WARNING: GRAPHIC CHILD ABUSE CONTENT exposing--again--government protection of child abusers who hold positions of power or prestige. The graphic image contained in this blog has been previously published in the Village Voice, on my website at profanejustice.org, and other publications over the past ten years. I have been turned in to the FBI for kiddie porn in an attempt to cover up this case and silence me, and the FBI has investigated and determined the photo, while graphic, does not depict kiddie porn. The child is clothed; the father, who was an NYPD officer, is naked. If that offends you, do not continue to read this blog post.
According to an opinion piece written by William Donahue, citing his concern for the welfare of the four-year-old son of Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin, he recites his participation in this investigation after seeing this New York Post issue covering Weiner's sexting investigation:
|This news report did not trigger a child welfare investigation.|
- August 31: Citing the stories in the New York Post, [regarding Weiner's sexting with a minor] I file a formal complaint with the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), the New York branch of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services. I ask them to investigate Weiner for sexually abusing Jordan.
- August 31: The Daily Mail Online, after questioning a spokesman from the ACS, cites my intervention as the trigger that launched the investigation.
- September 22: The New York Police Department (NYPD) commences an investigation of Weiner. While looking for child pornography and related matters relevant to my request—I asked for a probe of Weiner on the grounds that he may have sexually abused his son—the police found hundreds of thousands of emails sent by Abedin to her colleagues, including to Hillary Clinton (on her private server). The NYPD then contacted the FBI.
- September 26: I receive a phone call from ACS saying my request for an investigation of Weiner was approved and was underway.
Breitbart confirms ACS is investigating Weiner on suspicions of child sexual abuse of his son.
What strikes me about this situation is how differently Weiner is treated compared to what every other parent in this country faces in similar circumstances,
Don't get me wrong, I think that Weiner's alleged perverted dealings with minor children are a major red flag as to the safety of his son, one that should have triggered an investigation by ACS long before Donahue called in his report.The police routinely refer suspicions of non-criminal child abuse to the local child welfare agency for investigation. Evidently, the NYPD didn't do that in this case. The question is: Why didn't they?
I have seen so many cases where the children were removed from their parents who were accused and investigated on far less evidence than found on Weiner, whose children demonstrated the exact level of harm/injury evidenced by Weiner's son, e.g. no evidence of injury or harm. Many of these parents find themselves in the outrageous position of having to prove their innocence, and have ultimately have lost their children to termination of parental rights proceedings because they could not prove a negative.
The average American would not be able to keep custody of their child under the same circumstances. The child would be placed in stranger foster care. The average American would not be afforded the presumption under the law that the non-offending parent was still fit to maintain custody of the child, and that the offender should be removed from the family home before the child is removed.
The average American parent would not be able to even see their child until they jumped through numerous moving hoops, which could last years. Meanwhile the child welfare agency would be allowed unlimited and unsupervised access to the child, who is coerced to recite the narrative that supports the agency's narrative, thereby validating the case.
It appears that Weiner's son is not in foster care. Is this fair? Or is it an example of a different set of laws for people in power? I have seen this kind of protectionism before in New York City, so it would seem that there are two sets of laws when it comes to child welfare.
In fact, ACS actually protected a police officer who was caught and photographed in bed naked with his young daughter. There was no valid investigation into this incident, despite the fact that the photo and story was published in the Village Voice and featured on local cable access television.
This photo shows father and child on the child’s bed. The man is reportedly her father, Gerard Joseph Murray. While you cannot see it because of the masking concealing the child's identity, the child’s eyes are open and she is looking at her mother, who is taking the photo. Her mother had reportedly caught the father masturbating here only a moment earlier, and she backed out of the room, grabbed her camera and went back to take this photo. Reportedly, this child has consistently disclosed sexual abuse for a number of years until she was placed in the custody of her father by order of the Family court based on the recommendation of New York City Administration for Children’s Services. The mother was jailed for publishing this photo and her story in attempt to protect her child from her father. This photo is reprinted with the mother's permission.
The best interests of the child do not matter when it would mean a parent who enjoys some kind of privileged would be investigated for child abuse, no matter what the letter of the law says. I've seen this for years. The best interests of the child play second fiddle to the best interests of the State and the privileged. Anthony Weiner's son is not subject to protection by the state if, for no other reason than the fact that his mother is a close aide of Hillary Clinton, none other than the promoter of "it takes a village to raise a child" and strong advocate of child welfare intervention. I hope the irony of this association isn't lost on the reader. More indications of different standards for different people.
I am also disturbed by the fact that strangers butting their noses into family situations, lacking any proof of abuse or harm to the child, is presented as representing the high moral ground.
A comment to the Donahue opinion piece by Regula | November 3, 2016 at 1:05 pm | says, "Thank you for intervening on behalf of the child."
People who intervene without actually witnessing child abuse as defined in the law are not doing good. Just because someone disagrees with what a parent is doing doesn't make it okay to report it to the child welfare agency.
As an example, I cite this post which Burch wanted to go viral. The person reports this to the police, and the police respond rightly, that what this father is doing isn't against the law. Burch does not know why the father is restraining the child this way, but I would presume it's because she did not obey his verbal commands. I commend this father for finding this non-abusive creative and undoubtedly effective method to reinforce obedience. I say this as:
- a mother who took the time and effort to make sure her children learned to be polite rather than annoying, screaming brats in public, out of consideration for others, and
- a patron of public stores, restaurants and other public venues where parents are deaf to the irritating and obnoxious screaming of their children, or unable/unwilling to ensure their children do not annoy others, disrupt their meals or otherwise cause a nuisance or danger.
|Child restrained by her hair|
Erika Burch added 7 new photos.
ME AND ROBERT ARE IN WALMART IN CLEVELAND TEXAS GETTING LUNCHABLES FOR OUR BABIES FOR SCHOOL. ROBERT SAID "DO YOU SEE WHAT THAT GUY IS DOING TO THAT LITTLE GIRL?" I TURNED AROUND TO THIS THIS POS DRAGGING THIS LITTLE GIRL BY THE HAIR OF HER HEAD!! HE HAD HER HAIR WRAPPED AROUND THE BUGGY DRAGGING HER! SHE IS BEGGING HIM TO STOP! SHE WAS SAYING "PLEASE STOP, I PROMISE I WONT DO IT AGAIN PLEASE STOP!" I TOOK MY PHONE OUT SNAPPED PICTURES AND THEN TOLD HIM TO LET THE LITTLE GIRLS HAIR GO! HE TOLD ME TO MIND MY OWN BUSINESS! I SAID NO IM NOT! RIGHT NOW THIS LITTLE GIRL IS MY BUSINESS AND YOU NEED TO LET HER HAIR GO NOW! HE SAID "I GREW UP JUST FINE!" I CALLED THE POLICE! JUST SO HAPPENED A COP WAS IN WALMART. HE CAME RUNNING AS WE ARE EXCHANGING TERRIBLE WORDS WITH THIS BASTARD! LONG STORY SHORT. THE OFFICER SAID IF IT WAS UP TO HIM THE GUY WAS GOING TO JAIL, HIS SERGEANT WAS COMING AND HE HAD TO WAIT ON HIM! WELL HIS SERGEANT TOLD HIM THAT THEY COULDNT TAKE HIM TO JAIL BECAUSE THERE WERE NO VISIBLE BRUISES NOR WAS HER HAIR MISSING!! THIS IS AFTER I SHOW HIM PICTURES OF THIS IDIOT DRAGGING THIS BABY PULLING HER HAIR!! HE SAID IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE ABBUSE THERE HAD TO BE BODILY INJURY TO THE CHILD!
PEOPLE THIS IS WHATS WRONG WITH THIS WORLD TODAY! NOBODY STANDS UP FOR ANYONE NOT EVEN CHILDREN!! NOW THIS BABY HAD TO GO HOME WITH THIS MONSTER THINKING THAT NOBODY CARED ABOUT HER AND ITS OKAY FOR THIS ANIMAL TO PULL HER BY THE HAIR OF HER HEAD!!!! IM ATTACHING PICTURES AND A CARD WITH THE CASE NUMBER! IF YOU CARE ABOUT CHILDREN AND CHILD ABBUSE STOP AND SHARE THIS AND CALL IT IN TO CPS!!!!!
THIS IS BEYOND WRONG AND SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT IT!!!
THE SERGEANT IN CLEVELAND TX SAID " HE HAS THE RIGHT TO DISCIPLINE HIS CHILDREN!" WHAT IN THE HELL!!!! DRAGGING A LITTLE GIRL BY THE HAIR IF HER HEAD IS NOT PROPER DISCIPLINE!!___________________________________________________________________________
This is shocking, Burch is inciting others to break the law. Yes, it is a crime to make a false report of child abuse in every state. This child was not endangered, not injured, and therefore, not in need of intervention. Suck it up, dude, and let others correct their children as they see fit, no matter how distasteful you find it. It is entirely improper for someone like you to undermine parental authority in front of a child. It sends the message to the child that they don't have to respect parental authority and makes you a real jerk. Burch, you didn't learn the important lesson: Mind your own business. The police were right, you are wrong.
Protected children are children who are removed from their family, placed with strangers, and traumatized by that removal. Studies have shown that warehousing children in foster homes harms them more than leaving them in their own homes. If you don't see actual abuse as defined in the law, butt out. If you don't care to learn the law before you make a report, butt out.
Know that if you report someone for child abuse, you cause trauma and harm to the child you are trying to protect. Maybe you don't care about that, which makes you a child protection hypocrite. Maybe you don't believe it, but your belief isn't necessary, I speak as a former foster child. The reality is that all children in foster care suffer grievously simply due to the removal.