9 Year Old Begs to go Home

[Donjeta]

If people want to raise their kids it would make sense not to live the kind of life where they end up in prison for years, unavailable to take responsibility, unable to take care of their children's needs, too distant to love and cherish them the way they should be loved and cherished.

Have his priorities changed?

JMO.

 

[K_Z]

If people want to raise their kids it would make sense not to live the kind of life where they end up in prison for years, unavailable to take responsibility, unable to take care of their children's needs, too distant to love and cherish them the way they should be loved and cherished.

Have his priorities changed?

Even if his priorities have changed, a child shouldn't be sacrificed, her innocence stolen, and her childhood gutted, to fulfill his fantasy of being a "father" to her. Children shouldn't be used as "do overs" for people who have committed their entire lives to being liars and career felony criminals. Let him get a puppy, or find a new partner and father a new child to practice "parenting" on. He was never a parent to her, even before JG traveled with her to Tennessee. JG was caring for her essentially full time.

And, BTW, JG never kidnapped her-- more lies spread by those relatives. This child probably owes her very life to JG-- she could very well have ended up dead if left in the custody of JM as a baby. JG contacted CPS in Tennessee to ask them how she should proceed, and what she should do about medical care for the toddler. Kidnappers don't usually have that kind of integrity, honesty, care, and concern for the ones they kidnap. She will never be charged with kidnapping because no one except JM's relatives think S was kidnapped-- no one in authority, and certainly prosecutors don't think that.

And besides all that, there was ample LEGAL basis to terminate his parental rights apart from the shortening of his latest sentence, which he traded for withholding info to solve a murder. The child had been in foster care for such an extended duration (better than 8 years) with no involvement by the bio father, that there is law to TPR. The error is that the court didn't include THAT in their opinion. She was ripped from her home, family, and stable life, and given to this career felon on a thin technicality by an activist judge-- for no other reason. IMO.

Let him pick out a puppy to raise. Leave this child alone and get her out of that appalling situation, IMO. Hopefully the court hearing will happen soon. There has been enough grief and damage in the past year, IMO.

 

[MyBelle]

I think he is just wanting to raise his own child ,not mine.

Very good point. I think CPS and the Judges are now rectifying the jurisdictional mistakes that were made so many years ago.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

I think he is just wanting to raise his own child ,not mine.

I didn't ask what he wants. I asked if one would let this man raise one of one's own children in these circumstances.

 

[MyBelle]

I didn't ask what he wants. I asked if one would let this man raise one of one's own children in these circumstances.

I guess I'm also baffled by your question. I don't get to decide what other parents are allowed to do with their own children.

 

[jjenny]

I guess I'm also baffled by your question. I don't get to decide what other parents are allowed to do with their own children.

Really? So I guess we should close all the CPS around the country right now.
Cause it's nobody's business what people do with their own darn kids.

 

[MyBelle]

Really? So I guess we should close all the CPS around the country right now.
Cause it's nobody's business what people do with their own darn kids.

Please re-read my post. I said I don't get to decide what other parents are allowed to do with their children. CPS takes reports and a Court can decide but all anybody else can do is make a report to CPS.

 

[K_Z]

My question to all of those who defend this father: would you let your child be raised by him?

Raise a child? Would the defenders of this career felon criminal allow him to even babysit their young child for a few hours alone? Keeping in mind that this man would STILL be in prison right now, except that he LIED and withheld information about a murder, then selfishly recanted that lie to shorten his sentence? And that somehow makes him a virtuous, but tragically "wronged" bio-parent who "deserves" to raise his daughter, who he didn't give a d@#! about for more than 8 years? GMAB.

Really? The contribution of his "sacred" fatherly Y chromosome is worth more than the life, safety, security, and well-being of a child? Yeah. Nominate him for "Father of the Year." How about "Felon of the Year?"

(And don't bother telling me how he's just a really great guy that just "made some mistakes", or was in the "wrong place at the wrong time", and "deserves to start over". Gag.)

Let him get a puppy to raise. Keep him away from children. He has enough problems of his own making to work on, now that he's out of prison AGAIN. Leave kids out of his life. IMO.

 

[PaulaSB]

So should the four children of Mark Wahlberg be taken from their father as he has a felony charge and prison sentence under his belt?

 

[Donjeta]

I'm sorry, I'm not up to date with all the celebrity gossip. I recall reading Mark Wahlberg was a bit of a bad guy when he was younger but the details escape me.

Is he a career criminal? Has Mark Wahlberg been in prison for most of his children's childhood so far? Would he still be in prison if he didn't squeal on a murderer he'd protected until then? Did he abandon his kids in the hands of random babysitters or "kidnappers" while in prison? Did he bother to react to custody hearings while in prison? If he bargained his freedom with information about a murder that he'd withheld until it was beneficial to himself, who does he hang out with and however did he come across that information? Does he see anything wrong in not reporting a murderer?

 

[K_Z]

Actually, we shouldn't forget that the murder info JM withheld for so long (about 9 years), until he could selfishly find a way to benefit from revealing it, was actually a DOUBLE murder, execution style (6 shots in each victim), and that the gun used belonged to JM's brother, S's uncle Steve. Drug deal gone bad. Jeff Hoover was a good friend of JM and his brother. I wonder if JM has sat S down and told S all about this lovely family story, and how it is JM got out of prison early, so he could try to be her daddy again? Such a fine, upstanding man, with a good, solid virtuous family. Just the place for a vulnerable child, right?

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/08/09/073124P.pdf
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1129464.html

And hopefully, JM is keeping S away from some of the other unsavory relatives at family gatherings during this holiday season, like Grandpa, and Uncle Steve, and.....

(I can link Grandpa's charging document that's on Scribd for first degree sex assault of a 6 year old girl if needed, but it's so disgusting and graphic, I'd rather not.)

Defenders of this career felon criminal want his past to be forgotten, and his unsavory friends, family and associates to be ignored. Defenders of this criminal only want the focus to be on whether or not S is alive, and whether she got "good grades" at school this term. Defenders of this criminal only want the focus to be on how S is "doing" (surviving/ enduring) during her sentenced time with JM, so they can twist that into a happy family portrait. IMO.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

I guess I'm also baffled by your question. I don't get to decide what other parents are allowed to do with their own children.

You're deliberately ignoring my question, I know you are intelligent enough to understand it as evidenced by your interaction in discussions here.

Since you want to pretend not to understand my question, let's just move along.

 

[PaulaSB]

The grandfather was investigated in the case of a 6 year old child, the perp who actually committed the crime was actually arrested. it was not his father who was 2012 Volunteer of the year for Omaha collation of citizen patrols. Taking cheap shots at a dead man whose arrest was dismissed by the prosecutor is a low blow



As you see the case was dismissed by the prosecutor, the warrant recalled the man was innocent.

 

[MyBelle]

You're deliberately ignoring my question, I know you are intelligent enough to understand it as evidenced by your interaction in discussions here.

Since you want to pretend not to understand my question, let's just move along.

I said I was baffled by your question: The child in your question is the daughter of the man in your question but you asked if another parent would want him taking care of their child, not his own child. To me the question makes absolutely no sense. I'm sorry but that's just the way I see it.

 

[MyBelle]

The jurisdictional issue was resolved by Judge Leigh Ann Retelsdorf and I applaud her decision to end this legal nightmare for this family. The father does have a prison record but he also has parental rights. In Nebraska, by statute, an inmate's parental rights can not be terminated for the crimes for which he was incarcerated.

Having a prison record does not equate to being an unfit parent. Convicted offenders do the sentence imposed by the court, they relinquish custody while doing so (guardianship usually to family members) and it happens every day across America.

It is a real shame so much untrue vitriol about a child's family has circulated on the Internet for her to see one day. The local media and the Judge have treated the McCaul family with incredible kindness and respect because she isn't a puppy, she is a child.

Happy New Year everyone....
JMO

 

[K_Z]

The jurisdictional issue was resolved by Judge Leigh Ann Retelsdorf and I applaud her decision to end this legal nightmare for this family. The father does have a prison record but he also has parental rights. In Nebraska, by statute, an inmate's parental rights can not be terminated for the crimes for which he was incarcerated.

Snipped for emphasis.

Soon, the actions of Judge Retelsdorf will likely end the nightmare for the Hodgins family. This same judge has refused to take the case in Nebraska, and has returned the case to Tennessee, as of Nov 27, 2014. There will be action on this case very soon, most likely a "best interests" hearing.

There was ample legal reason to TPR unrelated to "the crimes for which he was incarcerated." No one has EVER suggested JM's parental rights were terminated "for the crimes for which he was incarcerated." It was the LENGTH of his incarceration, due to the penalties for the crimes, AND her age at the time, AND her status as legally neglected and abandoned (which occurred PRIOR to the last incarceration, and was never contested or overturned), AND the duration and course of her time in the foster system.

This from Nov 27, 2014:

"The interests of the minor child are best addressed in Tennessee," Douglas County, Neb., District Judge Leigh Ann Retelsdorf wrote in an order issued Wednesday. The judge refused the case, citing pending litigation here and because Sonya is in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services.

The Nebraska court's decision means the legal wrangling will continue in Tennessee, and in front of a new judge. Juvenile Court Judge Andrew Jackson, who previously handled the case, did not win re-election.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...-year-old-sonya-will-stay-tennessee/19595643/

Controversial custody case moving back to TN

A Dickson Circuit Court judge previously ruled that Sonya was illegally sent to live with her biological father in Nebraska.

The case will come back to Tennessee with a new judge and perhaps in an entirely different court.

Judge Andy Jackson's decision to send Sonya to Nebraska with her father, John McCaul, was harshly overturned.

Read more: http://www.wsmv.com/story/27492100/controversial-custody-case-moving-back-to-tn#ixzz3Nd5JBnqC

 

[MyBelle]

Snipped for emphasis.

Soon, the actions of Judge Retelsdorf will likely end the nightmare for the Hodgins family. This same judge has refused to take the case in Nebraska, and has returned the case to Tennessee, as of Nov 27, 2014. There will be action on this case very soon, most likely a "best interests" hearing.

There was ample legal reason to TPR unrelated to "the crimes for which he was incarcerated." No one has EVER suggested JM's parental rights were terminated "for the crimes for which he was incarcerated." It was the LENGTH of his incarceration, due to the penalties for the crimes, AND her age at the time, AND her status as legally neglected and abandoned (which occurred PRIOR to the last incarceration, and was never contested or overturned), AND the duration and course of her time in the foster system.

This from Nov 27, 2014:



http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...-year-old-sonya-will-stay-tennessee/19595643/



Read more: http://www.wsmv.com/story/27492100/controversial-custody-case-moving-back-to-tn#ixzz3Nd5JBnqC

I'm aware of the details of the case, thanks. I was in the Courthouse that day. TPR is a non-issue. Judge Jackson--who has been voted out of office--was wrong in taking jurisdiction in the first place. He made an error. John McCaul was awarded custody of the child by a Nebraska court.

Judge Retelsdorf refused to take jurisdiction because the child has been in the custody of the State of Tennessee CFS more than six months. It has nothing to do with the Hodgins. A best interest hearing isn't going to result in a return of a child to foster parents that Tennessee CPS has already cut ties with and the GAL has accused of child endangerment.The couple is seriously delusional if they believe a social media campaign will influence a Judge's decision about the best interest of a child.
JMO

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.

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/...s-Denied-Custody-Of-Omaha-Girl-259582291.html

 

[K_Z]

IMO, the child deserves, and should be entitled, to grow up as far away from this man as possible, even if that means a new foster family. IMO, she should have no contact with JM at all, to give her a chance to grow up with the least impact of him on her life.

It's bad enough that she knows she's related genetically to this career criminal, and will have to deal with that for her entire life. There is nothing about this man, his history, his many, many crimes (including violent crimes), his incarcerations that equal 1/3 of his life, and his unsavory friends and associates, that is conducive to him raising, or even being around, any children, IMO. The contribution of his genetic material to this child in no way over rides all of his many, many flaws as a parent, citizen, and human being.

I'm also aware that social workers sometimes make very serious mistakes in judgment, sometimes fatal mistakes, where the safety and best interests of children are concerned. The media is replete with stories of social workers giving lots of second, third, and 4th chances to parents with very bad criminal histories, that culminated in dead children.

IMO, he is entitled to reform his own life, to do the best he can to start over and try to live a decent, law abiding life that doesn't include crime, drugs, guns, or violence. That entitlement doesn't extend to screwing up a child's life that he hadn't seen since she was an infant.

There is no way any reasonable, sane, or intelligent person can defend this criminal's lifelong history of antisocial behavior, neglect, and abandonment, as even remotely deserving of another chance to "play daddy." It's sick and appalling that a child has been sacrificed that way, IMO. There is no defense of that, which subsequent courts have made clear. Judge Andy Jackson made the wrong decision about this child, period end.

I'm confident there will soon be more legal rulings to remove the child from the home of that man. Before something even more awful happens to her. Anyone who defends this man as a fit father is a fool, IMO.

 

[PaulaSB]

So you say Judge Jackson made a mistake what about Judge Burch who said no to adoption and would not reconsider adoption?

 

[MyBelle]

So you say Judge Jackson made a mistake what about Judge Burch who said no to adoption and would not reconsider adoption?

You mean this ruling from October 1, 2014?

http://wdkn.com/judge-dismisses-hod...ccauls-parental-rights-and-adopt-sonya-again/

In that opinion, Burch rules that Kim and David Hodgin do not have standing to bring an adoption action and therefore do not have “legal capacity to bring a termination of parental rights action” against John McCaul. The Hodgins cared for Sonya for eight years after she was abandoned by a babysitter in Tennessee and even adopted her, only to have that adoption overturned by the Tennessee Court of Appeals. In the opinion, Burch writes that in order to file a petition to adopt, the Hodgins must have custody of Sonya or prove the inevitable surrender of the child to them. Burch writes that since the Hodgins do not have custody of Sonya and that McCaul and the Department of Children’s Services are “extremely unlikely” to surrender custody to them, then the former foster parents are not recognized by the courts as having a right to adopt her.