RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Judge Criticized For Giving Custody Of Girl To Convicted Sex Offender

WCCO.com 4

Judge Criticized For Giving Custody Of Girl To Convicted Sex Offender
Nov 19, 2004 11:29 am US/Central

Hastings, Minn. (AP) A court-appointed evaluator who recommended that a convicted sex offender get custody of his girlfriend's daughter said he now wishes a judge had appointed an advocate to speak on the child's behalf.

Attorney David Jaehne said Thursday he spoke with the girl and visited the home before recommending she permanently live with Justin Farnsworth, 31, of Hastings.

"I always talk to the kids. I always go to the home. I interview neighbors," Jaehne told the St. Paul Pioneer Press for a Friday story.

Jaehne filed his report with Dakota County District Judge Joseph T. Carter, who last month awarded custody to Farnsworth without appointing an advocate for the child, known as a guardian ad litem.

On Wednesday, Farnsworth was charged with three counts of felony sexual misconduct involving the girl. He was jailed on $300,000 bond.

A number of people expressed outrage at the situation Thursday, and some attorneys who represent children questioned why Carter did not appoint an advocate for the girl.

But the Minnesota State Bar Association defended the judge, who has said judicial ethics preclude him from commenting.

"Given Farnsworth's reported admission of guilt, it is easy to see that he should not have been given custody of the young girl he is charged with sexually molesting," Bar Association President David Stowman said in a statement.

"Ideally, Farnsworth wouldn't have had any contact with the girl," he continued. "However, Judge Carter wasn't dealing with the ideal; he was dealing with the reality of a little girl who didn't have a responsible parent to care for her."

Farnsworth received custody of three girls under age 10 -- two of his own daughters in addition to his girlfriend's daughter. He had been registered as a sex offender after being convicted of raping a 13-year-old girl in 1994.

The girlfriend, who is the mother of all three children, repeatedly "abandoned" the children in Farnsworth's care, according to court files.

All three girls are now staying with their mother, police said.

Jaehne, who essentially investigated the custody request for the judge, said he knew about Farnsworth's previous felony sexual offense. Farnsworth spent six months in jail and 10 years on probation.

"You get two choices in a custody evaluation. In this case, only one parent was asking for the kids to live with him," Jaehne said.

Gail Chang Bohr, executive director of the Children's Law Center of Minnesota, said a guardian ad litem likely would have done his or her own independent investigation.

"You need to get the kids' voices in there somehow," she said.

Bohr said it's easy to criticize the judge, but that this case is just one example of a system plagued with troubled families, neglected and abused children and tough decisions.

"Over and over, in child protection, these things happen. As a community, we should always be concerned," Bohr said. "I am pretty sure in hindsight (the judge) would have done it differently if he had all the information. I am not sure he did."

It's not clear what other options the judge might have had, but according to Jaehne's report, Farnsworth's girlfriend had an older child living with her parents.

Minnesota law requires judges to appoint guardians ad litem for children involved in protection cases where there is alleged domestic violence, child abuse or neglect. Judges can also choose to appoint them in difficult custody cases. Guardians ad litem represented 12,500 children in Minnesota last year.

"We really are the eyes and ears for the court to investigate child welfare matters and to report back what we've found, and sometimes recommend in the child's best interest in terms of custody and contact," said Mark Toogood, state program manager for guardians ad litem.

"We are careful not to second-guess the judicial determination of cases because we don't have all the facts," he added.

Dakota County prosecutor Scott Hersey put the blame on Farnsworth.

"In my view, the situation in this case is unconscionable -- the fact that he is sexually abusing the victim and going into court to get custody to enable his ongoing sexual abuse of that child," Hersey said.


(© 2004 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. )

Stupidity ensues.

Unfortunately this has happened elsewhere:

Cayuga County judge Peter Corning stunned a crowded courtroom when he said he was convinced Roger Kulakowski, 49, was not a sexual predator and may have been wrongly convicted in 1985. Therefore, he ruled the convicted child molester will be allowed to keep custody of two young girls, ages 4 and 6.
Kulakowski and his sister have had custody of the girls since 1999 even though he's a registered sex offender. He had no comment following the judge's decision allowing him to maintain custody.
The biological grandparents who wanted to adopt the girls are disappointed but will get visitation rights.
Kulakowski's ex-wife, who asked not to be identified,was angry with Judge Corning's decision.
"Shame on them...shame on all of them for placing two children with a known sex offender. Shame on all of them," she says.
In awarding custody to Kulakowski, Judge Peter Corning chastised child welfare groups for turning this case into what he called a circus and causing irreparable injury to the children and the Kulakowski's.

I am reminded of one of my favorite lawyer jokes...

Q: What do you call a lawyer with half his brain removed?
A: Your Honor.

I cannot believe this! He's going to scar the poor lil girl for life! I wouldnt be suprised in a few years if she actually killed her father.

Obviously this guy has never been sexually abused, so for this poor girl her nightmare will continue to be a reality. I never thought I'd see the day when the law protected the guilty and not the innocent.

It's so sad that neither parent are capable of being parents. And now the girls are with the "mom" who didn't want custody & was willing to abandom them.

There needs to be better places/options for these kids. A government ran orphanage would be better. Maybe some program that would entice the mother into voluntary sterilization too?

or send them to foster parents. You know the government wouldn't give jack shit to state-run orphanages! Hell, look at all the budgets that constantly get cut. It's sad to think that the majority of our taxes to go supporting war and international interests instead of being invested domestically.

What's very worrisome about this is that the evidence seems to suggest that sexual predators, pedophiles, and the like are extremel difficult to rehabilitate. And judges should be aware of that. That they're not...kinda stuns me. But then, no profession is perfect.

ah yes, the "do-gooders". The ones that tell us how we are to raise our children, who call the police and Child Services on those evil evil parents that choose to spank their children for misbehaving (note: not abuse), who try to make laws restricting free speech on the grounds a child might hear/see something meant for adults, etc, etc... Yes, god bless "do-gooders".

I think so...yup. I'm against censorship.

I was going to edit your post (therein censoring you) but I'm too lazy.

Would have been funny, though.

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
Maybe some program that would entice the mother into voluntary sterilization too?

---

Are you serious?

lazy ass

This bothered me, and the case is unfortunately not an isolated incident. Like the judge said, he would have liked to have an appointed person representing the child... Guardian Ad Litum. My mom did that work for awhile. It can be very depressing when you go and check out families and their living situations. I mean, for a guardian to be introduced, it has to be squalid circumstances that require the law. Also means you'll be seeing people living in poverty and dealing with substance abuse issues. Broken down trailers, alcoholism, drugs, religious matters... And it's your job to figure out who the kid is better off with. Who they "like" more, and who can take better care of them (not raping or beating, and also feeding).

Some guy didn't like my mom's suggestions, and he threatened our family--threatened to kill Mom, my dad, and my brother and me. Hollow threat, but the judge placed some kind of order on him. He's been in prison before. A lot of these people have.

See, it's rarely ever a clear-cut scenario, and this article makes you think it was. Sure, pick the mother over the child molesting father. I know that makes perfect sense. Obviously, someone didn't pay much attention to the father's issues. A representative wasn't brought is, so maybe it was as simple as asking him, "Do you feel recovered?" "Yes sir."

So why would he ask that? Desperation.

It means the mother was in bad shape too. We're looking at a potential alcoholic, druggie, child abuser, living in extreme poverty. You know, crackwhore. What kind of woman would fuck a child molester?

It goes back to the suggestions for foster homes and orphanages. As G-man mentioned, we don't have orphanages anymore. Not a bad thing, necessarily, because they were run in a worse fashion than senior homes. The reason that is bad, is because our childhood years are integral to our development. Children need attention, love, and nurturing. You neglect them, and it builds for mentality underdeveloped adults with social problems.

Now, foster homes have their pros and cons. Some are excellent and conducive to a healthy environment for children--but it depends on the people who run it. I mean, you have grandparents who had grown kids, or people who could never have kids, so they use foster homes to raise children and give them a better life. On the other hand, there are those who use it as a means of bilking the government and state out of money. They receive subsidies for the kids they take in, and they pocket some of it, and turn the kids into slaves--making their lives miserable. Some of these foster parents are sex offenders, druggies, and the like--no better than the criminal parents.

It's an imperfect system. The judge made an error in his decision, and it ruined a child's life. He is responsible for that, but other people have made similar decisions. Ultimately, it was the father who decided to molest the girl.

To play devil's advocate, for a second, couldn't one argue that the entire welfare/family court system is a form of reverse social engineering, encouraging breeding and survival among those who might otherwise die out?

Granted. But we've made it the responsibility of government to make sure people don't starve to death just because they don't have jobs. Sterilization, even if it's voluntary, is a step away from involuntary sterilization, which is a step away from the draconian ZPG measures they have in nations like the PRC.

Anybody find out if the conviction got overturned?