Past offense justifies removal of children?

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.