www.ditl.org

As Tyyr and I mentioned, he created child porn. So what's wrong with supervised, non-overnight visitation? BTW - I have never looked at porn involving 5-year-olds.

Mikey wrote:As Tyyr and I mentioned, he created child porn. So what's wrong with supervised, non-overnight visitation? BTW - I have never looked at porn involving 5-year-olds.

As has any parent of any child I'm sure, but I'm thinking this was more than that.

Also, I think that no visitation rights wouldn't be wrong, and a good idea would have been the non-overnight supervision.

Mikey wrote:As Tyyr and I mentioned, he created child porn. So what's wrong with supervised, non-overnight visitation? BTW - I have never looked at porn involving 5-year-olds.

It doesn't say anything about five year olds, it could have been 16 year olds, which I at least would consider rather a different thing.

Not that I approve of pre 18 porn. But the laws regarding teens are in place to prevent exploitation, as opposed to some form of mental illness.

Now if he was filming 5 year olds, I'd consider him messed up, but even that doesn't neccessarily translate into wanting to do any of that to his daughters. My point with the 18 year olds is that many fathers have viewed some 18 year old porn, but they don't violate or peep on their own daughters.

sunnyside wrote:

Mikey wrote:As Tyyr and I mentioned, he created child porn. So what's wrong with supervised, non-overnight visitation? BTW - I have never looked at porn involving 5-year-olds.

It doesn't say anything about five year olds, it could have been 16 year olds, which I at least would consider rather a different thing.

Not that I approve of pre 18 porn. But the laws regarding teens are in place to prevent exploitation, as opposed to some form of mental illness.

Now if he was filming 5 year olds, I'd consider him messed up, but even that doesn't neccessarily translate into wanting to do any of that to his daughters. My point with the 18 year olds is that many fathers have viewed some 18 year old porn, but they don't violate or peep on their own daughters.

And some do...

Your point being?

1) The guy made kiddie porn, he is a hard core child abuser.

2) Most cases of sexual abuse are perpetrated by relatives, close family members.

Statistically this guy is very likely a threat to his daughters.

While he is, in a statistical sense, a high threat risk, he is still the father. I and others may think he's disgusting (Believe me, I do) but he at the very least has the right to see the child. I think some of the problem is what people believe his rights are in this case. I, on a personal level, think that because he is the biological father he has the right to at least see the children. Correct me if I am mistaken Mikey, but I believe you disagree. Purely personal, and...I know from my point of view, I'll be damned if i'm changing it!

That said, the Judge has been ridiculously lenient. And is putting way to much emphasis on his status as parent, and not on the safety of the children.

Supervised visits. In daylight. With plenty of security.

Not overnight. That is just way to high a risk.

Who is the other adult supposed to be staying in there? Is was asked before but that's a critical question.

Yeah, it is, it said that it was a female, but is it his girlfriend, is it a friend of the kids, I wonder.

He's a risk to children so he shouldn't be allowed around children, end of story.