or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › SIL marrying a pedophile RESOLUTION Post 209
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SIL marrying a pedophile RESOLUTION Post 209 - Page 9

post #161 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Honey693 View Post

in some states isn't living with a registered sex offender with your own kids in tow enough to get a child abuse charge slapped on  you?


If not, it should be.

 

post #162 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie Mac View Post

Question, kind of related to the OP's situation, but really a spin-off: if a convicted molester is not supposed to have contact with kids, are there any restrictions on them if they proceed to have their own children? Do they face the same kind of sanctions with their own post-conviction children?

 

 


A registered sex offender moved in next door to my parents.  (both parties have now moved)  I was very concerned because I saw a small child was also living there.  I called CPS and reported it.  I was told it was perfectly legal if the child was his biological child but they would look into it.  I don't see how or why being the biological parent makes it ok or legal but that is what I was told.
 

 

post #163 of 213

The level of Internet Lawyering on this thread is cuh-razy. Statements including "probably" and "most likely" with zero qualifiers or statistics behind them really frost my cupcakes.

 

Anyway. I agree with the pp's who have suggested that calling CPS or the police non-emergency line and letting them sort it out is the best way to go about this. Also, my first instinct would have been to cut off all contact, but the posters who have shared their own experiences have made me see that this is the wrong thing to do for the kids involved. Thanks to everyone who shared. I have never been in this situation or anything close to it, but if I should come across it in the future I will remember your stories.

post #164 of 213


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KayTeeJay View Post

The level of Internet Lawyering on this thread is cuh-razy. Statements including "probably" and "most likely" with zero qualifiers or statistics behind them really frost my cupcakes.

 

Anyway. I agree with the pp's who have suggested that calling CPS or the police non-emergency line and letting them sort it out is the best way to go about this. Also, my first instinct would have been to cut off all contact, but the posters who have shared their own experiences have made me see that this is the wrong thing to do for the kids involved. Thanks to everyone who shared. I have never been in this situation or anything close to it, but if I should come across it in the future I will remember your stories.



What kind of cupcakes?

post #165 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by kama'aina mama View Post


 



What kind of cupcakes?

 

Legally owned but not copyrighted cupcakes?
 

 

post #166 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by dairy2dogs View Post




A registered sex offender moved in next door to my parents.  (both parties have now moved)  I was very concerned because I saw a small child was also living there.  I called CPS and reported it.  I was told it was perfectly legal if the child was his biological child but they would look into it.  I don't see how or why being the biological parent makes it ok or legal but that is what I was told.
 

 


Interesting.  I would bet it has something to do with the right to pro-create being fundamental, but I'm really not sure.

 

post #167 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldavis24 View Post

At this point I am just hoping OP can update us with something resembling good news, whatever that may be. I feel like this thread has taken a turn for crazy town where a couple people like to argue over semantics.

 

Seriously! I was wondering what the hell gets into people sometimes...

I speak from experience, chances should never be taken when it comes to protecting children from pedophiles.
 

 

post #168 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by dairy2dogs View Post




A registered sex offender moved in next door to my parents.  (both parties have now moved)  I was very concerned because I saw a small child was also living there.  I called CPS and reported it.  I was told it was perfectly legal if the child was his biological child but they would look into it.  I don't see how or why being the biological parent makes it ok or legal but that is what I was told.
 

 


Thanks for responding! I figured I had gotten lost amidst all the controversy. I *thought* that might be the case. I mean, how can the state control someone else's procreation? Although it seems wrong, especially if the previous victim was also a biological child. 

 

post #169 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by kama'aina mama View Post


 



Someone did say that and another poster agreed with her.  I copy and pasted the phrase "all the time" from her post, which has been removed.  I'd be happy to PM you the full text of it, though.  As it happens I sometimes type drafts in a different window so I can use a spell checker and that one is still available to me. 

The person who wrote it may have edited it, but nothing has been removed from the thread by the moderators. 

 

I hope the OP didn't get too overwhelmed with the reaction to her thread.  I'd love to hear an update (positive especially). 
 

 

post #170 of 213


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post

"There may be more to the story than you know."

 

There may be. I absolutely believe that innocent men are accused of child molestation and railroaded into plea deals or convicted on shaky evidence, all the time. Precisely BECAUSE child molestation is so horrible, prosecutors and judges and juries and defense attorneys and the accused men themselves freak out and don't always make rational decisions when these cases are going through the courts. 

 

All that isn't really relevant to what the OP needs to do, though. If there's a registered sex offender who hasn't updated his address living with her nephews and attending their freaking baseball games and getting all kinds of access to children via his new kid-loving partner, then the cops and CPS need to hear about it. What the OP does not about they case, THEY can find out. If he's allowed to be around minors now, fine and dandy. If not, getting the authorities involved will spare the SIL some serious potential trouble on down the line. Even if no kid ever gets hurt on her watch, she could end up with a CPS case just because she let this guy live with her. If she's not in a place where she can realize that, then her family needs to intervene ASAP. 



My error... the posts IS still there.  3 people have "liked" it (and I did accidentally and can't find a way to unlike it) and scottishmommy quoted her and agreed.  So please, don't tell me that I am putting words in people's mouths. 

post #171 of 213


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post




Interesting.  I would bet it has something to do with the right to pro-create being fundamental, but I'm really not sure.

 



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie Mac View Post




Thanks for responding! I figured I had gotten lost amidst all the controversy. I *thought* that might be the case. I mean, how can the state control someone else's procreation? Although it seems wrong, especially if the previous victim was also a biological child. 

 



It is not unheard of for parents to lose custody before the baby leaves the hospital, if they have previously been proven unfit.  (I am speaking generally, here.)

post #172 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by kama'aina mama View Post


 


It is not unheard of for parents to lose custody before the baby leaves the hospital, if they have previously been proven unfit.  (I am speaking generally, here.)


I know, and thats why I was speculating, as I'm really not sure.  I think there is a difference between being "unfit" as a parent (ie, having parental rights terminated previously for cause), and being a convicted felon.  I mean, some felonies certainly wouldn't affect the ability to parent, this type obviously would, so I'm really not sure. It's pretty rare that laws make sense all the time.

 

post #173 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by kama'aina mama View Post


 

I don't believe that the bolded is remotely true.


You should read a bit about what happened in the Kern County, California cases in the 80's.  

 

post #174 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubidoux View Post




You should read a bit about what happened in the Kern County, California cases in the 80's.  

 



nono.gif She's already pointed out she doesn't consider that, or any of the other cases during that time, to be a valid example.

post #175 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post





nono.gif She's already pointed out she doesn't consider that, or any of the other cases during that time, to be a valid example.


Oops.  Didn't realize that didn't count.  Hmmmmm....  Not sure what rules we're going by.  Maybe I'll finish reading the thread before I post more.  lol  I think I'm on page 6.

 

post #176 of 213


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubidoux View Post




You should read a bit about what happened in the Kern County, California cases in the 80's.  

 



It's such a relief that there are appropriate guidelines in place for interviewing children now. I imagine the children in these horror stories were almost as traumatized as the innocents that were imprisoned. In some ways the 80s were quite crazy. I remember the books written by adults who recalled being abused by cults while under hypnosis. And then it came out that the techniques used were planting false memories.

post #177 of 213

responding to an earlier post (that I meant to quote) that the "aggravator" in many child sex abuse cases charged as aggravated assault is simply the child's age, not any particular injury or har other than the obvious one of being sexually abused as a young child -- yes, in most states this is the case.

 

not suggesting that that sheds any light on this particular situation, but those who believe that the "aggravated" label means something besides sexual abuse itself are incorrect.

post #178 of 213

I'm just going to say that I am disgusted by the fact that people are still arguing over whether there are lots and lots of false convictions etc.

The OP came here asking for help and suggestions, why is it so hard to go on the assumption that in this case the guy was rightly convicted. I find this an incredibly inappropriate thread to debate semantics and the US justice system. Seriously take it somewhere else, it is getting really offensive at this point.nono02.gif

 

OP, I don't know if you have checked out of this (I wouldn't be surprised) but I hope you have made some progress with your SIL or at least figured out how to satisfy your own concerns and do the best you can to help keep your family (including nephews) safe.

post #179 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldavis24 View Post

I'm just going to say that I am disgusted by the fact that people are still arguing over whether there are lots and lots of false convictions etc.

The OP came here asking for help and suggestions, why is it so hard to go on the assumption that in this case the guy was rightly convicted. I find this an incredibly inappropriate thread to debate semantics and the US justice system. Seriously take it somewhere else, it is getting really offensive at this point.nono02.gif

 

OP, I don't know if you have checked out of this (I wouldn't be surprised) but I hope you have made some progress with your SIL or at least figured out how to satisfy your own concerns and do the best you can to help keep your family (including nephews) safe.


yeahthat.gif

I know people like to argue on the internet, but sheesh....

 

post #180 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldavis24 View Post

I'm just going to say that I am disgusted by the fact that people are still arguing over whether there are lots and lots of false convictions etc.

The OP came here asking for help and suggestions, why is it so hard to go on the assumption that in this case the guy was rightly convicted. I find this an incredibly inappropriate thread to debate semantics and the US justice system. Seriously take it somewhere else, it is getting really offensive at this point.nono02.gif

 

OP, I don't know if you have checked out of this (I wouldn't be surprised) but I hope you have made some progress with your SIL or at least figured out how to satisfy your own concerns and do the best you can to help keep your family (including nephews) safe.

 

I don't see why you're so worried about the OP.  As you've obviously noticed, she doesn't seem to have come back and it's not like she hasn't gotten a lot of good advice.  I think a message board is a perfectly appropriate place to have discussions.

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › SIL marrying a pedophile RESOLUTION Post 209