pointing out that some of these missing children cases may be similar.
One tactic that seems to be common among "true" abusers is trotting out the PAS (parental alienation syndrome) argument. In one instance a 12-year-old boy was ordered by the court to regularly visit his father (and I use the term, father, lightly). The man had been sexually abusing the boy. However the man's defense team trotted out the PAS argument, claiming the mother was at fault for this child's fear of the man. Within a week of the order, the little boy committed suicide, leaving an incredibly sad note about his "father's" abuse and not being believed.
So, yes, I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with you, Lovejac. Protect the child. I am simply reminded that some of these missing children are riding the underground rail for a good reason. Just sayin....
ETA ~ I could be wrong on this boy's age but I will never forget that tragic case.
This does sound more like trumped up charges by the girl's mother against the father. There would be physical signs if the child was battered as stated in the article.
However, it is necessary to protect the child, because she can not protect herself at 6 years of age. As unfair as it would be to the father, IF he is innocent (and I think he may be) the child should be placed with a grandparent or other relative if possible with visitation by the father. It is so mean to accuse someone if it is not true. You have to error on the side of caution, in my opinion, which means the father would be denied his parental rights, all because someone lied. So sad. But is is also unfair to the child if there is any truth at all to the allegations. She also will suffer, if her father is innocent. And I am praying that he is innocent for her sake.
Bless this child,
It appears he is the father, and from the context of the sentence:
When Levister went to Tennessee to assume custody, a local department of social services in that state sought and received temporary emergency custody of the child, after talking with the child, who recounted allegations of abuse.it sounds like they def mean, "recounted."
OMG, that is horrible. I can't imagine the guilt that mother must feel. Poor boy, he apparently thought that no one could help him because they didn't believe him, the abuse would never end and suicide was the only way to stop it! God rest his soul.
False allegations most certainly occur, Salem. And they do more than harm the child and the falsely accused. Simply bc they increase the likelihood of true allegations being disbelieved (such as the vignette I mentioned). As for this case? No where in the article does it state the child was "battered." It states that the man was charged with
first-degree rape of a child, carnal knowledge, sexually assaulting the girl, who was 4 at the time, and taking indecent liberties with the child.And all of these can occur with no marks left. In the end, and imho, if this woman did lay false allegations, then she should be prosecuted. Outside of that, I do agree, err on the side of caution and protect the child.
Okay, I was way off in age. He was 16. Here is an excerpt:
Since 1993, the Grieco boys had resisted visiting their father, Louis Grieco, who they said had abused them and their mother; Grieco refused to be interviewed for this story, but in court papers, he contended that Scott had brainwashed their sons into hating him.
Early last year, the conflict prompted a Westmoreland County judge to take drastic action.
It was called "threat therapy."
Common Pleas Judge John J. Driscoll directed Nathan and his brothers not only to visit their father, but to be in a positive frame of mind and be respectful and obedient toward him.
If they didn't behave on those visits, former district attorney Driscoll ruled, their mother could go to jail.
It was there, too, that in 1993 armed sheriff's deputies hauled the boys, screaming and kicking, into a county van to take them to supervised visits with their father.
And finally, in late February, it was in an upstairs bedroom of the house that Nathan's life ended.Full article: click here
Sexual abuse does not have to show physical evidence. There's many forms of abuse that are equally damaging that has nothing to do with vaginal penetration. Rape can be deemed a variety of ways depending on the particular state laws.
:furious: I would really go to those underground groups and disappear with my kid. No matter what, I would do anything I had to.
I have a friend whose daughter was 3 when she was molested. She didnt tell anyone until she was almost 5 so there was no evidence to find. They are going to trial next month. So there are many different senarios in which there would be no evidence but the story was still true.
I have problems with the acquisations. The charges were all dropped. The man is assumed innocent. Did the man really rape the girl? I don't know. However, an investigation must have been done, and the claims couldn't hold up in court.
I have a problem with no physical evidence, but as mentioned before, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. However, it wouldn't take much to leave a mark, so I have a hard time with that story. It isn't just the initial rupturing of the membrane. There are different marks inside that differ if things are consentual (arroused) or not.
The final thing that i have problems with is that the little girl is telling the story. If that really happened then why would your child want to relive the moments over and over again by voluntarily telling the story to whomever asks. That seems to me like it was more of a trained story...
Just my opinion.
O M G! That Gardner is a *%#&@)!@^, I am absolutely appalled!
Good grief, talk about blackmailing the kids!! I hope Driscoll has nightmares every night for creating the circumstances of this boy's death. What happened to children's rights?? If a child does not want to see a parent, why on earth should they be forced to?
Separate names with a comma.