Child Services are Fucking Retards

[Highlord Laan]

Because who cares about a child's actual wellbeing

The story of a 9-year-old girl taken from her foster parents of eight years and then turned over to a father who just got out of prison is making national headlines after a hearing on Friday.

A judge has blocked an attempt by Middle, Tennessee foster parents to get back physical custody of the child they raised for eight years.

In court on Friday, Dickson County Juvenile Court Judge Andrew Jackson said 9-year-old Sonya McCaul will remain with her father in Omaha, Nebraska, for now.

The child's court-appointed guardian, Hillary Duke, said Sonya is doing well. Duke blamed David and Kimberly Hodgin for blocking the state's earlier attempts to place Sonya with relatives.

Duke also claimed the Hodgins have endangered Sonya by making the custody case public.

Supporters of the foster family have been rallying for their cause on social media and gathered Friday outside the Dickson County courthouse.

The young girl had no memory of any parent except her foster parents, when on Jan. 29 - with the support of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services - Sonya was removed from the Hodgins' home and sent back to live with her biological father in Nebraska, a man she had never met who had just been released from federal prison.

DCS has long maintained that the best place for children is with their biological parents, and if there is nothing that endangers the child, they should go to one or both parents.

"He doesn't have a perfect record. He's not a Boy Scout. But he's done everything the state of Tennessee has asked for," said DCS spokesman Rob Johnson.

But for those with the "Bring Sonya Home" movement, including Charleston, SC, psychologist Dr. Bonnie Cleaveland, there is something more important: the best interest of the child.

"I think that's a no-brainer. It's about the child. It's not about the foster parents. It's not about dad. It's about her and her rights. We can't do this to children," Cleaveland said.

After the hearing Friday, David Hodgin said the family will never give up trying to get Sonya back.

"Sonya doesn't deserve the pain this court and DCS has given her. We will never stop, ever, until we get her home in Dickson County," David Hodgin said.

This story is completely goddamned sickening. Okay. Deadbeat moron gets convicted of a felony, get fifteen years. Infant girl goes into foster care (*shiver*) end up getting adopted by her foster parents, who then legally become her parents. She lives with them until she's nine. However, shitbag deadbeat asshole felon boy managed to plea deal his just sentence down to half, declares takebacksies, and get the adoption overturned and drags the girl back to Omaha, where life as a deadbeat felon piece of shit is totally conducive to making a good life for a little girl based entirely on being the sperm donor, despite never having ever met her until that point.

Sonya, I don't know you, but I'm sorry.

Oh, and since there's no such thing as an actual decent news service in Nebraska, heres a vid from CCN on it.:
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video ... e.cnn.html

[Broomstick]

The root of the problem are the notions that biology matters more than anything else in a person's life, and that children are the property of their biological parents.

[Terralthra]

Well, it's notable that part of the reason she doesn't remember her father was that she was essentially kidnapped in 2004 and held in another state by the babysitter he hired to watch her while he was working (hur hur deadbeat hur hur), who then called the cops on the father claiming he had a violent history (unclear at best).

The "felony charge" is "unlawful transportation of a firearm", and he served a three-year prison term. Immediately on release, he petitioned to have his daughter returned to him. After fighting this for five years, the foster parents are claiming she was taken back to her father "on two hours notice."

Being convicted of a crime isn't an automatic waiver of parental rights. Due process has to be followed, and it wasn't.

[Broomstick]

In Tennesee, being convicted of a crime and sentenced to 10 or more years actually IS an automatic termination of parental rights if the kid is under 8 years of age. Probably wouldn't hurt to revisit the notion of that being mandatory as well.

On the other hand, the girl was adopted. We've got to stop with annulling adoptions years after they're finalized. It just results in this sort of heartbreak. Either we allow an actual adoption to take place which is genuinely permanent or we stop the fiction. Again, it keeps going back to the notion that biology trumps all and adds in this notion that somehow adoptive relationships are second-rate and not entirely real.

[Terralthra]

In Tennesee, being convicted of a crime and sentenced to 10 or more years actually IS an automatic termination of parental rights if the kid is under 8 years of age. Probably wouldn't hurt to revisit the notion of that being mandatory as well.

On the other hand, the girl was adopted. We've got to stop with annulling adoptions years after they're finalized. It just results in this sort of heartbreak. Either we allow an actual adoption to take place which is genuinely permanent or we stop the fiction. Again, it keeps going back to the notion that biology trumps all and adds in this notion that somehow adoptive relationships are second-rate and not entirely real.

Except, he didn't live in Tennessee, so why would that matter?

[Irbis]

The "felony charge" is "unlawful transportation of a firearm", and he served a three-year prison term.

See, this is why I am against gun ownership. They do nothing but break people's lives even when you don't use them, make criminals really dangerous and turn police from service meant to help you into scared, armed and armoured to the teeth paramilitary likely to shot you first, for survival.

And for what? For imaginary amendment (see missing comma) that was false even in 1865, much less today when any hypothetical oppressive government can just dronize you to death from safety of closed zone?

[Shinn Langley Soryu]

The "felony charge" is "unlawful transportation of a firearm", and he served a three-year prison term.

-snip hoplophobic screed-

Would it kill you to not turn every topic into a soapbox for your own pet causes? The real issue here is with adoption and parental rights, not firearms ownership.

In any case, this entire affair is a mess from start to finish, from the questionable circumstances under which John McCaul lost his parental rights to begin with (if what Terralthra is saying is correct) to the fact that the Hodgins got their legal adoption reversed. I certainly agree that the child's well-being is of the utmost importance here; if John McCaul's current home situation is reasonably stable, that's all well and good, but if Sonya really wants to stay with the Hodgins, then her wishes should be respected.

I don't know who to side with here, but I sure as hell am not going to side with a hoplophobe whose knee-jerking comes off as a bizarro-world version of Zardoz.

[Broomstick]

Except, he didn't live in Tennessee, so why would that matter?

He doesn't live in Tennessee now.

Given that that Sonya's foster/adoptive parents are in Tenneessee I think it likely that Sonya's father was living in that state at the time the crime was committed. Note that we aren't really told any of that, but it's typical of how these situations arise that one party is no longer in the state where it all started and the courts have jurisdiction.

The "felony charge" is "unlawful transportation of a firearm", and he served a three-year prison term.

See, this is why I am against gun ownership. They do nothing but break people's lives even when you don't use them, make criminals really dangerous and turn police from service meant to help you into scared, armed and armoured to the teeth paramilitary likely to shot you first, for survival.

You don't get a felony charge for oops forgetting your gun was in your car when parking in the school parking lot. That's what you're charged with when you're gun running or something similar. Given that he got his sentence sharply reduced by going states' evidence that would imply he was part of some sort of organized and deliberate criminal enterprise rather than, say, the target of an overzealous prosecutor.

Nice way to overreact.

[Beowulf]

The "felony charge" is "unlawful transportation of a firearm", and he served a three-year prison term.

See, this is why I am against gun ownership. They do nothing but break people's lives even when you don't use them, make criminals really dangerous and turn police from service meant to help you into scared, armed and armoured to the teeth paramilitary likely to shot you first, for survival.

And for what? For imaginary amendment (see missing comma) that was false even in 1865, much less today when any hypothetical oppressive government can just dronize you to death from safety of closed zone?

Go die in a fire. This has nothing to do with the case.

You don't get a felony charge for oops forgetting your gun was in your car when parking in the school parking lot. That's what you're charged with when you're gun running or something similar. Given that he got his sentence sharply reduced by going states' evidence that would imply he was part of some sort of organized and deliberate criminal enterprise rather than, say, the target of an overzealous prosecutor.Nice way to overreact.

Unlawful transportation of a firearm means that you're a prohibited person (felon, domestic abuser, etc), caught having moved a firearm across state lines.

--

I think the big problem is that the foster family deliberately prevented Sonya from being placed with her biological relatives. If they hadn't done that, the kid would have been growing up with her aunt or uncle.

[Broomstick]

You don't get a felony charge for oops forgetting your gun was in your car when parking in the school parking lot. That's what you're charged with when you're gun running or something similar. Given that he got his sentence sharply reduced by going states' evidence that would imply he was part of some sort of organized and deliberate criminal enterprise rather than, say, the target of an overzealous prosecutor.Nice way to overreact.

Unlawful transportation of a firearm means that you're a prohibited person (felon, domestic abuser, etc), caught having moved a firearm across state lines.

Right, and he turned states' evidence for a reduced sentence so that implies part of some organized endeavor. I'm not quibbling over exactly what's going on here because we're relying on mainstream media reports which are shit on details.

I think the big problem is that the foster family deliberately prevented Sonya from being placed with her biological relatives. If they hadn't done that, the kid would have been growing up with her aunt or uncle.

And... please provide a cite because I've seen and heard nothing about this.

Also, there's no guarantee that growing up with a biological aunt or uncle would be better for the girl than being with a foster family. I'd have to know more about the extended family.

Even if she HAD grown up with an aunt or uncle you could still get this sort of custody mess, with the girl growing up with one set of parents, then yanked away back to her bio-dad in another state.

After a certain point the kid should stay with the parents he or she knows. Now, I'd be willing to discuss visitation rights for the bio-parents, perhaps we should consider some sort of joint custody in a limited number of cases, but all too often these kids are yanked from the only home they can remember and ALL contact is completely cut off with the people who had been raising them. And that can not be good for the kid. At all. And even if we could arrange things in that manner you'd still have problems with non-custodial parents kidnapping kids and so forth.

Again, it gets back to the notion that children are somehow property of their parents rather than individual human beings with rights of their own.

[General Zod]

And... please provide a cite because I've seen and heard nothing about this.

The article in the op?

The child's court-appointed guardian, Hillary Duke, said Sonya is doing well. Duke blamed David and Kimberly Hodgin for blocking the state's earlier attempts to place Sonya with relatives.

[TimothyC]

From what I can tell the timeline goes something like this:
2004-2005 - Sonya is born (She's 9 years old now)
2006: John McCaul goes to prison on the unlawful transport charge, and loses his parental custody rights, which he starts to fight to get back.
2009: Court of Appeals overturns the loss of custody rights on the grounds that they were unlawfully terminated early. By this time Sonya is with the Hodgin family.
2013: After serving half of the original 15 year sentence, John McCaul is released, and begins the process of securing legal & physical custody of his daughter.
2104: After not less than 4 months of legal proceedings, John is granted custody of his daughter. The Hodgin family makes the case public in order to elicit support for their cause.

Sources: Link 1, Link 2

Now, fundamental question:
If it were Joanna McCaul (ie the mother securing custody not the father), would the outrage at the parent for wanting their child back be the same?

[Ralin]

Now, fundamental question:
If it were Joanna McCaul (ie the mother securing custody not the father), would the outrage at the parent for wanting their child back be the same?

What the fuck is wrong with you that you read all this and the thing you come away with is "Wow, this guy is totally getting unfair hate because he is a man!"

[Mr. Coffee]

Now, fundamental question:
If it were Joanna McCaul (ie the mother securing custody not the father), would the outrage at the parent for wanting their child back be the same?

What the fuck is wrong with you that you read all this and the thing you come away with is "Wow, this guy is totally getting unfair hate because he is a man!"

If you don't think there is a massive fucking difference between how mothers (women) and fathers (men) are treated in child custody anything then you've never had any experience with the system. It's a fair question, do you think people would be nearly as up in arms about this if it had been the child's mother trying too win back custody of her child, yes or no?

[Spekio]

I find it hliarious that you americans hold the simultanious notions of "unfair justice system" and "all convicts are awful subhumans". What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Mr. Coffee]

I find it hliarious that you americans hold the simultanious notions of "unfair justice system" and "all convicts are awful subhumans". What the fuck is wrong with you?

You did notice that most of us are arguing for one or the other and not both, right? Or is making sweeping generalizations without actually adding anything of use to a thread your new gimmick? Here's my gimmick...

Get the fuck out of the thread, asshat.

[Spekio]

That was directed at the idiots, Coffe.

[Mr. Coffee]

That was directed at the idiots, Coffe.

Funny, you addressed that comment to "you Americans". Seriously, if all you have is a generalization and no content, not even a comedic one-liner, then maybe you should think before pressing "submit".

[Spekio]

Indeed, the generalisation was wrong of me.

[Simon_Jester]

[Seconds Coffee on calling out the "you Americans" comment, which seems kind of pointless even without it being phrased as an anti-American insult rather than a serious question]

Anyway.

Looking at Timothy's question, he seems to have seized on a question that matters, but is not the only question that matters. The big issues at stake are:

1) Can a convicted felon ever be a good parent, and justly claim to retain their parental rights?

2) Given our concept of "parental rights," does that mean that the parent's right to the return of a child trumps the child's interests in having a stable home life?

3) Should fathers and mothers have equal standing in terms of parental rights, and equal opportunity to raise their own children?

Discounting random sidetracks, most of the discussion seems to be focused on (1) and (2).

But (3) is still an issue in this case. Looking at the original post, Laan used several phrases that seem to be based on his perception of the father as a useless man:

"...Deadbeat moron gets convicted of a felony, get [sic] fifteen years..."
"...However, shitbag deadbeat asshole felon boy managed to plea deal..."
"...a deadbeat felon piece of shit..."
"...based entirely on being the sperm donor, despite never having ever met her until that point."

So, we see three repetitions of the word 'deadbeat,' and the phrase 'sperm donor,' which suggests that just maybe Laan has some prejudicial views about Mr. McCaul's case. And that he might be more sympathetic to a mother; mothers are less commonly called "deadbeat," and I have never heard anyone describe an irresponsible mother as an "egg donor."

It would be interesting to know on what grounds Highlord Laan calls Mr. McCaul a 'deadbeat' repeatedly. Perhaps he has evidence of which I am unaware? Or is he simply taking a prejudiced stance toward Mr. McCaul's entire life?

________________

Likewise, Terralthra claims that Mr. McCaul was working responsibly back in 2004, and not a deadbeat. Terralthra also seems to imply that Mr. McCaul's charges are essentially trumped-up, that he would not have wound up accused of a felony except for the testimony of a dubious witness (that babysitter who, Terralthra aleges, kidnapped young Sonya back in the day).

It would be interesting to know why Terralthra holds a much more positive view of Mr. McCaul. Perhaps he has evidence of which we are unaware?

[Terralthra]

Likewise, Terralthra claims that Mr. McCaul was working responsibly back in 2004, and not a deadbeat. Terralthra also seems to imply that Mr. McCaul's charges are essentially trumped-up, that he would not have wound up accused of a felony except for the testimony of a dubious witness (that babysitter who, Terralthra aleges, kidnapped young Sonya back in the day).

It would be interesting to know why Terralthra holds a much more positive view of Mr. McCaul. Perhaps he has evidence of which we are unaware?

Well, he hired a baby-sitter to watch the kid while he was at work. So, clearly not a complete deadbeat, since he was both working and tried to ensure that his child would have supervision while he was working instead of neglecting it.

As for the charges being trumped up, that I couldn't tell you for sure. Apparently back in his youth, he committed armed robbery, served time, and was released. Since then, his main run-ins with the law appear to be citations for driving without a license and failure to appear - fairly typical experience of a poor/uneducated person unable to deal with bureaucracy effectively. Now, he runs (well, ran) a security firm and was driving around with a coworker who had a gun in his car, but she didn't have it holstered, so the gun was imputed to be his and he was charged with improper transportation, as he was a felon and not permitted to have firearms by federal law.

source, among others

Is he a model citizen who just got screwed over by the system? No, he's certainly got issues. But he has indicated consistently that he wants to be in his daughter's life, up to making an agreement with the adoptive parents to be slowly reintegrated into her life over a longer period of time. An agreement they reneged on, prompting him to file a motion for full return of custody, which they fought, and are still fighting.

One thing I absolutely agree with the father, the father's family, and the guardian ad litem on is that the adoptive family is the one that has been making things worse by publicizing everything, including selling t-shirts with the daughter's face on it in order to pay for lawyer's fees and posting very slanted versions of the story everywhere to try to influence things. If you really cared about the best interests of the child, you don't try to win the custody case via celebrity.

[General Zod]

Now, fundamental question:
If it were Joanna McCaul (ie the mother securing custody not the father), would the outrage at the parent for wanting their child back be the same?

What the fuck is wrong with you that you read all this and the thing you come away with is "Wow, this guy is totally getting unfair hate because he is a man!"

If you don't think there is a massive fucking difference between how mothers (women) and fathers (men) are treated in child custody anything then you've never had any experience with the system. It's a fair question, do you think people would be nearly as up in arms about this if it had been the child's mother trying too win back custody of her child, yes or no?

I think it entirely depends on the situation, but you can't really say with a straight face that women have an easier time than men when you have states that will let convicted rapists challenge their victims for custody.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, he hired a baby-sitter to watch the kid while he was at work. So, clearly not a complete deadbeat, since he was both working and tried to ensure that his child would have supervision while he was working instead of neglecting it.

As for the charges being trumped up, that I couldn't tell you for sure. Apparently back in his youth, he committed armed robbery, served time, and was released. Since then, his main run-ins with the law appear to be citations for driving without a license and failure to appear - fairly typical experience of a poor/uneducated person unable to deal with bureaucracy effectively. Now, he runs (well, ran) a security firm and was driving around with a coworker who had a gun in his car, but she didn't have it holstered, so the gun was imputed to be his and he was charged with improper transportation, as he was a felon and not permitted to have firearms by federal law.

source, among others

I see.

Wow, that Daily Mail article just can't resist the urge to use "jailbird" and "felon" every other sentence... Talk about your media bias.

Anyway, the converse of that is that this information appears to come from an interview with Mr. McCaul's family. Of course they think all the crimes he's been accused/convicted of aren't really his fault and that he's a good, honest man.

Do we have any more neutral sources on this?

One thing I absolutely agree with the father, the father's family, and the guardian ad litem on is that the adoptive family is the one that has been making things worse by publicizing everything, including selling t-shirts with the daughter's face on it in order to pay for lawyer's fees and posting very slanted versions of the story everywhere to try to influence things. If you really cared about the best interests of the child, you don't try to win the custody case via celebrity.

Now, this part I am amenable to. Trying to have the biological parent tried in the court of public opinion and harassed into giving up the girl is just plain wrong, regardless of who the child should be staying with.

Among other things, harassment of Mr. McCaul will have negative consequences for Sonya, because whatever he tries to do in order to raise her and take care of her, it's going to be a damn sight harder to do that if someone steals his truck or starts throwing rocks through his windows.

[Ralin]

Now, fundamental question:
If it were Joanna McCaul (ie the mother securing custody not the father), would the outrage at the parent for wanting their child back be the same?

What the fuck is wrong with you that you read all this and the thing you come away with is "Wow, this guy is totally getting unfair hate because he is a man!"

If you don't think there is a massive fucking difference between how mothers (women) and fathers (men) are treated in child custody anything then you've never had any experience with the system. It's a fair question, do you think people would be nearly as up in arms about this if it had been the child's mother trying too win back custody of her child, yes or no?

Maybe I jumped the gun, but when I see questions like that it's usually a jumping off point into an argument about how disadvantaged fathers are. And every good source I've seen says that while women are more often declared the primary caregiver that has more to do with the fact that she's usually already acting as one. When the father actually pushes hard for custody they usually get a more than fair amount.

[Simon_Jester]

Fair enough, but it would be more logical to say "I think you're trying to claim X, I disagree with X because of evidence ABC," rather than saying "what the fuck are you thinking" when it's already obvious that the original poster (and possibly others) are already biased against this man, calling him "deadbeat," "jailbird," and "sperm donor."

Would they have spoken the same way of a woman trying to do the same things?