Bring Sean Home Foundation > Hindle

2003 Effort to Sell/Adopt Emily in Wisconsin

<< < (2/3) > >>

KarlHindle:

--- Quote from: gail on April 28, 2010, 05:20:07 PM ---This is absurd.  How was she able to do all of this?  Do they regularly help hide or take a child out of a country without checking the facts?  Are they liable for any of this?

--- End quote ---
There is an exception to the two-parent signature rule for passports - domestic violence.  But there is no hearing, no notice, no due process - a State Department official makes a decision and that is the end of it.  Are they liable?  It's the State Department.

Perhaps some of you are beginning to appreciate why so many foreign countries have little faith in either the US courts or the US agencies involved.

kittykat:
This all goes back to what I've posted in several places before about gender treatment. You guys (meaning you men) have got to get together and decide you're going to do something about it or nothing will happen. I'm a lady and I believe that the majority of abuse claims by women are false. I believe this mainly because of people I know. It's just something we're born knowing how to do. It's like saying you're on your period to get out of gym class (usually not true, but you have to accept it because it just might be true!). I remember reading an edition of "Time Out" which is a magazine in New York. On the inside page they always have an interview they conduct with some random person they stop on the street. Anyway, one week they stopped this lady and at some point in the interview she said that she had left her husband when her 2 sons were little. She talked about how hard it was to make it on her own and said that at one point they lived in a shelter for battered women. So the interviewer said, "He abused you?" and then she said "Well, no, I didn't think he paid enough attention to the kids and I thought we deserved better." Translation - she was young and overcome with ennui and thought maybe there was something better out there so she took advantage of the fact that everybody treats women with pity without asking questions. She didn't say what she told the shelter but I think she should be forced to pay back the shelter. People make donations to those places to help people in genuine need and she just took advantage of them. But it just goes to show you that a lot of women don't think there is anything wrong with it. A lot of us feel that this is our one advantage over men and don't want to give it up. I mean this woman just admitted it in an interview she knew would be published in a magazine with a huge circulation. She didn't care!

forthelost:
From everything I've seen in this case, it's overwhelmingly obvious that Emily's mother never has and never will have her best interests in mind. Are the people in the legal system deliberately not seeing this?  :mad:

lovellboys:
Amazing.  I know I personally find it offensive when abductors use patriotism as a way to keep a child of duel nationality away from the other parent.  You can't hide behind a flag to protect your selfish interests.  It disgusts me to KNOW that my own country shields abductors, and I know that had the situation been reversed, and Karl was the American, that Emily would most likely not have left the UK so easily.  Of course not - he's the dad. 

Karl, your contacts are on my daily email list, but I think I'll reword my statements a bit.  As a mother, as an american - I am way beyond pissed.   

SageDad:
Relevant WI law
--------------------------------------
CHILDREN - CRIMES AGAINST
948.02(1) Sexual assault of a child - first degree
(Class B felony/penalty: imprisonment not to exceed 60 years):
• having sexual intercourse or sexual contact
• with another person who has not attained the age of 13 years
NOTE: See definitions and note at Sexual assault - first degree, above at 940.225(1).
948.02(2) Sexual assault of a child - second degree
(Class C felony/penalty: fine not to exceed $100,000, or imprisonment not to exceed 40 years or
both):
• having sexual contact or sexual intercourse
• with a person who has not attained the age of 16 years
NOTE: See definitions and note at Sexual assault - first degree, above at 940.225(1).
948.02(3) Sexual assault of a child, failure to act
(Class F felony/penalty: fine not to exceed $25,000, or imprisonment not to exceed 12.5 years or
both):
• being a person responsible for the welfare of a child who has not attained the age of 16 years
• and having knowledge that another person intends to have, is having or has had sexual intercourse or sexual
contact with a child
• and is physically and emotionally capable of taking action which will prevent the intercourse or contact
from taking place
• or being repeated
• and fails to take that action and the failure to act exposes the child to unreasonable risks that intercourse or
contact may occur between the child and the other person
• or facilitates the intercourse or contact that does occur between the child and the other person

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doing the math he was somewhere around 34 and convicted of having sex with someone between the ages of 13-15.  The child may have been even younger since it's common for prosecutors to reduce charges, say from a 1st degree criminal sexual assault to a second degree, in exchange for a plea agreement.  How did the mother even come into contact with this man?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page