Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Dad forced disabled son to watch pornography, judge finally rules; mom's previous allegations not believed (Arkansas)

After FINALLY getting to the appellate court level, the judge determined that that father had in fact forced his son--then at 7 or 8 years of age--to watch pornography. He demurred, however, from finding evidence of sexual abuse per se. Which means that the daddy--identified only as "R.J." -- is still getting a break of sorts, given that these kinds of actions are strongly linked to pedophile grooming behavior.

Notice that once again, the mother's allegations were ignored and dismissed as the rantings of a vindictive wife in the process of divorcing her husband. Smart abusers COUNT on these misogynistic assumptions. making it almost impossible to divorce these guys without leaving your children at extreme risk. These fathers rights judges. custody evaluators, and social workers always accept the abuser daddy's word as gospel, and never suspect him of lying about his sexual abuse. Even when there is evidence other than the mother's word to back up the abuse. Though it's not real clear in this article, it's distinctly possible that the grooming/porn exposure took place during court-ordered visitation. Wouldn't surprise me.

I suspect there are plenty of these FR types who support child rapists at the Arkansas state circuit level. Partly because many are conservative and biased towards men, partly because they have probably received fathers-rights inspired "trainings" saying that mothers routinely lie about these things. When the actual research has demonstrated again and again that women very rarely fabricate such accusations.

Arkansas Father Allegedly Abused Disabled Son By Exposing Him To Porn

By Khier Casino, Mon, December 16, 2013

An Arkansas appellate court judge ruled that a father abused his disabled, 15-year-old son by forcing him to view pornography, overturning a lower court ruling.

According to Courthouse News Service, the Arkansas State Police Crimes against Children Division launched an investigation in February 2010, when the Department of Human Services got an anonymous tip that the autistic boy was being abused by his father, and forced to watch porn videos three different times.

There was no evidence of sexual abuse, but investigators determined the father, known only as “R.F.” in court documents, made his son watch porn and suggested he should be placed on the state’s Child Mistreatment Registry.

R.F. challenged this determination, but an administrative law judge found the agency had enough evidence to back up claims that the boy was exposed to pornography when he was 7 or 8 years old, while confined to a wheel chair. R.F. appealed to the state circuit court, which reversed the administrative law judge's decision due to lack of supported substantial evidence.

The DHS also appealed, and upon review of the case, Judge Phillip Whiteaker decided for the agency.

R.F. contended that the decision to place him on the registry was based on allegations his ex-wife made when they were going through a divorce, a time when she "held a grudge against him." The allegations have since been recanted by his ex-wife, R.F. said.

However, Judge Whiteaker found the father’s facts were falsified.

"While W.F. [as the ex-wife is identified in court documents] did express her desire that the matter be dropped by DHS, she fell far short from recanting her testimony," the judge wrote. "Rather, she clearly testified that R.F. forced R.R.F. [their son] to watch pornographic videos."

Whiteaker continued: "The ALJ found W.F. to be credible. The ALJ concluded that R.F. showed a video, which was purely sexual in nature with no identifiable story line or serious literary value, to R.R.F. when he was seven or eight years and was wheelchair bound and could not leave of his own volition.

"We find that substantial evidence supports the agency decision and that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the proof before the administrative tribunal was so nearly undisputed that fair-minded persons could not reach its conclusion. Additional, these findings, as stated by the ALJ, fall squarely under the definition of sexual abuse under the child-maltreatment statute."

Under Arkansas statute, sexual abuse means the forced watching of pornography or live sexual activity by a person 18 years of age of younger.