Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Family Court: The Iowa case example (Part 2 in a series)

Child Human Rights in family court, the Iowa case example
Child Human Rights in family court, the Iowa case example

Recently, the Iowa Register took a look in blog and video of a family child sexual assault question that presented over time.

The fact that this case was reviewed in news was remarkable, as many news media services will not engage in review of any child custody issues.

AS A GENERALITY these case are a common occurence in famiily issues matching many reporting, investigative and court processes nationwide and often have one or more of these things going on at a time. Sometimes ALL of these things:

1.) there were parents who had children a.) parents may be married b.) parents may have never married c.) parents divorcing d.) parents seeking custody f.) child custody is being challenged e.) Child Protective Services is holding or challenges child custody.

2.) a question surfaced about possible child sex assault, sexualized interactions with one or more of the children , sex trafficking or child porn

3.) someone made a report to CPS about some of the above

4.) the family may or may not have been investigated

5.) the issue may or may not be actively ruled upon or managed by CPS courts or a civil court

So some pieces or parts or ALL of the above list have happened, usually over an extensive period of time involving many people, and much money. Stress to all parties is probably guaranteed.

Here are the two links this writer noted, in series of publication, and the reader can pluck the questions from above

This article shows the inbound questions in the case prior early in the case profile.

Then this brief video discussion is a recap of the outcomes, again it is unusual for a case like this to be followed by news media. The news staff expresses concerns, in pattern that are common to onlookers, family and community members.

This Iowa case happens to be a man questioned as the risk. There is absolutely no reason that a woman could not be the point of risk. The risk comes from an adult to a child in all these cases. So there is a family issue afoot. And then there is a court or agency staff problem in all these kinds of cases.

"Supporters" or "Questioners" fall on both sides of this aisle, and often inquiry collapses on the questions of the right of the male parent or the female parent. UNLIKE the above video, most conversations are solely about the parents/adults actions or rights, and little is devoted to child human rights in family courts in news. So this news relation is an excellent springboard for this writer's questions which again are not meant to be legal consultation, a professional paper or report or any such.... merely more food for thought on what drives these situations.... policy, custom or law.

The 2013 documentary , No Way Out But One illustrated a similar case from the 1980's. and noted the quandry, certainly for the children when circumstances like this come forward. This problem, present for about 30 years now.

Here is a question asked prior by this writer, including some recent Oklahoma cases, some of which include these issues.

Irrespective of the adult players, children do not vote and cannot represent themselves in court. Just what goes into making this problem possible, what is it called, where did it come from and who is served by this process. Who gets help in family court, and why.

This series will attempt to pull forward questions regarding this spectrum of problem that involves child human rights, child sex assault reporting, CPS agency and or Law Enforcement responses, CPS/Juvenile or Family/Civil courts or both.

The Iowa case still stands as the best singular example for this consideration.

In this case, the reporting party report of child sexual maltreatment or risk of maltreatment

a.) accepted by the local authorities and investigated through some process.

b.) structure put in place by someone in a ( first) court process

c.) then the structure was dismantled by another (second) court process in a seemingly completely separate lane of service

d.) seeming risk was present to the children noted

e.) all parties frozen by delay for a responding process

f.) seeming risk for the children, unmonitored regarding the alleged first ( confirmed risk in b above)

g.) structure reinstated for b, by a (third) court process, completely separate lane of service from court process in b

The newscasters above verbalized what sort of clean up supports the children had after an abuse case had gone through all that. Why was it handled like that?
What are the children entitled to AFTER it all was over?

These are interesting questions that will be revisited in this series. This writer has other observations and questions.

Report this ad