8 year old rape victim disowned by family
July 26th 2009 04:43
It's an interesting world we live in when parents are legally able to ABANDON their own child. A child who has been raped and needs all the support she can get from her supposedly loving parents. Someone sterilise them please, this is ridiculous.
Police aren't even charging these pathetic excuses for human beings/parents, instead Phoenix Police Sargent Adam Hill says that "they didn't abandon the child" and "committed no crime. They just didn't support the child."
That's nice, do they have any other children in their 'loving care?' I hope CPS takes them away too, these parents deserve to be left with nothing, only fitting considering they have left their 8 year old daughter with nothing.
It is heartening to see the offers of money and adoption pouring in, I hope the little girl gets over this harrowing experience and finds a loving home and that the perpetrators, who are merely children themselves, are harshly punished for their actions.
This story is disgusting enough without the parents adding to the disgusting behaviour. To think they're going to get off and have CPS take over their part in parenting this little girl, with no ramifications is simply mind-boggling.
Source: news.com.au
Police aren't even charging these pathetic excuses for human beings/parents, instead Phoenix Police Sargent Adam Hill says that "they didn't abandon the child" and "committed no crime. They just didn't support the child."
That's nice, do they have any other children in their 'loving care?' I hope CPS takes them away too, these parents deserve to be left with nothing, only fitting considering they have left their 8 year old daughter with nothing.
It is heartening to see the offers of money and adoption pouring in, I hope the little girl gets over this harrowing experience and finds a loving home and that the perpetrators, who are merely children themselves, are harshly punished for their actions.
This story is disgusting enough without the parents adding to the disgusting behaviour. To think they're going to get off and have CPS take over their part in parenting this little girl, with no ramifications is simply mind-boggling.
Source: news.com.au
| 72 |
| Vote |
Comment by Dianna G
I Wish This Was 42
Fictional Worlds
I don't know anything about the laws there-but the laws here mean the parents don't get any trouble. Except maybe future children being taken. Children are 'objects' pretty much in the eyes of the law, not people. And as long as they called children's aid or whatever they have where this went on, and didn't just kick the kid out on the street... they're well within their rights. It's disgusting.
Anyone under 16 is a possession of their legal guardian.
~Dianna
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
The only good thing is that Shariah Law wasn't involved. Rape victims are routinely killed, regardless of their age.
Comment by Pat
Books Are For Losers
Comment by Justicia
A Word From The Wise
Celebwise
Pat, I'm not sure about your comment. I referenced it because it's an opinion piece based on a news item I saw on that site, that's all.
Comment by Kristin Wolgemuth
Poetry Lighthouse
What's in a word
Time to Get Up Club
Comment by Pat
Books Are For Losers
Comment by Pat
Books Are For Losers
For instance, the news.com.au story doesn't go on to discuss the father, whose been quoted as saying that he denies that the child was ever disowned, and is upset that he has had his child taken away from the next 3 months while investigations take place.
Now, I'm not saying that that's the true story, but it's unresolved at the very least. But I wouldn't stress friends, plenty of people don't mind a bit of uninformed opinion based on half the facts.
Comment by Justicia
A Word From The Wise
Celebwise
Well Pat, news.com.au is shock, horror, not the only source who published the story with those facts. I could name more than handful of other sites with exactly the same half facts, as you say. I noticed a different version on AAP AFTER the original was published, but again, one side says it's true and the other doesn't. I think the father probably did say that initially, and if he's changed his mind, good on him. However, if you believe you are better informed, then just don't read it. Quite simple really.