Cardinal George Pell has been charged with multiple sexual assault allegations by Australian authorities. Pell is the highest ranking member of the Catholic Church to be implicated in the child abuse scandal that has tarnished the church’s reputation throughout the past few decades.

Pell is accused of “historical sexual assault offenses.” These include at least two men who have come forward and described Pell inappropriately touching them at a swimming pool in the 1970s. Pell denied these allegations after an interview aired on Australian television in 2016 and he has denounced this “relentless character assassination,” according to the Washington Post.

Pope Francis did not release a statement on the issue, but the Vatican said that it feels “great regret” over the situation and that the Pope has appreciated what Pell did during his three years in Rome, according to the Washington Post.

Pell is set to appear at the Melbourne Magistrates Court on July 18. The magistrate will decide next week whether not to release the details of the investigation, according to BBC.

While he has repeatedly said he will fully cooperate with the investigation, Pell has also strongly denied the accusations. The Pope has granted him a leave of absence to fight the charges, according to BBC. Pell said that he would make the trip back to Australia if his doctor permits it. Last year doctors would not permit him to fly back to Australia last year so he answered questions from detectives via videochat.

“I’m looking forward finally to having my day in court,” Pell said. “I am innocent of these charges, they are false. The whole idea of sexual abuse is abhorrent to me.”

Pell, an adviser to the Pope and Prefect of the Secretariat of the Economy, is a native of Ballarat, Australia, and was the Archbishop of Melbourne and then Sydney before becoming a cardinal in 2004. Named the head of the Vatican’s finances in 2014, Pell is considered the third most powerful person in the church.

In the past decade Pell has played a prominent role on Vatican commissions created to combat sexual assault within the Roman Catholic community. In 2013 he was named one of eight cardinals charged with investigating ways to reform the church, according to CNN. However, he has also been criticized for his lack of impact on the investigations and supposed connections with known child-abusing priests.

Because of his powerful position within the Vatican and the Australian Catholic community, it is possible that these allegations will be the biggest obstacle the church faces when it comes to combatting child abuse. Peter Saunders, a British abuse survivor who served on a papal commission investigating the abuse, told the Washington Post:

[These charges] will probably rock the Vatican like nothing else has ever done…The fact that one of the pope’s right-hand men, the secretary for the economy, has in a sense been arrested and will be charged with such serious offenses, that surely has got to have some kind of effect on the Vatican and the hierarchy.

So, the coming months will be telling for how the Pope and the Catholic Church respond to the accusations against Pell and the recurring issues with abuse within the church. While they’ve dealt with past scandals within the Vatican and in other branches, such a high profile conviction brings with it new challenges in addition to worldwide attention. Pope Francis has made it one of his goals to cleanse the church of child abuse and this will likely set him back.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cardinal George Pell Charged with Sexual Assault appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Maryland and D.C. Sue the President

The Democratic attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia have said they will file a lawsuit against President Donald Trump today, citing violations of the Constitution. They will focus on Trump’s continued involvement with his family business. The plaintiffs are also asking for those tax returns he never released. The lawsuit calls the alleged constitutional violations “unprecedented.”

AG Karl A. Racine of D.C. and AG Brian E. Frosh of Maryland said that they felt obligated to sue, as the Republican-led Congress doesn’t seem to take Trump’s conflicts of interest seriously. “We’re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,” Racine said.

Maryland and DC’s attorneys general just sued Trumphttps://t.co/qcuXoVLGiI pic.twitter.com/fid3cnxz40

— jordan (@JordanUhl) June 12, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 12, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Actor Brad Pitt was cleared of alleged child abuse after being investigated by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.

The accusation stemmed from an incident on a private plane in September–occurring one day before Angelina Jolie filed for divorce from Pitt after two years of marriage.

A representative for Angelina Jolie told FOX411 that the actress was relieved Pitt had been cleared:

The job of the [Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services] is to make sure the children are in a safe and secure situation. As we said earlier this week, childcare professionals encouraged a legal agreement accepted and signed by both sides that was in the best interest of the children. Angelina said from the beginning that she felt she had to take action for the health of the family and is relieved that after their 8-week involvement, the DCFS is now satisfied the safeguards are put in place that will allow the children to heal.

Jolie is seeking sole physical custody of the couple’s six children–currently, she has full custody and Pitt is following an agreement that allows him “therapeutic visits” with his children.

A source familiar with the situation told Vanity Fair that some reports may be misrepresenting the situation:

Angelina has never accused him of child abuse, she wasn’t the one who asked for the D.C.F.S. to become involved. All she’s ever said is that she was concerned about the health of the family. If you take a look at the facts, they are indisputable. D.C.F.S. was involved for eight weeks. Child abuse is kind of the ceiling; the fact that he was cleared for child abuse doesn’t mean that nothing happened on the plane. Something required the safeguards that were put in place . . . If nothing happened, why would the current legal agreement that was encouraged by child-care professionals keep the kids in custody with therapeutic visits from Brad.

Pitt filed paperwork with the Los Angeles Superior Court last Friday seeking joint and physical custody. On Tuesday, Pitt appeared at a public event for the first time since the split was reported. The event promoted his new film “Allied” which will hit theaters nationwide on November 23.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brangelina Divorce Watch: Brad Pitt Cleared in Child Abuse Investigation appeared first on Law Street.

The parents of 19-month-old Ezekiel Stephen were found guilty of letting their child die after he contracted bacterial meningitis in 2012.

David Stephan, 32, and Collet Stephan, 36, who live in Lethbridge, Alberta in Canada, walked out of an emotional courtroom Tuesday after hearing their fate. They won’t, however, be held in custody, and will return to court in June for their sentencing hearing.

They were charged with “failing to provide the necessaries of life,” under Section 215 of the Canadian Criminal Code.

The courtroom was overtaken with emotions when the verdict was read. Collet began to sob, as did multiple people in the courtroom and on the jury bench.

The maximum sentence the Stephans could get for not providing these necessaries of life would be five years in prison, but according to some lawyers, that doesn’t seem like a likely scenario.

“It’s not like they were not feeding their child or they were purposely withholding medication that they knew would assist the child but didn’t,” Shannon Prithipaul, former president of the Criminal Trial Lawyers Association, said to CBC News.

The jury comprised of eight women and four men was told that the parents took Ezekiel to a naturopathic clinic when he was too stiff to sit up in his car seat and had to lay on a mattress instead.

This is what Crown wants Canadians to learn from trial of Ezekiel Stephan’s parents (he’d died of meningitis) pic.twitter.com/enHFgsu0wb

— Kate Adach (@KateMedia) April 27, 2016

“They definitely, definitely loved their son but as stated in our closing arguments, unfortunately sometimes love just isn’t enough,” Crown prosecutor Lisa Weich said to the Toronto Sun. “Parents still have to follow a standard of care as set by criminal law.”

The parents faced criticism following Ezekiel’s death because of their decision not to vaccinate him.

According to the CDC, “The most effective way to protect you and your child against certain types of bacterial meningitis is to complete the recommended vaccine schedule [sic].”

The CDC also said there are roughly 1.2 million cases of bacterial meningitis per year worldwide.

In addition, “Without treatment, the case-fatality rate can be as high as 70 percent, and one in five survivors of bacterial meningitis may be left with permanent sequelae including hearing loss, neurologic disability, or loss of a limb.”

The parents testified that they did not understand the severity of his condition and thought that he had the croup or the flu. The CDC also reported “[the parents] treated him for 2½ weeks with remedies that included hot peppers, garlic, onions and horseradish and a product from a naturopathic doctor aimed at boosting his immune system.”

The Stephans finally called 911 when Ezekiel had stopped breathing and he was taken to the local emergency room and later flown to Alberta Children’s Hospital in Calgary, where he was later pronounced brain dead and taken off of life support.

“I was in tears like everybody else,” said Eric Sveinson, brother-in-law, to the Toronto Sun. “I was angry, frustrated. We’re very disheartened and very disappointed and hope that the world can see that a beautiful family was unjustly charged today.”

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anti-Vaccine Parents Found Guilty of Not Providing ‘Necessaries of Life’ appeared first on Law Street.

In 2006, the criminal justice system helped Josh Duggar’s family expunge his record of abuse and protected him from being exposed in media reports as someone who had “forcibly fondled” younger girls (a.k.a. molested children).

Every day–then, now–the criminal justice system targets people of color–especially women and trans people of color–for abuse and shootings (a.k.a. public executions for walking while Black or Latina).

And yet.

And yet we continue to use pictures of him in suits instead of finding pictures that try to reflect him negatively (see featured photo), like the mainstream media insists on doing with young people of color slaughtered by cops.

When Black young men are murdered by cops, they are cast as “thugs.” When a young white man is accused of child abuse, he retains his status as ‘poor cult victim.’

This serves both racist and misogynist ends: white perpetrators remain victims, and his misogyny is cast as an exception (caused by his cultish family).

The mainstream media likes to speculate on the “scandalous” aspects of how the family helped cover up the abuse; how the family, in fact, abused him through their extremism and his isolation from “mainstream culture”; but we don’t like to speculate on how Josh Duggar is not, in fact, an exception. Josh Duggar is the rule.

Duggar is an embodiment of rich white cis male non-dis/abled privilege, and while the control his family exerts over him is indeed frightening, their misogyny is not an exception.

The Duggars may be particularly explicit in the ways they preach and practice misogyny, but what pieces focusing on the cultish aspects of the Duggars that facilitated the abuse miss is that every person in this country–every. single. person.–is raised to hate women. The Duggars may be more explicit than most, but they are not alone: Josh Duggar’s apparent belief that women and girls exist for male pleasure is the same belief that we are all raised with.

It’s called rape culture, and it’s everywhere.

The fact that the Duggars isolated their children so much that they didn’t have a TV misses the point: all of us with TV, too, receive the same message–in a heteropatriarchal society like this one, women are disposable.

Because rape culture is not isolated to “cults.” It is everywhere.

Because women–especially women of color–are disproportionately targeted by the same criminal justice system that protected Duggar when the first police report was issued against him.

Because living in a heteropatriarchal society makes us much more vulnerable to debilitating mental health issues.

Because “strong women” in the mainstream media is still the only trope we’re allowed to hope for.

Because the kind of misogyny that the media ascribes to the cult of the Duggars is the same kind of misogyny that we are exposed to every single time we turn on the television, interact with men in the street, or are educated in a public school system that still focuses on “great” [read: genocidal] white men and does not teach consent as the golden rule in health classes (a.k.a. teach rape culture to all students).

Because we can condemn–or pity–Josh Duggar as much as we’d like.

But ultimately, we must recognize that his privileged positions and entitled, abusive actions are the rule, not the exception.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Josh Duggar is Not an Exception: On Rape Culture in the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

Toya Graham wasn’t looking to become famous when she grabbed her mask-wearing teenage son and slapped him in the middle of the Baltimore riots this Monday. Her main concern was ensuring that her only son would have no part in the violence sweeping through her community. Her actions, which were caught on tape by a news crew, have people all across the nation calling her “mother of the year.” But I find her public endorsement strange, since Americans haven’t been so approving of physically disciplining children in recent years. What many people applauding her actions are failing to point out is had Graham hit her son in a different context, onlookers wouldn’t be calling her a hero, they’d be calling Child Protective Services.

Warning: the video below contains explicit content.

This kind of hypocrisy immediately makes me think of the way Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson was vilified by the media last year for whipping his four-year-old son using a tree branch commonly known as a “switch,” which left welts and cuts on the boy’s body. After the child abuse allegations broke, Peterson found himself in a back-and-forth with the league executives, who seemingly couldn’t make up their minds on how they would punish him. The former NFL MVP eventually accepted a plea deal with the courts and was suspended for the rest of the season without pay. However, in a statement to police, Peterson maintained that he felt confident in his actions, and is thankful for what spanking had done for him in his life.

Now just to be clear, I’m not advocating the physical abuse of anyone, and Peterson’s form of discipline clearly went too far. But if Americans can support the “Baltimore mom” publicly beating her child, why have they tended to be so disapproving of a swift swat on a child’s behind to put them in check when necessary?

Spanking, or striking a child on the buttocks, is a form of corporal punishment, which is the umbrella term for any form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain in order to punish someone. The majority of Americans in previous decades supported the method as an acceptable disciplinary tool, but modern Americans’ opinions on spanking are different depending on party, race, region, and religion. Fivethirtyeight reports that spanking has become less and less popular over the past three decades, with the majority of its supporters consisting of Republicans, African-Americans, Christians, and Southerners.

This winter, NBC decided to broach the controversial topic of corporal punishment with a star-studded American remake of an Australian miniseries titled “The Slap,” which revolves around a group of people dealing with the repercussions of an adult male slapping someone else’s misbehaving child at a birthday party. Each episode is centered on a different character’s perspective, showing just how complex and different opinions on the matter can be.

But if trends show that people are less and less approving of parents putting their hands on their children, why is the Baltimore mother who publicly slapped and cursed at her son suddenly a hero? The answer–media hypocrisy.  Salon‘s Joan Walsh had an interesting take on the topic, writing:

The debate over the moment Graham says she ‘lost it’ is complex. There’s a parallel black debate going on that, as always when it comes to racial issues, is richer and more nuanced. But anyone white who’s applauding Graham’s moment of desperation, along with the white media figures who are hyping her ‘heroism,’ is essentially justifying police brutality, and saying the only way to control black kids is to beat the shit out of them.

I’m aware that a lot of African Americans are lauding Graham, too. This piece isn’t directed at them. Whether they applaud or critique Graham’s corporal punishment, most black people debating the issue acknowledge that the desperate public beating came from centuries of black parents knowing they have to discipline their children harshly, or else white society will do it for them – and they may not survive it.

I am all for how this mother chose to deal with her son’s participation in the riots in Baltimore; if that had been me I would have gotten much worse from my mother. My problem is with how fickle our society can be about the topic of corporal punishment depending on how it is portrayed in the media. A parent should be allowed to discipline their child in the way they see fit, within reason, but it shouldn’t take a black woman beating her black son during a city’s upheaval for the rest of America to suddenly get on board.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Baltimore “Hero Mom”: America’s Fickle Opinion on Corporal Punishment appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that obesity is weighing down our country. Lawmakers have tried everything to get Americans to lose weight from soda warning labels and “fat taxes” to exercise initiatives, but when it comes to getting kids fit it has been anything but easy. However Puerto Rico has a new approach–make it illegal for parents to have obese children.

According to The Guardian, a controversial new bill introduced by Senator Gilbert Rodriguez Valle would label parents of obese children in Puerto Rico “child abusers” and force them to pay some hefty fines. Valle’s bill would make schools responsible for identifying obese children and reporting cases to counselors or social workers. Health Department officials would then investigate the parents to determine the cause of the child’s obesity, and then create a diet and exercise program that’s combined with mandatory monthly check-ins to monitor the child’s progress.

According to The Guardian:

If social workers believed there had been no progress after six months, they would have the authority to open a child neglect case and impose a fine of $500; if after a year they believed things were the same, another fine of $800 could be levied.

Puerto Rico does have a slightly greater child obesity problem, with more than 28 percent of its children considered obese, compared with some 18 percent on the U.S. mainland according to Al Jazeera. Dr. Ricardo Fontanet, president of the Puerto Rico chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the Guardian that encouraging parents to get their children to exercise more is also a challenge. According to him the Puerto Rico government is battling a $70 billion public debt crisis, and has little money available for maintaining parks and open spaces. He said:

You see high grass, parks unsuitable for walking or playing, or for soccer, baseball, whatever the children want to play.

The bill is considered to be a radical proposal to curb child obesity, with many doubting that it will ever come into effect or make its way to the states. Valle denied an interview with The Guardian, but Dr.  Fontanet said that the politician did not expect it to become law but rather just wanted “to shake the tree.” Even so many are still offering up their critiques in response. Nutritionist Milly Garcia discussed the bill with Fox News Latina saying:

The fact that these childhood obesity cases are rooted in lifestyle does not give one the right to step into people’s private spaces. This is not abuse, it’s a disease. It would mean entering into a private area where the government does not belong. Obesity is the result of many factors and what we need to do is find solutions

This bill is perhaps the definition of government overreach. Yes it’s true that obesity has been linked to lifestyle choices, but other factors such as genetics and economic restrictions can also play a role. Overall having a child that is overweight is hardly the definition of abuse, and targeting these parents is a misappropriation of time and funds that could be spent looking into actual cases of neglect and abuse.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Proposed Puerto Rico Law Aims to Punish Parents of Obese Children appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Earlier this week a 15-year-old girl and her 11-year-old sister were involved in a shooting at their rural Florida home. The older girl fatally shot her brother while he slept.

My first question when reading about this was, where are the parents? I bet you are wondering, too. Well the father is a truck driver who had to work from Sunday until Tuesday. That makes sense, so then where was the mother? She apparently went with her husband, leaving their 16-year-old son in charge of the household. I’m sorry, that doesn’t sound like good parenting to begin with. I would not let my children be supervised by my 16-year-old son, I would have a babysitter come or maybe only one parent should’ve gone. Perhaps the one with the job? I don’t see why the mom felt the need to leave her children. Not only did these parents decide to leave their son in charge of these girls, but also their three-year-old daughter. That’s a lot of responsibility for a teenager, and not the best idea on the parents’ part.

Reports claim that the boy locked his 15-year-old sister in her room and then fell asleep. The girl talked her 11-year-old sister into letting her out as he slept. Once freed from her room she headed into her parents’ bedroom where she knew they kept a gun; however, this young girl did not just walk through the door into the parents’ bedroom, oh no, she had to go to the outside of the house with a knife and remove the air conditioning unit that was installed in the bedroom window in order to get in, as they apparently had locked their bedroom door before they left.

The girl headed straight to the location where her parents kept their pistol, loaded it, and went into the room where her brother slept, pulling the trigger. The scary part is that the 15 year old knew what she was doing and told her 11-year-old sister to hide in a closet before she killed their brother.  After shooting her brother she buried her head in a pillow before returning to the living room to find her three-year-old sister trying to wake up her dead brother. Upon seeing this, the two older girls fled the house, leaving the three year old to fend for herself next to their dead brother. It was only after the 11 year old called a friend for a ride that police were able to find the girls.

The parents were notified and have admitted to locking up the 15 year old for up to 20 consecutive days in her bedroom for “misbehaving.” Through police reports and interviews it has also been discovered that the 15 year old had a single blanket and a bucket to use the bathroom when she was locked up.

Things make a bit more sense when you realize how neglectful and irresponsible the parents were. It’s hard to know what possibly happened to lead to being locked in the bedroom. Did the brother beat his sister before locking her in her bedroom? She could have just snapped and felt like she needed to protect herself and her siblings. Although I understand that, I feel like it was also premeditated. She knew where the gun was located, that it needed to be loaded, and to protect her little sister from seeing what was about to happen.

The 15- and 11-year-old girls are being held at a juvenile detention center while a prosecutor decides whether they should be tried as adults or not. The parents are also facing charges of child neglect and failing to supervise.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Young Florida Sisters Held in Fatal Shooting of Older Brother appeared first on Law Street.

Right on the heels of  the Ray Rice domestic violence incident, NFL star Adrian Peterson was charged with negligent injury to a child. Known for being the best running back for the Minnesota Vikings, Peterson allegedly punished his 4-year-old son by whipping him with a tree branch, leaving cuts and bruises on the boy’s legs, backs, buttocks, hand and scrotum.

This subject is something I am really passionate about, and I was in absolute shock when Peterson gave a statement to the police following the incident claiming he felt confident in his actions, and is thankful for what spanking has done to him in his life. Each parent is responsible for choosing the way he or she disciplines his or her child, but if we start to say spanking is acceptable, how will we ever be able to set boundaries and limits? In typical NFL handling of these cases, Peterson was suspended from a game and no further action is being taken until the official police investigation is complete.

Last week I referenced the punishment for the father of a child who died as a result of being left in a hot car. That father was charged with murder. In the case of Adrian Peterson, I ask you what would happen if Peterson gave one more hit as opposed to the 10-15 lashes his poor child received, and that final hit resulted in the child’s death? Would he be let off because he didn’t intend to hurt the child? Would it be accepted like it is now, because that’s the way he grew up and spanking does “good”? I find it appalling that excuses are being made to justify what allows parents to discipline their children in this way.

Legislation is proposed all the time to stop acts of abuse toward children, and yet this incident has the potential to make parents think it’s OK to discipline their children in this way. I do not doubt that Peterson is telling the truth when he claims his intentions were harmless, but I do doubt that he feels any kind of remorse or is aware that his actions were wrong. In 2013, Peterson’s other two-year-old son was killed by his ex-girlfriend’s partner. Although Peterson had only found out about the child three months prior to his tragic death, one would have thought it would make him change his own actions.

All it takes is one hit in the wrong area, or with a certain amount of force, to cause serious harm and fall under the realm of child abuse. NFL players have the responsibility not only to be great athletes but also to be good role models. With the influx of recent incidents involving NFL players and their mistreatment of the law, I worry what effect this will have on the general public. Yes people make mistakes, yes people can change, but we should not be encouraging this behavior by making excuses. Each article I read about Rice and Peterson is drenched in excuse after excuse, each justifying the simple fact that these acts are wrong. In my opinion, if these acts of abuse were done by anyone else not in the public eye, I can guarantee the punishment would be a lot different.

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post There Is No Excuse for Child Abuse, Not Even for Adrian Peterson appeared first on Law Street.

Our nation has adopted a new habit of charging parents with felonies for teaching their children independence. From Florida to South Carolina to Ohio to Tennessee, parents of elementary age children are being carted off to jail for allowing their children to play in parks by themselves. There is no federal legislation that designates what age is too young to leave children unsupervised. Most states merely adhere to the guideline that leaving a child unattended in imminent danger is a criminal offense. But it’s absolutely ludicrous to charge parents, who sometimes have no other options, with child abuse or maltreatment for merely allowing their children to experience the world on their own.

If this were the trend 10 years ago, both my parents would have landed themselves a nice cozy cot in our local jailhouse. And 50 years ago, their parents would have been sentenced to life. We all played by ourselves in local parks and pools, rode our bikes through the streets freely, and walked around town with our friends. No one thought this was strange or dangerous, it was simply the norm. But now parents must question when it is and is not appropriate to let their children play and roam independently, for fear of felony charges. Let’s look at a few of the recent cases.

In Florida, Nicole Gainey was arrested for allowing her 7-year-old son to walk to the park–cellphone in hand–to play by himself. She was charged with a felony for child neglect and arrested on a $3,750 bond. In South Carolina, Debra Harrell was charged with unlawful conduct toward a child because she let her 9-year-old daughter play at a park while she worked. The felony Harrell was charged with is punishable by up to 10 years in jail, and she lost her job at McDonalds after this incident. In Ohio, Jefferey Williamson was arrested for child endangerment after his 8-year-old son skipped church to take a solo walk to the dollar store half a mile away from his home. In Tennessee, April Lawson spent the night in jail for letting her 5-year-old and 8-year-old play at an elementary park a block and a half away from her home. Lawson now faces felony charges for child abuse and neglect.

Child Self-Care Trends

It’s important to understand the different situations that parents face. Some parents have to make the decision between putting food on the table for their children and letting them play in the park alone. Not everyone seems to understand the difficulties many low-income, single parents face in providing care for their children. Child care arrangements depend on each family’s unique circumstance. US News broke down a 2011 Census report on child care arrangement statistics:

In general, the percentage of school-age children in self-care has ticked down during the last 10 or so years, but when those numbers are broken down by a family’s marital status, employment and parental presence, that decline is less consistent.

There’s a misconception that children face more danger today than they did in the past. However, Mark O’Mara, a family law attorney, wrote that today’s crime rates are much lower than they were during his childhood in the ‘60s. Additionally, people’s reactions are much different today than they were back then. Instead of delivering the child safely home, bystanders are calling police and child services to have the parents arrested. This often has a more harmful effect on children than safely returning them to their families.

Impact of Parental Arrests on Children

Some families are probably better off letting their children play alone. Unless these children are in the heart of a dangerous city where it’s plausible that they will be abducted or harmed, busybodies should mind their own business. If they are not actually in harm’s way, why cause them pain and grief? Many people don’t realize the effect experiencing a parent’s arrest can have on a child. According to Family to Family California, parental arrest and separation from a parent are traumatic events for children.

Furthermore, separation can cause children to feel angry, rejected, or depressed. After separation from their parents, children may perform worse in school, experience developmental delays, and lack adequate social skills. The report goes on to explain the detrimental effects trauma has on children, including their increased likeliness to become substance abusers or end up in prison.

Time for Helicopter Parents to Fly Away

In all of the above cases, the children were not in any serious danger. They were only victims to busybody helicopter parents who lacked better things to do. In the case of Harrell, one by-standing mother made the following comments about Harrell’s situation:

I understand the mom may have been in a difficult situation, not having someone to watch the child, but at the same time, you’ve got to find somebody.

It’s not always that simple. O’Mara pointed out that many parents in these situations cannot afford childcare, therefore we as a society are “criminalizing poverty.” The media isn’t helping the situation either. Cases from low-income neighborhoods that are thought to be less safe are emphasized in the media. This only furthers the public’s distrust of their fellow Americans, making parents hover.

I’m not saying parents should start letting their 5-year-olds roam the streets of New York City alone, but I think those helicopter parents need to relax a bit. Loosen up the reins. Helicopter parenting is not beneficial to anyone–the children often lack independence and have a harder time adjusting to life on their own and parents miss their individuality and freedom. Furthermore, when helicopter parents take this madness as far as imposing these ideals on other families, they only hurt those families. Parents get thrown in jail, children lose their homes and families become burdened with legal bills they probably can’t afford.

My parents’ generation roamed freely and played without 24/7 parental supervision, and they were able to survive and succeed. Helicopter parents, get the message: you’re not helping anyone, except for possibly your own ego.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Guian Bolisay via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unsupervised Children: Independent or Against the Law? appeared first on Law Street.

Early this fall, a Reuters piece on the practice of “rehoming” children in failed adoptions took the world by storm. The exposé was the product of an 18-month study by investigative journalist, Megan Twohey. Originally, a term for transferring the ownership of animals, “rehoming” is used to describe what happens when a family decides to give up a child they had adopted, for whatever reason. Usually the children that are moved around like this are from another country, were adopted as adolescents or teenagers, and have some behavioral problems.

Twohey was researching international adoption when she discovered the underground “rehoming” network in the United States that has developed as a result of the Internet. Families that were struggling with their children began to create Facebook, Yahoo, and other groups to talk about their issues, and often to find another place for their child to live. According to Twohey, these families are desperate, at a complete loss, and are unwilling to go through state-sanctioned procedures or social workers for fear of being forced to give up their other children, usually biological. Twohey explores these black markets, and describes the horror stories that many rehomed children go through. Her piece focuses somewhat on a woman named Nicole Eason, who had both of her biological children removed years ago, and then took in at least 5 rehomed children. She provided unsafe living conditions and may have sexually abused some of them. She also at one point brought a 5-year-old boy into a home with a man who would later be convicted of distributing child pornography. A feeling of desperation runs throughout Twohey’s piece—these parents turn to such abhorrent actions because they are at a complete loss. They did not realize that their children would be such a problem when they were adopted, sometimes because of misinformation from the adoption agency. At one point, Twohey anonymously quotes a parent who shows just how desperate she was, stating “I would have given her away to a serial killer, I was so desperate.”

The Reuters exposé led to a global firestorm . American adoptive parents and adoptees were horrified that families would do so. The nations from which many of these children come, such as Russia, were outraged and used such evidence to justify a continued adoption ban.

Now a new, equally horrifying story has broken. This week, Slate released a piece by Kathryn Joyce that focused on a girl named Hana Williams, adopted from Ethiopia. Hana Williams was adopted into a large fundamentalist family in Washington state. They believed in harsh discipline for their children, and in many ways were cut off from the world outside their religious community. Hana was systematically abused, excluded from the family, and no effort was made to understand her behavior. She died on May 11, 2011, after months of being abused and being left outside all night. Joyce describes how this is an extreme example of a story that is happening all over the United States. Adoption has become increasingly prevalent in the evangelical community; usually a choice for families after the mothers can no longer have more biological children of their own. One of families featured in Joyce’s story may have had up to 32 children, 24 of who were adopted.

The obvious questions are: how could these incidents have legally been allowed to happen?  How is it legal for parents to just give their children away on an online message bored? How is it legal for a family to adopt 24 children?

The answer is that adoption laws in this country are vague at best, and horridly outdated. Parents, be they adoptive or biological, are allowed to appoint guardians for their children. Within state lines, there are almost no constraints on this process. A family can sign a power of attorney document, declaring someone else as their child’s guardian. Such a document was traditionally used to declare a family member, or a friend, a guardian when needed. But as it becomes increasingly easier to connect with people through the Internet, this ability is being abused. People are giving their children to complete strangers. There are laws that make it more difficult to do this if it involves transfers over state lines: The Interstate Compact on Placement of Children requires notice if a child is rehomed from one state to another. But it’s rarely followed—if authorities are not notified, they have no reason to think a child may be being transferred. And there are no mechanisms in case to ensure adoptive families are checked up on after the adoption—after all at that point their adoptive children are viewed legally the same as their biologic children.

As for rules about how many children a family can have….there really are none. The decision about whether to allow an adoption is usually left to the agency. If an agency decides that a home is appropriate, and there’s no indication that there are any laws being broken or abuse being waged, a family is free to adopt as many children as they’d like, just as they are allowed to have as many biological children as they want. There are laws about how many children may be in a foster home, but when private agencies are appraising families, they are allowed to use their own discretion. There are of course, instances in which large families work well for children and end up as a nurturing and healthy household. Take this South Carolina family of 40 for example, where 33 children have been adopted and all seem to be successful, well-adjusted, and loved. There are the Duggars, probably the most famous large family in the US, who have 19 kids. While all are biological, they are a good example of a large, fundamentalist family doing well.  The issue at play here is that these large families that continually adopt allow for less individual attention to each child, which can be especially problematic for children who need specialized attention to deal with problems from their past. When a family is not able to do so, they run the risk of bad behavior, and may feel like they have no choice but to rehome their child or turn to abuse.

The stories in these two articles, as well as countless others that have come to light in the past few months depict children who are falling through the cracks. Children who should be protected by law, but our legal system is failing them. It’s hard to imagine that being adopted could lead to worse conditions than being in an orphanage, but it’s possible. Now that the US knows this is happening, it is our lawmakers’ responsibility to put a stop to it. Children should not be traded like animals. Children should not be placed into a home where they cannot possibly receive the attention that they deserve. These children deserve better, and it is the United States’ responsibility to make sure that they do receive better.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [madamepsychosis via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You Don’t Hear About This Side of Adoption appeared first on Law Street.