So I'm reading an opinion issued by the West Virginia Supreme court of Appeals. This case involves a young woman who voluntarily relinquished her parental rights to her newborn son (who was born with Cocaine and Marijuana in his bloodstream; the mother's parental rights to three older children had been involuntarily revoked by the Court.
It's standard policy here for the State to petition a court for emergency custody when a parent, previously found to be unfit, gives birth to a new child. The process involves an initial petition, followed by a finding of fact and adjudication. The respondent may file a petition with the court for an improvement period. In this case, the parent was preparing to do so. She checked herself into a treatment facility to demonstrate to the court that she's serious about making changes. However, upon admittance to the treatment program, a background check turned up warrant for her arrest.
The mother had been convicted of check fraud in Virginia. Although she served her sentenced time (the opinion does not indicate how much time she served), she never paid a $50 fine. Accordingly she was arrested, extradited, and re incarcerated. I wonder how much the State of Virginia paid to have her transported from Beckley, West Virginia to where-ever Virginia and then reincarcerated. Certainly more than the $50 fine that they imposed on someone who is indigent. (The reason most people write bad checks is that they lack the resources to pay for goods and services the legitimate way). Well at least justice was served.
I haven't finished reading the opinion, but the from the Syllabus, I know that the Supreme Court ruled against her. While she was incarcerated she voluntarily relinquished parental rights. The appeals indicates that she felt coerced into this decision. West Virginia's Supreme Court concurred with the original decision (that this was a voluntary action).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
What happened to common sense?
yes, common sense would tell you not to write bad checks.
LLook, I know there are folks who just had a streak of bad luck.
This lady already lost customdy of some kids. Why would she have another one? Voluntary victims!
When I see 20 year old mothers with three kids in line at the grocery store, using food stamps for the regular stuff and cash for alcohol and cigarettes, I wondr why I get up every day at 6 am.
Anon, you're conflating two separate issues:
(1) In what world does it make sense to fine people who are passing bad checks? What lesson does that teach them? The accumulated evidence suggest that the modal writer of bad checks is doing so to acquire goods and services that they can't otherwise afford. I'm not suggesting that this is justified behavior of that it shouldn't be a crime. I'm just situating the behavior within its context. That the state of Virginia went to the trouble and expense of extraditing (a minimum of $1,000) and incarcerating (around $100 a day) this person for the offense of failing to pay her $50 fine seems to be a rather poor use of our public resources.
(2) The child welfare issues here are far more complicated. It's unlikely that she would get the children back and I agree with the court's ruling that she did make a voluntary termination of parental rights. I don't disagree with the standard operating procedure of petitioning for removal when a new child is born to a parent who has been previously deemed unfit.
Having said all that, it's ironic that the poor (e.g., those on food stamps) are judged more harshly for making bad decisions than the rest of us. As a governmental principle, I support the concept of liberty. However, as many hypocritical conservatives demonstrate, we are unequal in our abilities to exercise liberty. It's weird that the same people wanting to get government off our backs, want to see the poor sterilized, disenfranchised, and restricted from exercising their liberty. Freedom has its drawbacks and if we are to live in a free society, we need to accept its underbelly on the same terms.
Post a Comment