I Have Lost All Faith In The Justice System

[Shizzo]

http://ktla.com/2017/10/09/man-accused-of-raping-12-year-old-girl-given-joint-custody-of-their-child-attorney-says/

A man who allegedly raped a then 12-year-old girl was granted joint legal custody of the pair’s 8-year-old child, according to the victim’s attorney.

Christopher Mirasolo, a now 27-year-old convicted sex offender, was awarded the custody rights after a DNA test confirmed he was the father, Rebecca Kiessling, the victim’s attorney said. He allegedly raped and threatened to kill the child’s mother nine years ago, according to The Detroit News.

“The judge also restricted the child’s domicile and residence, disclosed the rape victim’s home address to her rapist, and ordered his name on the birth certificate — all without the mother’s consent or any opportunity to be heard,” Kiessling said.

Mirasolo was arrested a month after the alleged rape, Kiessling said. A conviction carries a penalty of 25 years to life, but Mirasolo took a plea deal and served less than a year in prison on charges of just third-degree criminal sexual conduct. He later served an additional four years for a sexual assault against a victim between the ages of 13 and 15.

The victim was told by the prosecutor’s office she needed to move from Florida back to Michigan so that Mirasolo could be near the child, Kiessling said.

Mirasolo did not initiate any custody case, his attorney told The Detroit News.

“I don’t know what his plans or intentions might be regarding any future relationship with the child,” his attorney told The Detroit News. “This might be something we will have a conversation about, but he has not been served with any other court papers and is not scheduled to be in court.”

[Powerlift66]

Freakin' horrible...

[SF1900]

The courts will do everything in their power to reunite children with their biological parents. This often occurs in many households that are not the most beneficial for children; however, if the child is not at imminent risk, they will often be sent back to the parents. This often occurs when parents have been accused of child abuse and then complete some course on parenting. As long as they "successfully" complete that course (and perhaps other requirements),  they are sent back home.

[Henda]

Fucking disgusting Giving a peadophile rapist custody of a kid, why is he even allowed out of prison ever? Why is he even fucking still alive?

[Shizzo]

The courts will do everything in their power to reunite children with their biological parents. This often occurs in many households that are not the most beneficial for children; however, if the child is not at imminent risk, they will often be sent back to the parents. This often occurs when parents have been accused of child abuse and then complete some course on parenting. As long as they "successfully" complete that course (and perhaps other requirements),  they are sent back home.

Even to a rapist who impregnated a 12 year old girl? If the child is not at imminent risk (to a multiple sex offender)?

Did you read the article, troll?

But I do have a legitimate question. What would cause this poor 12 year old girl (maybe religious reasons?) and her parents, to choose to keep the pregnancy of the rape? What do you tell the child? Aren't you reminded of the sick bastard, every time you look into your kid's eyes?

[SF1900]

Even to a rapist who impregnated a 12 year old girl? If the child is not at imminent risk (to a multiple sex offender)?

Did you read the article, troll?

But I do have a legitimate question. What would cause this poor 12 year old girl (maybe religious reasons?) and her parents, to choose to keep the pregnancy of the rape? What do you tell the child? Aren't you reminded of the sick bastard, every time you look into your kid's eyes?

I'm not trolling. The courts will do everything in their power to reunite children with their biological parents and give them legal guardianship.  There have been parents who have had multiple cases against them by DCF and still have their children. Of course, each judge is different, but this is not surprising at all.

Courts and/or DCF will determine if the child is at imminent risk. But deterring imminent risk is complicated as they take into account a number of factors: age of child, nature of abuse, location of abuse, extent of physical injury, disability status, frequency, etc.

[SF1900]

Fucking disgusting Giving a peadophile rapist custody of a kid, why is he even allowed out of prison ever? Why is he even fucking still alive?

Drug offenders get more time than pedophiles.

Screwed up system.

[Shizzo]

I'm not trolling. The courts will do everything in their power to reunite children with their biological parents and give them legal guardianship.  There have been parents who have had multiple cases against them by DCF and still have their children. Of course, each judge is different, but this is not surprising at all.

Parent? He raped a 12 year old girl, and happened to impregnate her during the horrible ordeal. He doesn't qualify as a father, and any competent judge would agree.

According to the article, he also raped another young girl, and has only served a few years in jail for his heinous crimes. The judge, and prosecutor should be disbarred.

[SF1900]

Parent? He raped a 12 year old girl, and happened to impregnate her during the horrible ordeal. He doesn't qualify as a father, and any competent judge would agree.

According to the article, he also raped another young girl, and has only served a few years in jail for his heinous crimes. The judge, and prosecutor should be disbarred.

Even to a rapist who impregnated a 12 year old girl? If the child is not at imminent risk (to a multiple sex offender)?

Did you read the article, troll?

But I do have a legitimate question. What would cause this poor 12 year old girl (maybe religious reasons?) and her parents, to choose to keep the pregnancy of the rape? What do you tell the child? Aren't you reminded of the sick bastard, every time you look into your kid's eyes?

Courts and/or DCF will determine if the child is at imminent risk. But deterring imminent risk is complicated as they take into account a number of factors: age of child, nature of abuse, location of abuse, extent of physical injury, disability status, frequency, etc.

And, yes, there have been many cases where parents who abuse their child or other children, are still given rights and custody of their children.

I don't agree with this, but it's the nature of reality. All I'm doing is providing you with factual information. You can choose to accept or reject my statements.

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

Parent? He raped a 12 year old girl, and happened to impregnate her during the horrible ordeal. He doesn't qualify as a father, and any competent judge would agree.

According to the article, he also raped another young girl, and has only served a few years in jail for his heinous crimes. The judge, and prosecutor should be disbarred.

That's what an appeals court is for.....


Now get back to stock shelves at Walmart

[Simple Simon]

Drug offenders get more time than pedophiles.

Screwed up system.

People who commit fraud/steal money from corporations get the biggest sentences.

Guy I know couldn't pay for his car, so he got someone to torch it so the insurance would pay it off, he wasnt going to make a dime, ended up getting caught, got 5 years.

[Henda]

Drug offenders get more time than pedophiles.

Screwed up system.

That is fucked up

Peado shit needs to be zero tolerance, one confirmed instance of peado activity even if its not a physical violation for example having child porn on a computer should result in the end of that persons freedom or preferably their life, peados are mentally fucked to be even cabable if such filth and are not going to learn from a brief prison stint, they are seriously disgusting disturbed individuals and will never change and should be extinct

[doggler]

Shizzo,  get a gun and do the right thing.

[Simple Simon]

That is fucked up

Peado shit needs to be zero tolerance, one confirmed instance of peado activity even if its not a physical violation for example having child porn on a computer should result in the end of that persons freedom or preferably their life, peados are mentally fucked to be even cabable if such filth and are not going to learn from a brief prison stint, they are seriously disgusting disturbed individuals and will never change and should be extinct

you need to be careful with the zero tolerance, the way the internet is wired today, so many spambots and cookies infiltrating computers could quite easily put something on there you are not even aware of.

You wouldnt want to end up in jail for the rest of your life through no fault of your own.

Sure, people with stuff downloaded in folders and saved should be jailed.

Some fucker posted a pic of an old guy with two naked underage kids on here a couple years ago, fucking disgusting.

[Meta-physical]

Shizzo,  get a gun and do the right thing.

I agree. Shizzo, please shoot yourself.

[Shizzo]

I agree. Shizzo, please shoot yourself.

[Henda]

you need to be careful with the zero tolerance, the way the internet is wired today, so many spambots and cookies infiltrating computers could quite easily put something on there you are not even aware of.

You wouldnt want to end up in jail for the rest of your life through no fault of your own.

Sure, people with stuff downloaded in folders and saved should be jailed.

Some fucker posted a pic of an old guy with two naked underage kids on here a couple years ago, fucking disgusting.

I agree it should be a case like you said that they have to have actually downloaded and saved it or viewed a site online extensively rather than just a sick pop up that quickly got closed or like that disgusting shit you mentioned posted here. I should have worded original post better

[mazrim]

I'm not trolling. The courts will do everything in their power to reunite children with their biological parents and give them legal guardianship.  There have been parents who have had multiple cases against them by DCF and still have their children. Of course, each judge is different, but this is not surprising at all.

Courts and/or DCF will determine if the child is at imminent risk. But deterring imminent risk is complicated as they take into account a number of factors: age of child, nature of abuse, location of abuse, extent of physical injury, disability status, frequency, etc.

My wife and I do foster care and it is absolutely horrible what these kids are given back to/how many chances these "parents" have to get their kids back.

We received a call to take in three kids a bit back. Didnt do it as we were moving, etc. at the time but know the couple who did. The issue was that the kids were in bed with their mom and their dad. Dad's 12 year old daughter from another woman was there. Had sex with his daughter right in front of them and mom did nothing. Kids got taken for TWO days and sent back home. Disgusting. System is destroying these children every day.

What used to be the really disturbed kids are considered "normal" today. Foster parents are not allowed to truly parent and bio parents are given years of doing nothing until kids are finally given a chance.

[SF1900]

That is fucked up

Peado shit needs to be zero tolerance, one confirmed instance of peado activity even if its not a physical violation for example having child porn on a computer should result in the end of that persons freedom or preferably their life, peados are mentally fucked to be even cabable if such filth and are not going to learn from a brief prison stint, they are seriously disgusting disturbed individuals and will never change and should be extinct

The fact is, there is NO law that says you have to love your child or show your child affection. By law, you have to provide your child with shelter, food, clothing, medical treatment (and this is on a case-by-case basis) and an education--nothing else is required (that I can think of off the top of my head). Hell, you do not even have to be a good parent--you can be a horrible parent, but as long as your kid is not in imminent danger for physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or neglect, your child will remain in your custody.

A LOT of the time, courts will give parents MULTIPLE chances to get their act together and be good parents. There are even times when the child is sent home to an unfavorable environment, only to be killed at a later time period--but at that moment, the child was not in imminent risk, thus they were not removed from the home or offered services (though, even if the are not an imminent risk, a judge may decide the child can stay in the home, if the family gets services).

[Simple Simon]

I was on David Ickes forum a few years ago and a woman was crusading against social services taking kids, a bit of research turned out she had her kids taken away for neglect, (really bad case as I recall)

anyway, I pointed out the error of her ways and I got banned?

[SF1900]

My wife and I do foster care and it is absolutely horrible what these kids are given back to/how many chances these "parents" have to get their kids back.

We received a call to take in three kids a bit back. Didnt do it as we were moving, etc. at the time but know the couple who did. The issue was that the kids were in bed with their mom and their dad. Dad's 12 year old daughter from another woman was there. Had sex with his daughter right in front of them and mom did nothing. Kids got taken for TWO days and sent back home. Disgusting. System is destroying these children every day.

What used to be the really disturbed kids are considered "normal" today. Foster parents are not allowed to truly parent and bio parents are given years of doing nothing until kids are finally given a chance.

Thank you for confirming what I said. Idiot Shizzo thinks I am trolling.  

It's a systemic issues, which starts at the "top." The fact is, the courts want to keep children out of DCF or foster care. These systems are overwhelmed. DCF and/or case workers are burdened with TONS of cases! So, what they do, is pick the most severe cases and attend to those--those kids who are not at imminent risk, will be seen at a later time. However, any child's environment can go from relatively safe or okay, to imminent risk. By the time the DCF case worker gets to that home, it may or may not be too late. As you already stated, courts will give MULTIPLE chances to parents. They will do anything to keep the kids out of the system.

But, good on you for doing foster care!

The New York State Office of Children and Family Services used to recommend that CPS caseworkers handle no more than 15 cases at a time, a number it says it no longer uses as a hard and fast rule because there are so many different kinds of cases. 

Experts say caseworkers locally are handling way more than 15.

"You'll find caseworkers who consistently have cases that are in 20s, 30s, 40s," said John Rabish, who was a Monroe County Child Protective Services caseworker for 27 years.

[Shizzo]

Thank you for confirming what I said. Idiot Shizzo thinks I am trolling.  

It's a systemic issues, which starts at the "top." The fact is, the courts want to keep children out of DCF or foster care. These systems are overwhelmed. DCF and/or case workers are burdened with TONS of cases! So, what they do, is pick the most severe cases and attend to those--those kids who are not at imminent risk, will be seen at a later time. However, any child's environment can go from relatively safe or okay, to imminent risk. By the time the DCF case worker gets to that home, it may or may not be too late. As you already stated, courts will give MULTIPLE chances to parents. They will do anything to keep the kids out of the system.

But, good on you for doing foster care!

It also should go on a case by case basis. A man who impregnated a 12 year old girl via rape, should have absolutely no rights to that child whatsoever.

Any sane individual would also come to the same conclusion.

[SF1900]

It also should go on a case by case basis. A man who impregnated a 12 year old girl via rape, should have absolutely no rights to that child whatsoever.

Any sane individual would also come to the same conclusion.

I already said that I didn't agree with the courts decision, dingus. Try to keep up.

I am speaking purely from a factual standpoint regarding what happens in cases of abuse (child/family court). Again, I don't agree with A LOT of family/child law; however, from a factual standpoint, this is what often happens. As I already stated, A LOT of factors determine if a child should stay or be removed from a parents custody. In more clear cut cases like the one you posted, its obvious that father should have no rights to his child. Some states have stricter, more stringent laws, and some judges, are more strict regarding parent-child reunification.

[Shizzo]

I already said that I didn't agree with the courts decision, dingus. Try to keep up.

I am speaking purely from a factual standpoint regarding what happens in cases of abuse (child/family court). Again, I don't agree with A LOT of family/child law; however, from a factual standpoint, this is what often happens. As I already stated, A LOT of factors determine if a child should stay or be removed from a parents custody. In more clear cut cases like the one you posted, its obvious that father should have no rights to his child. Some states have stricter, more stringent laws, and some judges, are more strict regarding parent-child reunification.

Then stop beating around the bush, asshole. This isn't your normal case. It's horrifying.

[SF1900]

Then stop beating around the bush, asshole. This isn't your normal case. It's horrifying.

You never asked for our personal opinion on the matter (in the OP). You simply posted the article and I responded from a law-based perspective.