How the heck is this legal???

[Joker]

Sex Offender Gets Custody

 

This is a four year old girl in FL and a judge legally gave custody of her to a registered sex offender who is not even her biological father. :confused: I always thought it was illegal for a child sex offender to be too near children. Don't they have laws about how close they can live to schools and such? Yet they send a four year old home with him. I saw the stories lately and how they were going to court today and this is the latest headline. It says they're going to protest at the courthouse. I hope someone steps in before he hurts her. I'm sickened and angry.

[tadbhoward]

Before reading the story I was thinking that he could have gotten that label for a multitude of sex related crimes that had nothing to do with children, but it says he committed a crime against a child so I am scratching my head on that one.

[Impish]

In fact, divorce papers filed by Coleman note that he knew Crews was pregnant with another man's child. Miranda was that child.

Because Crews and Coleman were still married at the time of Miranda's birth, he is considered her legal father.

Miranda's biological dad as well as other family members are fighting to get her back.

:banghead:

[Joker]

In fact, divorce papers filed by Coleman note that he knew Crews was pregnant with another man's child. Miranda was that child.

Because Crews and Coleman were still married at the time of Miranda's birth, he is considered her legal father.

Miranda's biological dad as well as other family members are fighting to get her back.

:banghead:

 

Yep! So, the state of FL this week will let Casey Anthony out of jail and sent a 4-yr old to live with a child sex offender. Makes no d*** sense!:confused:

[NanceXToo]

What a sickening story. All of it.

 

Did you read that the reason he is a registered sex offender is because of the fact that he was with this little girl's mother to begin with? She was 14 when she met him- he was 38. He got her pregnant, so her mother signed permission for her to marry this guy (lovely). But he got arrested and pleaded guilty to a sex crime involving a child under 16.

 

They did stay together and had three children together. Then she got pregnant with this little girl, Miranda, and left him; he filed for divorce saying the child wasn't his, but then requested custody when the mother died.

 

The whole thing is pretty twisted!

 

But I sure do hope that he is not a danger to a 4 year old child while all of this plays out.

[WeeBeaks]

What a sickening story. All of it.

 

Did you read that the reason he is a registered sex offender is because of the fact that he was with this little girl's mother to begin with? She was 14 when she met him- he was 38. He got her pregnant, so her mother signed permission for her to marry this guy (lovely). But he got arrested and pleaded guilty to a sex crime involving a child under 16.

 

They did stay together and had three children together. Then she got pregnant with this little girl, Miranda, and left him; he filed for divorce saying the child wasn't his, but then requested custody when the mother died.

 

The whole thing is pretty twisted!

 

But I sure do hope that he is not a danger to a 4 year old child while all of this plays out.

 

How does it work that he was charged? Wouldn't someone have to charge him of the crime, and it sounds like the parent's didn't (crazy in and of itself)? Or just if the police hear of it by any means they charge him even though he married her.

 

What a crazy case. My prayers for the little girl. Even if she is not abused, he doesn't sound like someone at first glance that would be a great parent for her.

[Aura]

38 and 14? Aggravated assault? Domestic violence?

 

And he still gets custody? There are enough laws and loopholes that the judge couldv'e found a way around this if he wanted to. Was the alternative of placing with her with her biological father that much worse?! Or (more likely, IMO) was there another reason.

 

What in the world is the matter with our legal system?! Seriously, what is their point? What are they trying to accomplish? Convicting and locking away offenders sure doesn't seem to be it. Neither does protecting the innocent.

[NanceXToo]

How does it work that he was charged? Wouldn't someone have to charge him of the crime, and it sounds like the parent's didn't (crazy in and of itself)? Or just if the police hear of it by any means they charge him even though he married her.

 

What a crazy case. My prayers for the little girl. Even if she is not abused, he doesn't sound like someone at first glance that would be a great parent for her.

 

That I don't know, it didn't say how it came about that he got charged even once the mother gave permission for them to marry. I sure as hell wouldn't give my 14 year old permission to marry a 38 year old who knocked her up, though. I'd have his butt thrown in jail and I'd file for an order of protection and I'd keep my teen (and her child) as far from him as possible.

 

I'm assuming he's already got custody of the other three children they had together so I don't know as this one makes more of a difference- I don't think he's looking to abuse a toddler/preschooler (I hope)! But he had no qualms about having sex with a 14 year old, so, ick, regardless!

[Joker]

I'm assuming he's already got custody of the other three children they had together so I don't know as this one makes more of a difference- I don't think he's looking to abuse a toddler/preschooler (I hope)! But he had no qualms about having sex with a 14 year old, so, ick, regardless!

 

I really hope he hasn't harmed his own children but this little girl isn't his and he hasn't had her for the first four years of her life. She's been living with her grandparents. I'm just shocked with his record that he can have any of the children and especially be given this one who is not his.

[Birdwinglips]

This story has so many confusing twists and turns but is an OBVIOUS mistake on the judges part.

[LauraGB]

There isn't enough information. In 1997 (14 years ago), was the crime sleeping with his teenage girlfriend (was he 18 and she 16?). What is the domestic violence charge exactly? My immediate reaction to the story is a giant HE!! NO!, but without all the information, it's hard to form an opinion.

[texasmama]

This will be likely be overturned. I once saw two brothers in therapy who were in foster care and had been removed from their parents because father was a registered sex offender and mom chose to stay with him rather than to keep custody of her kids. Sometimes judges do bizarre things, but this will be overturned, IMO.

[Swirl]

Strange.

I can't find in any of the articles where it says who has custody of the other three children. If it is the dad who has them, could that be the reason the judge gave him custody- to keep the siblings together?

Edited July 15, 2011 by Swirl

[Mommy22alyns]

This is just disgusting.

[peachskittles]

There isn't enough information. In 1997 (14 years ago), was the crime sleeping with his teenage girlfriend (was he 18 and she 16?). What is the domestic violence charge exactly? My immediate reaction to the story is a giant HE!! NO!, but without all the information, it's hard to form an opinion.

 

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=210825

 

"Manning said the legal mess began in 1997 when Crews Coleman was 14 and met Donald Coleman, 38. "Next thing I know, I've got a grandchild on the way."

 

When Coleman and the teen married in May 1997, Manning signed off on it because of the baby on the way. "I signed for them to get married for that reason only."

 

But Coleman was arrested, and court records show he pleaded guilty to a sex crime involving a child under 16. He got probation and had to register as a sex offender. The Colemans had three children together, but in 2005 Manning said her daughter left him."

[Dobela]

I wonder what information was given in court, and how it was presented. I have seen foster kids go home with dangerous family members because the social workers and state attorneys did a terrible job of presenting/representing the child and the family situation. I have seen them deliberately withhold information. I have also seen kids go home with the same people who sexally abused them, or with a parent who killed another parent, because of crazy loopholes. The judge can only rule on the information provided by the attorneys and witnesses. He may know all sorts of crazy things about this guy, but can't use the information unless it becomes part of the court record.

 

Yeah, it is yucky that he married a 14 year old and had sex with her. 150 years ago that happened more often than we would like to think. But it doesn't mean that he will do it again with his child.

[Impish]

I don't get why he'd WANT custody of the child. It seems he hasn't been a part of raising her, she's not biologically his, so why would he want to raise a child he's a stranger to?

 

I seriously have issues with what his motivation may be.

[amo_mea_filiis.]

Anyone watch the video where they went to his house? The woman who answered the door was, strange to be nice!

[Joker]

 

Here's an update which makes little sense. Supposedly the judge gave him custody because (A) grandma was keeping the child from him - hmmm, she's not his child and (B) grandma has child neglect charges. The charges appear to be from the same time period that he was charged so maybe the state charged them both? I feel so horrible for this little girl.

[Dobela]

Here's an update which makes little sense. Supposedly the judge gave him custody because (A) grandma was keeping the child from him - hmmm, she's not his child and (B) grandma has child neglect charges. The charges appear to be from the same time period that he was charged so maybe the state charged them both? I feel so horrible for this little girl.

Biologically she is not his child. Legally, she is his child. Like an adoption of sorts. His name is on the birth certificate so he is legally responsible. My children are adopted. I am not the biological parent. However, my name has been placed on their birthcertificates showing I am legally responsible for their well being.

[Excelsior! Academy]

I don't get why he'd WANT custody of the child. It seems he hasn't been a part of raising her, she's not biologically his, so why would he want to raise a child he's a stranger to?

 

I seriously have issues with what his motivation may be.

:iagree:

[Joker]

Biologically she is not his child. Legally, she is his child. Like an adoption of sorts. His name is on the birth certificate so he is legally responsible. My children are adopted. I am not the biological parent. However, my name has been placed on their birthcertificates showing I am legally responsible for their well being.

 

I don't see this as the same thing. He was divorcing the mom because of this child. I worry why he wants her now when she has grandparents and a bio dad who want her.

[Dobela]

I don't see this as the same thing. He was divorcing the mom because of this child. I worry why he wants her now when she has grandparents and a bio dad who want her.

Honestly, I think that some of this is a power play on his part. Revenge maybe. But motive is different from legalities. Legally, she is his daughter because someone put his name on the birth certificate. For the biological father to get custody this man would have to give up legal right to her (just like an adoption) because his name is on the birth certificate. Was it a bad choice to put his name on the birth certificate? Absolutely. I don't understand why that happened. However it doesn't change how things have to happen legally.

[Joker]

Honestly, I think that some of this is a power play on his part. Revenge maybe. But motive is different from legalities. Legally, she is his daughter because someone put his name on the birth certificate. For the biological father to get custody this man would have to give up legal right to her (just like an adoption) because his name is on the birth certificate. Was it a bad choice to put his name on the birth certificate? Absolutely. I don't understand why that happened. However it doesn't change how things have to happen legally.

 

I know and it brings me right back around to the fact that I can't believe the bio dad needs anything from the other guy when he is a registered child sex offender. I really didn't think they were able to have close contact (as in live with) children. It bothers me they can. I know some get the label and don't deserve it and I hope how we label those can be changed. I don't think he was given the label wrongly when he was 38 and slept with a 14 yr old.

[texasmama]

When someone has a child while married, the husband becomes the legal father whether or not he is the biological father. The biological father in this case can petition for a paternity test. If the test shows that the chilld is not biologically related to the legal father but is biologically related to the biological father in question, she can be released to the biological father. The sex offender legal father is also potentially risking going to prison or having other sanctions by breaking his sex offender terms of not having contact with children. In that case, the child would likely go to foster care until the legal mess can be sorted out. It is difficult to predict, though, because cases very so much.

[JennyD]

From what I can tell, I don't think the judge necessarily had much of a choice. He is her father -- under Florida law a married woman's husband is the presumptive father of the child. (Here is the famous Supreme Court case upholding this principle: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_746). And when if comes down to a parent versus a nonparent (i.e., the grandmother) the question is whether the parent is fit, not whether the best interests of the child would be served by being placed with the nonparent. (Here is the Supreme Court memorably slapping down a Washington statute that allowed courts to permit visitation by nonparents simply on a finding that it would be in the best interests of the child: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZS.html)

 

So the only question is whether he is an unfit parent. And I'm not sure that having married the child's mother at 16 would automatically make that true. Maybe, maybe no. But in any event, the article is wrong when it describes the girl as "another man's child." As one of the PP said, she may have a different biological parent (who presumably did not take the necessarily action when the girl was born to establish himself as her father, and that ship may well have sailed a couple of years ago, as in the Michael H v. Gerald D case I linked to above) but Coleman is her legal father.

Edited July 16, 2011 by JennyD

[NanceXToo]

So the only question is whether he is an unfit parent. And I'm not sure that having married the child's mother at 16 would automatically make that true. Maybe, maybe no.

 

She was 14, not 16. Just saying. I agree with your post though.

[SweetMissMagnolia]

:banghead: don't you just love our laws/legal system.........ugh how frustrating...

[stephanier.1765]

Did you see the update? This is the judge's reasoning according to court documents:

 

The motion said Manning has a history of arrests: In 1995, she was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a child, but the case was later dropped.

 

In 1997, Manning was charged with child neglect. Around the same time, Manning's then 14-year-old daughter, who is Miranda's mother, got pregnant by Coleman who was 38-years-old. Manning got probation.

[Harriet Vane]

Did you see the update? This is the judge's reasoning according to court documents:

 

The motion said Manning has a history of arrests: In 1995, she was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a child, but the case was later dropped.

 

In 1997, Manning was charged with child neglect. Around the same time, Manning's then 14-year-old daughter, who is Miranda's mother, got pregnant by Coleman who was 38-years-old. Manning got probation.

 

What a cesspool.

 

That said, it's still entirely inappropriate for a sex offender to have custody of any child.

[stephanier.1765]

What a cesspool.

 

That said, it's still entirely inappropriate for a sex offender to have custody of any child.

 

That's what I thought too. So she's either with trash or with perverted trash. Lovely.

[OrganicAnn]

One thing needed is to change laws that assume that the father of a child is the man married to the mother at the time a child is born. Those laws were made before modern DNA testing and when such ideas that the husband was not the father was considered a social embarrassment.