A retired Aurora police sergeant faces criminal charges for raping his daughter and continually sexually assaulting her and his two adopted daughters, but he remains free from custody while his ex-wife is in jail for objecting to court-ordered reunification therapy meant to repair his relationship with two of his sons.
Sure, but if the therapy is going as described, it seems to me like the situation fits
And besides, according to the article, the mother can and did point to the investigation into the abuse. All together, this just doesn’t make sense. Given that this publication is owned by a company well-known for bullshit under their Washington Examiner label, I’m withholding judgement until I learn more. This just reeks of ragebait.
I don’t understand how it fits. They’re not cutting off their relationship to the protective parent (the mother), which is what the new restrictions prohibit. She still has access and custody, but they are also required to attend reunification therapy. Where is the contradiction?
It’s also explained why the abuse investigation does not impact the ordered therapy.
The father is only seeking custody of the two youngest sons, who were, as far as the court is aware, not abused by their father. So the judge does not see this or the seven charges of abuse of a minor as relevant in this case.
I’m all for being aware of the quality and reputation of a paper, but it seems you are putting more weight on that then the quality of the article itself. You are pointing at supposed inconsistencies that seem to be explained by the article.
It’s pretty insane to think a proven child abuser will simply not choose to abuse some of his kids when it’s proven he abused his other kids.
Perhaps I did misread something in the later half of the article regarding the mother and the therapy. I’m not going to dig through it again to confirm, but I can acknowledge I may have misunderstood.
A judge has a responsibility to take a broader context into account, with the overall health of the children being the main consideration. This would be opposed to a strictly mechanical interpretation of the law, where just because you’re not accused of abusing this specific child, you’re deemed a safe parent to them. If the judge does not see things this way, they’re being derelict in their duty. My suspicion remains that there is quite possibly more to this story though.
Correct, I think one should absolutely not adopt a trusting stance towards a new publication. Trust in reporting needs to be earned, and an appropriate caution should be exhibited until then in 100% of cases. This is because we cannot judge the quality of the article itself from just the article, you can’t tell if something is being omitted or misrepresented without other sources to compare it to. All we can judge is how it sounds, and that is not very good evidence of anything.
Admitting I may have misunderstood on how the law applies to the mother’s jailing has nothing to do with my other two arguments.
There’s frankly little point in digging through an article I do not trust to begin with, it’s a waste of time. You can give it your trust if you want, but I have no strong reason to.
So your two paragraphs of pontificating have nothing to do with what’s in the article?
I guess you’re just here to say “I believe judges are always good at their jobs and never make mistakes”?
No, I am definitely complaining about the article’s portrayal of the therapy.
You should reread my comment, which specifically said the judge was being derelict in his duty if he wasn’t taking a broader context into account.
I do understand that reading comprehension isn’t the strongest point of the internet ragebait-swallowing community. Why you all are so eager is a little beyond me though. Ultimately you should be remembering the profit-driven priorities of media companies, and how their models often revolve around triggering people’s emotions.
Perhaps I did misread something. I’m not going to dig through it again to confirm, but I can acknowledge I may have misunderstood.
Fair enough, at least you can admit it.