in this case they use the excuse of the dad being an ex-con, but as it also says in the articles, the dad aint living with the mom...so they say that the mom is known for drug abuse, but they don't go into how recent that drug abuse is and what not....

does the state have legal grounds to take the kid....i don't think so, not a chance, and if, and thats a big if, IF , they do take the kid, atleast give it to family members , but i'd stick to not taking it in the first place....

thoughts??,..opinions??

(articles in sequential order)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/11/unborn.custody.ap/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sex offender's wife fights to keep unborn son
Woman must notify child welfare officials of birth

~~ POTTSVILLE, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Melissa WolfHawk, due to give birth any day, lives in fear that her baby will be taken from her by the government.

The county child-welfare agency believes her child won't be safe because her husband is a sex offender who spent more than a decade in prison for rape in a case involving two teenage girls................ ~~
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/21/sexoffender.custody.ap/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Officials try to seize sex offender's baby
Pennsylvania hospital refuses to hand over newborn

~~ HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Child-welfare officials obtained an emergency court order to seize a baby just 24 hours after he was born, contending the infant would be unsafe because his father is a convicted sex offender.

The hospital, however, refused to hand over the infant so soon after birth, according to a lawyer representing the mother, Melissa WolfHawk.......... ~~
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/22/sexoffender.custody.ap/index.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officials seize sex offender's baby
Mother fought to keep custody of infant son

~~ POTTSVILLE, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Child welfare authorities seized a newborn from a hospital Friday and placed the baby in a foster home because his father is a convicted sex offender.

A judge granted the mother supervised visitation rights but prohibited visits from the father.

"There's no happy ending in these things. It's what we think is the best interest of the children," said Gerard Campbell, executive director of Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services. The agency took custody of the baby over the mother's objections............... ~~
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[each of the above is only an excerpt of their respective articles..]

the mother has every right to have her child. It is wrong for them to take him.
just because the dad is a sex offender doesnt mean shit. 9 times out of 10 the father isnt in the picture anyways...especially in pa. If i were her i would move out of the house (if she is living with the dad) get my own place. And get my child back. If the dad wanted to see him he could have supervised visitations (because thats what the court would order to happen). There would be no way in HELL that i wouldnt have my child. A mother is suppose to be with her child and the law is fuckin that up. If i was her after i got my son back i'd sue the state.

i would sue too.. but for real tho.. thats her child. she want to keep it she should be able to keep it.. whats wrong with peoples these dayz....

If i were her i would move out of the house (if she is living with the dad)

the mother is living with her father (the mothers dad)

OHH sry i missed that in the first sentace.
they shouldnt have took the child! the father isnt even in the picture!!!

grrrr this kinda shit makes me ashamed to say that im from pennsylvania.

that's messed up... going through 9 months of a pregnancy.. paying hospital bills and other expenses for the pregnancy.. then to become that attatched to the baby and name it.. then lose it...


These are the kinda things that make me ashamed of America....






















and all the fat people

Depends entirely on whether or not she can provide a stable home for the child, thats it

To take the child so soon after birth is just wrong though, they coulda at least put her on a trial period. The effects will only be detrimental to the child and the trauma on the mother must be unbearable. A child should never be seperated from it's mother so soon after birth

This is amazing... basically what the government is saying, that even though the husband (sex offender) served his sentence, that they believe that rehabilitation does'nt happen via prison...

As far as the mother's fitness to retain her child... we'd have to know how long ago her drug abuse was, how serious it was, if shes had any former children that were neglected, etc.

All in all though, it appears that this is an extremely unjust move by child services and I would expect that this ruling will not stand up for long.