Officials Remove Newborn Over Father's Abuse Case
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: October 22, 2005
POTTSVILLE, Pa., Oct. 21 - County officials here in Eastern Pennsylvania left notes on Melissa WolfHawk's door, she said, warning her that they were monitoring her pregnancy. They told her they would try to take her child as soon as she gave birth.
She had the Caesarean section on Tuesday. Against her doctors' wishes, she left the hospital two days later to appear in court, but on Friday she lost her fight when a judge gave the boy to Schuylkill County.
At issue, officials say, is not so much Ms. WolfHawk's fitness as a mother as her choice of mates. The newborn's father, her husband, served a decade in prison as a sex offender in New York 22 years ago, convicted in the rape and sodomy of two teenage girls. The boy is the third child Ms. WolfHawk has lost for just that reason. The baby - lawyers are not disclosing his name - will be in temporary custody pending a hearing on longer term arrangements on Oct. 31, as well as an ongoing challenge that Ms. WolfHawk has filed in federal court.
The case illustrates the debate over how far the authorities should go in drawing boundaries between sexual offenders and their neighbors - or, in this case, their own families.
Ms. WolfHawk's lawyer says the county is violating her rights, and misusing the sex offender registries that have been established in the last several years across the country under measures known as Megan's Laws.
"That they're going to decide who you can associate with as a parent, that's just astounding," said Mary Catherine Roper, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who is representing Ms. WolfHawk. "I don't know when imminent danger to a child became you can't have any friends we don't like, or even any exes we don't like. If you ever associate with someone who turns out to have engaged in child abuse then that's it for you."
County officials argued during the federal court hearings that they had a doctor's report saying that Ms. WolfHawk had used drugs; she denies that, saying there is no evidence in any of her medical records and that she will undergo screening to prove she is clean.
But officials say that their primary concern is the record of her husband, DaiShin John WolfHawk, although there is no evidence, they say, that he has abused children recently.
"He has a history of violent sexual abuse against kids," said Karen Rismiller, a lawyer for Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services. "Just because he served time doesn't allow someone to be around children. He's a sex offender registered in Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland."
Ms. WolfHawk testified on her own behalf in the hearing Friday, which was closed to the public. She refused to say anything as she walked out of the courtroom, holding her abdomen with a hand still affixed with a hospital bracelet, and wearing a blue sweatshirt reading "Transport for Christ" and her long red hair in braids. Judge Charles M. Miller said she could have two hours of supervised visits with the baby before the next hearing. Her lawyer said she had been breastfeeding the child and would deliver frozen milk to the county. "She's hoping it gets to the baby," Ms. Roper said, "but that obviously isn't the same as holding and breastfeeding her baby."
"It's devastating to an infant to be stripped from his mother in the very first days of his life," Ms. Roper said.
Ms. WolfHawk has expressed support for her husband in previous interviews, saying she saw no evidence that he was the monster depicted by county officials. He appeared with her in federal court last week, but did not appear here Friday. He could not be reached for comment.
Ms. Roper said that the two, who married in June 2002, have maintained separate residences for about two years, and that Ms. WolfHawk would be willing to sign an agreement to stay away from him if that would win her custody of her child.
The county, however, says that the baby is proof that she will not stay away from him. Mr. WolfHawk, now 53, was known as John Joseph Lentini when he pleaded guilty in 1983 to raping and sodomizing two teenage girls. He was sentenced to 5 to 15 years and served 10. Under state versions of Megan's Law, he is required to register with local police.
Mr. WolfHawk changed his name and declares himself chief of an Indian tribe called the Unole E Quoni, which he says has 175 families but is not recognized by any government. Ms. WolfHawk's lawyer said the two met 11 or 12 years ago; they are both members of the tribe.
Ms. WolfHawk had a son by a previous marriage, and Schuylkill County officials moved to take custody of him two weeks after the WolfHawks married, her lawyer said. The boy, now 8, remains in foster care. She became pregnant by Mr. WolfHawk and moved to nearby Lancaster County in 2003, because, a caseworker testified in federal court, she feared that Schuylkill County would take the child. Schuylkill County alerted Lancaster County, whose officials found her living in Schenectady, N.Y., and took the child back to Pennsylvania. By that time, a couple Ms. WolfHawk had lived with briefly in Maryland had filed for custody of the child, arguing that Mr. WolfHawk was unfit. That couple now has custody of the child.
In federal court hearings, county officials alleged that besides the two girls he was convicted of raping, Mr. WolfHawk had abused his daughter, who is now in her 30's, an accusation he denied.
The unusual case has raised some doubts even with groups that champion the rights of abused children.
Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, said he respected the right of agencies to take custody of endangered children, but said that the standard for removing a child had to be set "very high."
"If somebody was convicted 20 years ago and has not reoffended, and the circumstances of the offense would not appear to make him a threat to young children, then this is troublesome," Mr. Allen said.
David L. Levy, the chief executive of the Children's Rights Council, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, said, "I am not aware of any case where a 20-year-old conviction, no matter how heinous, has been used to remove a child from the care of the perpetrator and from a mother who had nothing to do with that crime."
"The state may think that because they're married, the only way to make the child safe from the father is to remove him from the mother," he said. "But what about her due process and constitutional rights? If they can show a present danger, I'd be the first one to support removal, but they need to show a connection between 20 years ago and now."
I don't!
A brutal sexoffender such as Mr. Wolfhack is never cured and should not be around children. Ms. Wolfhack has had already 2 of her children removed and placed in foster care, why on earth would she get pregnant again and take the risk of yet another child being placed in foster care, which is exactly what happened with child # 3.
Our local newspaper reported also that Ms. Wolfhack was
using drugs for quite some time now, and was unfit to
be a mother, in addition to being married to a sexoffender.
Why would the newspapers continue to claim it was mate choice if it were some other reason?
Why would the ACLU have a lawyer representing her, if her civil liberties weren't being violated?
This is very interesting. I have a few questions that people on this thread may be able to answer:
If someone is convicted of sexual assault on a child are they forever prohibited from living in a home where children are present? possibly, depends on local laws or, if there was a plea agreement, said agreement
If so, would it be completely outside the bounds of law to require such a person to have a vasectomy? heh, yes, actually, in most places, believe it or not. This harkens back to Buck vs. Bell, wherein the courts have been all over the place regarding forced sterilization. I believe that the general consensus these days is against forced sterilization -- the court might encourage and recommend it, I believe, but not require it. So the offender can make babies all s/he likes, just not keep 'em.
With a nod to CJane I've been reading up on the adoption home study process. Clearly such a conviction would disallow me the opportunity to adopt -- the opportunity to be a parent. How is this so different? Blood relationship, nothing else. Courts tend to hold adoptive parents to higher standards than "natural" parents. The courts have, so far, resisted testing for "natural born" parents to make sure that they are fit for parenthood -- testing that is a normal part of the adoptive process. Does this mean that children could, potentially, be in danger due to the different standard? Absolutely and they are.
Wouldn't it be interesting to see someone from the ACLU take up the case from the standpoint of the child's constitutional rights? Don't kids have rights under the Constitution? Which right might apply here? Sure kids have rights, but these rights tend to be more limited, mainly because children are not considered to be fully competent to handle their affairs. Competence grows as children grow up, but most jurisdictions subscribe to various versions of one-third, two-thirds, three-thirds, all on the way to age 18. The first six or seven years, children are generally considered to be fully incompetent to handle their own affairs although their testimony (such as in child abuse cases) can be accepted if it can be shown that the child fundamentally understands that if they lie under oath (e. g. commit perjury), that they have done a bad thing. The following six or seven years (the second third of the way to 18), children are generally felt to be partially competent. They are usually trusted to be able to give testimony but not to be able to enter into voluntary contracts in the absence of an adult agent who is acting in their best interests. The last third of the way to the age of majority is where children are more likely to be considered competent, even to enter into voluntary contracts, provided they understand the risks and consequences thereof. This is also the time when a lot of jurisdictions allow persons under 18, perhaps, to drive, marry, work, leave school or become emancipated from their parents.
The child here (as in most abuse cases) probably has an appointed law guardian to argue his/her rights in this matter. The ACLU need not get involved because the child is already represented.
What rights do people convicted of felonies lose? Depends on the jurisdiction, many lose the right to vote, for good, even after they leave prison (if they ever do), for example. Convicted sex offenders, under Megan's Law, have to register their status. There are other areas, of course.
Isn't the definition of insanity someone who expects a different outcome from the same set of circumstances? Is Mrs. Wolfhawk insane? Should a woman with such obviously poor judgement be allowed to get her kids back even in the absence of Mr. Wolfhawk? This is not necessarily the legal definition of insanity as defined in the germane jurisdiction. Certainly Mrs. Wolfhawk's judgment, prudence and competence are in question, due to this incredibly poor choice she has made, and those things will probably always be at issue in any future court proceedings concerning her or her offspring.
In my opinion, the man is a monster, the woman is an idiot and despite the failings of foster care those kids are WAY better off not living in a house with either one of them. True 'nuff.
With a nod to CJane I've been reading up on the adoption home study process. Clearly such a conviction would disallow me the opportunity to adopt -- the opportunity to be a parent. How is this so different?
Yes, that means she has to choose. But this is a parent-child deal we are talking about. Lots of parents make decisions for their children all the time, from where to spend their money, to where to work, to where to live. This is more drastic, to be sure, but it's not so unheard-of.
This is very interesting. I have a few questions that people on this thread may be able to answer:
If someone is convicted of sexual assault on a child are they forever prohibited from living in a home where children are present?
If so, would it be completely outside the bounds of law to require such a person to have a vasectomy?
With a nod to CJane I've been reading up on the adoption home study process. Clearly such a conviction would disallow me the opportunity to adopt -- the opportunity to be a parent. How is this so different?
Wouldn't it be interesting to see someone from the ACLU take up the case from the standpoint of the child's constitutional rights? Don't kids have rights under the Constitution? Which right might apply here?
What rights do people convicted of felonies lose?
Isn't the definition of insanity someone who expects a different outcome from the same set of circumstances? Is Mrs. Wolfhawk insane? Should a woman with such obviously poor judgement be allowed to get her kids back even in the absence of Mr. Wolfhawk?
In my opinion, the man is a monster, the woman is an idiot and despite the failings of foster care those kids are WAY better off not living in a house with either one of them.
We try to protect children -- that's the answer. It's not great and there's little finesse to it. The law, often is neither pretty nor does it often take into consideration a lot of extenuating details, but the bottom line is protection of the child. The child is the helpless one here, not the mother.
Has he lost his rights forever? Very possibly. Oh, and if the conviction -- sorry, I'm getting confused here -- is due to a supposedly unsubstantiated allegation, then why wasn't it overturned on appeal? Was there an appeal?
Melissa WolfHawk gets her chance today in Schuylkill County Court to gain custody of her newborn son.
In a hearing scheduled for 10:30 a.m. before Judge Charles M. Miller, the Pottsville woman and Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services will argue whether the agency should retain custody of the boy, who was born Tuesday in a Chester County hospital.
Children and Youth has had custody since Wednesday, when it obtained an emergency order from the county court to keep custody of the boy, whose fate is at the center of a legal battle between WolfHawk, 31, and the agency that focuses largely on her husband, DaiShin Wolfhawk, 53, the boy's father and a convicted sex offender.
"He's healthy. He's still at the hospital," Mary Catherine Roper, Philadelphia, WolfHawk's attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union, said Thursday of the boy, who was born at Jennersville Regional Hospital, West Grove.
A hospital administrator said Thursday he couldn't talk about the issue, citing patient privacy rules. He would also not disclose the boy's name.
Roper, who participated in Wednesday's hearing by telephone, said the hospital declined to release the boy because he was less than 48 hours old.
The order granted custody of the boy to the agency pending today's hearing, she said.
Karen E. Rismiller, Pottsville, the agency's attorney, declined Thursday to discuss the case, not saying even whether a petition had been filed to detail Children ad Youth's allegations.
No petition had been filed in Schuylkill County in either the clerk of courts or prothonotary's office as of Thursday afternoon.
The juvenile hearing, which will be closed to the public, represents the latest step in a dispute that has attracted widespread attention and involves questions of the best interests of children and the rights of parents.
Melissa Wolfhawk sued the county in September, alleging it had violated her rights by continuously contacting her about her then-unborn son.
On Monday, Chief Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie of the U.S. Middle District, Scranton, had continued an existing order that barred the agency from contacting Melissa WolfHawk about her pregnancy but also required her to inform it within 24 hours of the birth of her son.
The order did not mention anything about what the county could do after his birth.
Vanaskie indicated he would not rule before Tuesday on Melissa Wolfhawk's request for a more permanent order against the agency.
According to Roper, Melissa WolfHawk wants custody of her son, and that her husband should not be an issue.
"He's not living with her. It is only her," Roper said. "They're not going to be living together."
At Monday's hearing, it was revealed that DaiShin WolfHawk is now living in Pine Grove, while Melissa WolfHawk continues to live in Pottsville.
DaiShin Wolfhawk, formerly known as John Joseph Lentini, served a decade in prison after pleading guilty in 1983 in New York to rape, attempted rape, sodomy and attempted sodomy in a case involving two teenage girls. He is on Pennsylvania's Megan's Law list of sex offenders.
It was also revealed at Monday's hearing that 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.
The WolfHawks have vigorously denied those allegations.
The agency already has custody of Melissa WolfHawk's 8-year-old son, and Maryland officials have custody of her 1-year-old daughter.
It has expressed concerns that the boy could be in danger because of DaiShin WolfHawk's criminal past.
Roper said the agency also raised concerns about the mother's alleged history of drug abuse.
The WolfHawks had already gone to court because county officials were asking about the pregnancy. A federal judge placed a temporary restraining order on county officials to keep them from doing so.
DaiShin WolfHawk said he and his wife were "appalled" at the county's actions Wednesday.
"Here's a baby being breast-fed by its mother, and they're saying that the mother's a danger to the baby," DaiShin WolfHawk said by phone Thursday. "What were they doing? They were trying to grab the baby before it even had its shots, circumcised, anything."
I have absolutely no problem with having my background checked but I do find it odd that some (those that might think this child should be reunited with his parents) seem to think that I (and other adoptive parents) must adhere to a higher standard than someone who has been convicted of sexual assault on children.