~ archived since 2018 ~

Nebraska father loses effort to get his girls out of sex offender’s home

ddmeightball

August 26, 2015

25 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Nebraska father loses effort to get his girls out of sex offender’s home
Author	ddmeightball
Upvotes	25
Comments	16
Date	August 26, 2015 6:53 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3ii0ib/nebraska_father_loses_effort_to_get_his_girls_out/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/nebraska-father-loses-effort-to-get-his-girls-out.972522 https://theredarchive.com/post/972522

Comments

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]tiqr 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

But a tldr isn't fair in this case, because the court didn't make this decision on a "whim".

The stepfather testified that he had successfully completed three stages of sex offender treatment along with inpatient treatment while in prison. He said he learned to identify red flags for child molesters, which include spending a lot of time with one child alone, granting special privileges to one child or asking a child to keep secrets.

So the sex offender has been released from paying his debt to society, and has taken active steps of self-treatment.

Joan Schwan, a licensed therapist who started treating the girls in 2013, testified that she asked the girls about their stepfather’s behavior to determine whether he was trying to “groom” them as victims. No such behavior was reported and there appeared to be good boundaries at home, the therapist told the judge.

And the girls were interviewed by a neutral 3rd party, who evidently concluded that they appeared to not be at risk.

Also keep in mind that at age 14 and 16, the children were most likely consulted in some way, and their opinions would have weight. The article makes no mention of it, but if they said they felt unsafe, the court would never have let them stay with their mother.

Having a sex offender moving into the house raises a concern about the safety of the children in that house. And according to the article, the law specifically provides that the introduction of a sex-offender is a change in circumstances which allows the court to change a custody arrangement. The arrangement was reviewed by a court with a lot more evidence before them than we have, and two levels of the court found that there was insufficient risk to merit a change.

I'm as "anti-sex offender" as the next guy (and this man is clearly a real sex offender, too!), but there has to come a point where a person has paid their debt to society, and are allowed to fully rejoin society provided they present no demonstrable risk.

[–]bertreapot 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

there has to come a point where a person has paid their debt to society, and are allowed to fully rejoin society provided they present no demonstrable risk.

This is what IMO is counter-productive about the sex offender registry. I think the minimum period of time someone is put on it is 15 years, the maximum is life.

Once someone has paid their debt to society and has shown they're rehabilitated, they should be allowed to move on with their lives. So in this instance the guy served a 4 year sentence. I could see 4 years on the registry after he gets out, as long as he attends therapy and is determined low or no risk of re-offending. Longer if he is still a risk. Otherwise, the registry is not warning the community of an actual danger, it is just keeping the offender from becoming a productive citizen again.

[–]tiqr 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AcidJiles 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alclarkey 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tiqr 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedditorJemi 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

there has to come a point where a person has paid their debt to society, and are allowed to fully rejoin society provided they present no demonstrable risk.

The specific sex offense was "attempted sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl.", 15 years old is same age bracket the two girls the father is fighting for custody over. Sex offenders are known to have a high recidivism rate. The mother has also had a previous relationship with a sex offender who molested her other daughter. There's plenty of red flags here, and there is every reason to think this man is still a danger to children. Being able to fully rejoin society does not mean having access to vulnerable people.

In any case, the sex offender's 'right' to have contact with children is not even under discussion. The argument being made by the father is that given the change in circumstance, the children should now live with him, as his home is now by far the safer home. His reasoning is totally correct, on the assumption that the father is in no way abusive, as it sounds like he is not and his wife isn't even arguing that point as far as I know. So now the decision should be very simple. The children should be placed in the home of the father, whom we have every reason to believe is the safer parent. The presence of the sex offender is merely the cause of the changed circumstance. He has no interest in the outcome of this case (none that the court ought to recognize at least), and his 'right' to be around someone else's children should not even be under discussion. He has no such right, and he is not a party in the case. Merely a material witness and the source of the changed circumstance. His 'right' to rejoin society has absolutely nothing to do with another person's right to protect their children from him.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thalos3D 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eaton80 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]OsoFeo 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]eaton80 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OsoFeo 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cajunrevenge 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RedditorJemi 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link