Saturday, February 14, 2009

State Property

A local Fort Wayne story, but I'm sure it happens everywhere:
Five children in incest case removed from mom’s care
Rebecca S. Green
The Journal Gazette

The Indiana Department of Children Services has removed the children from the home of the woman at the center of a local incest case.

The 30-year-old woman, who has not been accused of a crime, has had custody of five of the seven children believed to have been fathered by her half brother, Donald F. Medsker.


... [snip] ...

According to Ann Houseworth, director of communications for the agency, whenever an alleged offender is released on bond, workers with the department re-evaluate the status of the children involved, taking any necessary actions to ensure the safety of the children.
I'm certainly not here to suggest that the actions of this woman or of her revolting half-brother are in any way acceptable. I simply note that she's been convicted of ... nothing ... and charged with ... nothing ... and that the state, in the person of "the agency," has snatched her children because the state was pleased to do so. The "agency" stands ready to take any action it deems necessary to ensure the safety of these children. Safety ... I'm sure they're in foster care already, where I'm sure they won't be mistreated or molested, because children in foster care never are mistreated or molested, right? And even if they are, well, you can be sure there'll be no consequences for anyone connected with "the agency."

By any reasonable definition, these children are the property of the state, since the state seems to have -- and use -- the power to dispose of them as it sees fit. Not only are these children state property: so are yours.

1 comment:

Grace Nearing said...

What a nasty case indeed. I read through the linked article several times, and I can think of only two justifications for what the state agency did, and they aren't mutually exclusive.

The first is that, since Medsker, the half-brother, violated the no-contact order and was seen at the house, the state agency decided it was best to move the kids to a different location for their safety. (Perhaps the mother did not want to move into a shelter for abused women.)

The second is that there's a strong suspicion that the children's mother is not competent as a parent. To be fair, there is nothing in the article stating this; I'm just assuming that a woman physically and sexually abused repeatedly since her mid-teens by her guardian half-brother has some psychological problems.