Thursday, September 06, 2007

Gay foster parents

Incredibly sad, thoroughly disgusting and totally infuriating:
A homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse vulnerable boys
in their care because social workers feared being accused of discrimination if
they investigated complaints, an inquiry concluded yesterday.

Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey were one of the first homosexual couples in the country to be officially approved as foster parents. They looked after 18 children in only 15 months. With no previous convictions, they came across as respectable men who simply wanted to help boys with a variety of problems. In reality, they were
paedophiles, who repeatedly abused the children in their care (See Michelle Malkin for the rest of her post).

6 comments:

John said...

I wonder if the esteemed (cough! cough!) Michelle Malkin gets as worked up over heterosexual child abusers. (Actually, I can probably answer that: only if the heterosexual abusers are immigrants.)

Well, here's her (and your) chance. Turns out a top Mitt Romney fundraiser is named in a federal lawsuit charging that students of the "behavior modification" schools with ties to WWASPS [schools he founded] were subjected to "physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse." The suit had 140 defendants at last count....The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Utah, alleges brazen acts of child abuse, including that students of the various programs had been forced to eat their own vomit, clean toilets with a toothbrush and brush their teeth afterward, were chained or locked in dog cages, kicked, beaten, thrown and slammed to the ground and forced into sexual acts.

Robert Lichfield raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Romney and other Republicans. The Democrats have given back Hsu's money. Will the Republicans do the same with Lichfield's?

(Haven't heard about this? Probably not your fault. The "liberal media" doesn't seem interested in reporting it.)

Dennis said...

John, I would certainly agree with you that if the allegations against this WWASPS group are true, someone ought to fry.

Before you organize a lynch mob against Litchfield, however, there are some things you might want to consider.

1) The charges have not been substantiated and he has not been convicted of anything.

2) The charges are being completely and vigorously denied.

3) Litchfield founded this group which is apparently for troubled teens who have every motive for lying through their teeth and apparently great capacity for causing trouble.

4) In homes dealing with troubled teens, "asking nicely" probably doesn't always work and just about anything beyond that could be called abusive by creative lawyers. I'm sure state-run reform schools are not always nice places either.

5) The fact that Litchfield founded this group does not mean that he had anything whatsoever to do with the abuse (if there was any) or that he even had any knowledge of such abuse (there were many schools under this umbrella group).

6) For all we know, the moral of this story may be, don't try to help anyone because if your venture goes sour you may be held personally liable and get sued!

7) I think the Hillary campaign and the Democratic National Committee should have known that they had a convicted criminal working on their behalf. I'm not sure how it was humanly possible for the Romney campaign to have known about the charges against Lichfield until the charges were actually filed--and then they promptly dismissed him.

I'm not trying to defend Litchfield here--if he's guilty he outght to be punished to the fullest extent of the law--but I'm just pointing out that you are comparing someone (Litchfield) who has merely been linked to an organization which has some member schools that are being accused-- with convicted criminals like Norman Hsu and the two convicted child molesters to which Michelle Malkin referred. I don't think that is a fair comparision.

John said...

You make some credible points, and you make some disturbing points (such as implying that the acts in question here - students "forced to eat their own vomit, clean toilets with a toothbrush and brush their teeth afterward, were chained or locked in dog cages, kicked, beaten, thrown and slammed to the ground and forced into sexual acts" - is simply going beyond "asking nicely").

I'm not going to debate each point with you. But take a minute and honestly ask yourself what you would be saying if this guy was a Democrat. I think we both know the answer.

Dennis said...

John,

I wrote, 4) In homes dealing with troubled teens, "asking nicely" probably doesn't always work and just about anything beyond that could be called abusive by creative lawyers. I'm sure state-run reform schools are not always nice places either.

I wasn't saying that "being forced to eat vomit" was just beyond "being asked nicely". I was saying that even measures used by state-run reform schools to discipline their prisoners could be termed abusive by creative lawyers.

And I think you would genuinely be surprised at the number of potentially anti-Democrat/anti-Left articles I have passed up just because the charges were not substantiated.

John said...

I wasn't saying that "being forced to eat vomit" was just beyond "being asked nicely". I was saying that even measures used by state-run reform schools to discipline their prisoners could be termed abusive by creative lawyers.

How is that relevant to this story? Do you really think the vile accusations made here are just because of "creative lawyers"?

Dennis said...

John,

1) I think its possible that some or all of the allegations are true. 2) I think it is possible that some or all of the allegations are flat out lies by very troubled teens who want to stick it to authority. 3) I think that even the kinds of discipline that would normally be used by state correctional agencies could be termed "abusive" by creative lawyers trying to win a case. 4) I think a number of combinations of the above are possible. 5) I think it is probable that Romney had absolutely no knowledge of any of it.

Finally, most importantly (and sadly), I think you effectively managed to sidetrack the tragedy-- highlighted in my original post-- of the boys who were repeatedly abused because social workers were afraid of being accused of discrimination!
These boys were the victims of political correctness. Unless we face this problem, we have not hope of solving it.