Convicted sex offender gets sole custody of 6-year-old daughter

That says it all.

Pedo sympethizer.

Interestingly, there are only two links to this story on the google news search.

If you don't believe we are already in a fight between good and evil, you haven't been paying attention.

Simon says:-

Good fucking lord.

Last Edited by Stoned Goddess on 06/28/2013 06:15 PM

Sure does. Hope he falls face first into a tree chipper.

You can't be serious? Not in today's world.

lol, that might be a bit harsh...

How do you come to that conclusion, Jack? I guess you only read what you want to read, and jump to conclusions.

More harsh than supporting child rape? I think not.

Well that would be lovely, I'm sure.

You all skipped right over the part where I clearly said multiple times I DO NOT CONDONE SUCH BEHAVIOR!

Sheesh.. y'all are blind as bats!

No, you're actually just too stuck in your ways and like to jump on people any chance you get as long as it fits your agenda.

You have got to be fucking shitting me

Yeah I skipped right to the part where you were all happy about some cultures being fine with no age limits.

Fuck them and fuck you.

1. I never claimed to be happy or not happy with it. Just giving you some information.

2. How kind of you, sweetheart. Maybe one day you'll open your eyes. Maybe it will take death of your physical body to see clearer. Who knows?

I'll send some positive energy your way, AC. Seems you need it more than I.

Keep your energy. It's filthy.

I'm shocked by the courts decision to return his biological daughter in sole custody of a sentenced phedophile. I have no words.

But...but...but.....they're BORN that way.

/s

She was returned to the father so she could be raised as a sex slave for the political elites.

Parental rights are fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.

The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)

In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights . . . to direct the education and upbringing of one's children. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)

The liberty interest at issue in this case-the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children-is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.
In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)

The test in determining whether a fundamental right has been violated is strict scrutiny the highest level of review that an appellate court may use in reviewing a law or decision with regard to that right.

In short, children are not fully considered citizens under the law. That is the reality. They are in effect chattel of their parents. There is a "best interests of the child standard" but that has to be weighed against the fundamental rights of the parent to exercise their parental rights with regard to that child. Those rights are not easily deprived given that standard.

Had the mother really wanted to protect the minor child from the biological father, she could have remarried and had the step-father adopt the little girl, at which time the biological father's rights could have been terminated. There is a presumption under Oklahoma law that a person who is a convicted sex offender and has offended against the minor child or a sibling of the minor child cannot object to an adoption of that child. So the adoption could have proceeded over his objections, assuming the mother and adoptive father could have shown a court it was in the minor child's best interest. Title 10 O.S. §§ 7505-4.2(I)and (J).

Family law is one of the most frustrating areas of legal practice that there is. Every day there are good decisions and bad decisions. Typically judges do not have backgrounds in counseling, early childhood development, social work, sociology, psychology--all areas of education and play an important part in the issues arising from divorce, paternity and guardianship cases.

Some states have laws that allow a parent to effectively terminate the other parent's rights absent an adoption. Oklahoma repealed those laws in the early 1990s because too many women were doing that at the behest of the biological fathers. It would prevent the state from being able to go after them for repayment of welfare benefits and absolve the men from having to pay child support.

If we just killed pedophiles, we wouldn't have to worry about their parental rights. So your whole post is BULLSHIT.

If we just killed pedophiles, we wouldn't have to worry about their parental rights. So your whole post is BULLSHIT.

My post is not bullshit. It was written in response to someone who inquired what the legal precedents were that would allow such an outcome.

Until the law is changed, pedophiles cannot be killed for their crime, so that is not a viable option.

Written by a fucking MAN!

Do we know what his allegations against the mother are that he won, in-spite of his conviction for sexual assault on a minor? Do we know his argument(s)? I read the article and it didn't see a wit about that.

And, for those saying we need to keep our noses out of this, isn't it the law that it's our obligation as adults aware of such activity to report it? Can't we be jailed for withholding information about a suspected child abuser? Granted he's been reported, done his time. Still, he's a registered sex offender. If it's something made public, the public is allowed their reaction to said news.

On top of that, the girl says her step brother touched her inappropriately. Where did HE learn that (do we know how old he is)??? So, it's OK to take her away from her mother, send her across the nation to live with an child sex offender whom she barely knows, and a step brother that touches her? Great.

Unless there is some dirt on the mother that is more disgusting than pedophilia, this is a huge pile of shit for the little girl. Far as I can discern, we've not heard why she's unfit to continue to raise this child. Where's the back-story on this part? Since it's not being shared, I'll bet it's a "real pip" (sarcasm).

Then we should change the law. Or make it 'common law'.

Except the child you fucking paedophile!

Amazing.

Here is my problem with this site...this is fixable doom for an innocent already been traumatized child...yet we focus on a DIY 20dollar ac...i fucking hate u all

That little girl is in real danger! Is there any other family member that can speak up I wonder?

If I knew that little girl I would be tempted to kidnap her.