What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Brian Williams may be charged for helping Rifqa Bary

A couple of notes at the beginning of this post. First, I'm experimenting with accepting comments to the post. In the past, I've not allowed comments to my posts on the Rifqa Bary situation, because there was a Muslim commentator that came in and wasted my time, and my purpose is to inform sympathetic people, not to argue with Muslim (or liberal) commentators. If I do end up closing comments on this post, I ask my good readers not to take it amiss.

Second, I am linking to Atlas Shrugs, because that is the only place that I have found reports on this most recent development. I have my problems with the site, most notably that Atlas has an extremely tacky banner (to put it mildly) and also, even more seriously, that she has a habit of publishing distinctly inappropriate videos and content in her attempt to show the horrors of things like Muslim persecution of Christians, etc. One never knows when going to the site what bloody picture might come up in one's face while looking for the entry one actually wants to read. So if readers want to avoid the Atlas site, you can just, er, get the info from me and trust me on it.

The present situation with Rifqa Bary is this: Her parents are trying to have her dependency declaration (which was a victory for her) thrown out by the court and to have the matter sent to trial instead. A number of legal opinions in threads and posts I have seen indicate that it seems unlikely that the judge will do this. Atlas is not, in my opinion, wholly accurate on this. She seems to believe that the parents can simply "renege" on the dependency arrangement, whereas in fact it is up to the court to decide whether to reverse the dependency ruling, and the court may well just dismiss the parents' motion. This would be a good thing, because right now, as a dependent of the State of Ohio, Rifqa is not being sent back to her parents against her will, whereas if the matter went to trial, the question of her being sent back to them would be reopened. Here, too, I think Geller is way off-base in believing that somehow a trial would be helpful by getting things out into the open. A dependency declaration is a dependency declaration. We have one now; let's hold onto it.

This most recent development is a very disturbing thing, though, for the young man named Brian Williams who baptized Rifqa. He also drove her to the bus station, at her urgent request, when she originally ran away from her parents last summer. He now believes that he is going to be arrested and charged with "interfering with custody" (that is, her parents' custody over her) and "contributing to the unruliness of a minor." Evidently once Rifqa pled guilty to being "unruly" in exchange for dependency--that is, she admitted that she broke her parents' rules by running away from them--this opened the way to charging Williams with contributing to that "unruliness" by driving her to the bus station.

Williams is being pressured to plead guilty to a lesser charge. (I haven't been able to figure out if this is the lesser of the two charges above or some third charge not yet named.) He is determined not to do so, and if he is tried, we could get that "bringing the truth out into the open" thing in the course of his trial without any risk to Rifqa's dependency. Presumably she would be called as a witness. The "interference with custody" law even carries explicit provision for an "affirmative defense" that one acted to protect the well-being of the child. Williams does not want to cop a plea. We should pray for him.

Comments (38)

Williams is being pressured to plead guilty to a lesser charge... He is determined not to do so...

Good for him. Even if the plea deal results in a consequence that is negligible at best (which is may or may not be), good on him for his refusal and his willingness to stand up when most would sit down. I hope I'd have such strength.

Lydia,

It seems to me that if the potential charges against Mr. Williams carry the possibility of an affirmative defense - the dependency declaration should be defense' exhibit one. Unfortunately, as we have all seen, the Florida courts don't always follow their own state laws, let alone a decision granted in another state . . .

Kamilla

Williams and the case are in Ohio, Kamilla. If it were in Florida I have some doubts as to whether he would be in danger of being charged. The Lorenzes, who probably technically could receive similar charges, are in Florida, and their "offense" (of harboring her for two weeks without telling the police) occurred in Florida, and they do not seem similarly on the verge of arrest. Thus far, it looks to me like the Florida authorities and police are exercising prosecutorial discretion but the Ohio authorities are not.

It looks to me like only the "interfering with custody" charge carries an affirmative defense possibility. I didn't see one in the quotation of the law on "contributing to the unruliness of a minor." Unfortunately. I don't know which one carries the longer sentence, but we were told in the thread at Atlas that the "interfering with custody" charge carries a possible sentence of 6 months to a year.

I don't think the dependency declaration in itself would prove much, because Ohio law allows a dependency declaration if there is "conflict in the home"--that is, it doesn't require that the parents have actually been a threat to their daughter. _They_ have never been charged with anything, so officially, the law regards them as pure and innocent, while the young man who helped her to run away after (according to her) her father threatened her is now likely to be treated as a lawbreaker. (I don't know what his evidence is that he will likely be arrested, but evidently he's receiving this warning from somewhere. It looks like the Ohio prosecutor is bowing to pressure from CAIR.)

It looks like the Ohio prosecutor is bowing to pressure from CAIR

One of the many reasons law-abiding citizens have for holding the FBI in bitter contempt is that they, our premiere domestic counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism agency, are more interested in what "right wing extremists" are doing than what foreign-funded Islamic extremists with terrorist connections are doing.

I agree with you, but this is just the Ohio prosecutor, not the FBI.

Posted at my FB site. Thanks for the information, as always, Lydia.

Lydia,

She [Pamela Geller] seems to believe that the parents can simply "renege" on the dependency arrangement, whereas in fact it is up to the court to decide whether to reverse the dependency ruling, and the court may well just dismiss the parents' motion.

Based on a couple of Ms. Geller's comments, I believe she thinks that the court may cave to pressure from the Muslim community and grant the parents a trial. Remember that judges are elected in Ohio and not only is it an election year, but also the Muslim community is a large voting block. She wants Rifqa's team to be prepared since she was concerned about their lack of preperation before the last scheduled trial date.

This would be a good thing, because right now, as a dependent of the State of Ohio, Rifqa is not being sent back to her parents against her will, whereas if the matter went to trial, the question of her being sent back to them would be reopened. Here, too, I think Geller is way off-base in believing that somehow a trial would be helpful by getting things out into the open. A dependency declaration is a dependency declaration. We have one now; let's hold onto it.

Again, I think you've misinterpreted Ms. Gellers and Jamal Jivanee's criticisms of Rifqa's legal team's strategy. (Jamal Jivanne is an apostate, friend and Sprititual advisor to Rifqa and former Columbus area pastor.) Yes, they would like the truth to be revealed. But, this is not their primary reason for opposing the current deal. I know from listening to Jamal Jivanee that he is upset that the deal is based on false premises and made with known liars. Remember, this is not the first time her parents have reneged on a dependency deal. The FL contempt of court charges were dropped and Rifqa was returned to Ohio when her parents agreed to allow her to remain in foster care until her 18th birthday. As soon as she was on the plane to Ohio, they refused to sign the agreement and fired their lawyers (supposedly over lack of funds) and hired new CAIR affiliated counsel. They pursued criminal charges against her, enforced Sharia law (by isolating her) and fought her dependency application. Despite her plea, Rifqa is not guilty of unruliness. But, this was not Jamal Jivanee's biggest concern. He is opposed to the current Family Reunification Plan created by FCCS last fall and agreed to as part of the current dependency deal.

According to published reports, Rifqa is the only one that is under court ordered counseling. The parents have not been ordered to undergo any parenting classes, nor has the father been ordered to attend anger management classes. Normally, if a parent admits to threatening a child, even if they don't go through with it like Mr. Bary did when he more or less confirmed Rifqa's claims about his threatening her with the computer, they are ordered to undergo anger management and parenting classes. Due to political correctness, FCCS is willfully refusing to explore the dynamics of honour violence. Thus, they believe the lies that her father is accepting of her conversion and they just need to talk and all get along. Rifqa is the only one that is being asked to change via individual counseling. She will be placed under immense pressure from her counselor and social workers to reconcile with her parents and return home. Likely, her parents will offer inducements and false promises. Based on his comments, I believe Jamal Jivanee hopes that a trial would prove the abuse allegations and educate FCCS about what they were dealing with so that they would modify the Family Reunification Plan to protect Rifqa from her family rather than push her to return home.


Williams is being pressured to plead guilty to a lesser charge.

This pressure is allegedly from Rifqa's defence team. If true, this is a serious charge which could result in professional disciplinary action. It is unethical for a lawyer to advise Rifqa and Mr. Williams since their respective interests may conflict. This could lead to their respective State Bar Associations taking disciplinary action against the lawyers involved if Mr. Williams or Rifqa file a complaint against them.

Unfortunately. I don't know which one carries the longer sentence, but we were told in the thread at Atlas that the "interfering with custody" charge carries a possible sentence of 6 months to a year.

Both charges are Misdemeanors in the First Degree under Ohio Law. In Ohio, the maximun penalty for each Misdemeanor in the First Degree is 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Under the speedy trial rules, a trial must begin with in 90 days of being charged. This is likely part of the reason he has not been arrested yet. The prosecution is probably shoring up their case before they proceed. I hope they will wait a few more months so that a trial will not start before Rifqa is 18. This will make it easier for her to testify because she won't have to have a legal guardian present, i.e. social worker who might intimidate her and impact her testimony.

I don't think the dependency declaration in itself would prove much, because Ohio law allows a dependency declaration if there is "conflict in the home"--that is, it doesn't require that the parents have actually been a threat to their daughter. _They_ have never been charged with anything, so officially, the law regards them as pure and innocent, while the young man who helped her to run away after (according to her) her father threatened her is now likely to be treated as a lawbreaker.

I agree with you, at present the dependency doesn't prove much. But, if it proceeds to trial, the testimony from the trial and/or depositions may be used to impeach a witness' credibility. Also, depending of Rifqa's parents' testimony and Rifqa's testimony, the abuse allegations will likely be litigated in Mr. William's trial. He will need to prove that he believed she was a victim of abuse and was in fear for her life when he assisted her assuming he goes with his current affirmative defence. Yes, the parents may be technically innocent, but they will likely find themselves on trial in this case rather than Mr. Williams. If Mr. Williams is allowed to discuss their continued abuse of Rifqa through "lawfare" by renegging on the depedency deal, etc. I don't think the jury pool will find much sympathy for them.

Yes, Danielle, I know all about the reneging on the deal when she was returned to Ohio. I have followed, as far as I know, every tiniest twist and turn of this case. But this is different. This isn't just a deal the parents can "renege" on, and I wish people wouldn't talk about it that way. It isn't up to them. It's up to the court. The dependency is declared. Pamela and Jamal have talked repeatedly as though a trial on dependency is definitely going to happen because "the parents reneged on the deal." (In their interview, one of them used the phrase "it looks like it's going to trial." As far as I can tell, this is based on _nothing_ but the parents' motion for a trial.) This is just confused and potentially confusing. Yes, the court _might_ throw out its own dependency declaration, but that seems unlikely. Moreover, Pamela has talked repeatedly as though somehow if Rifqa's dependency had been decided by trial this would have protected Brian Williams, because "the truth would have come out." That is confused as well. He certainly could still be charged and tried. A trial on Rifqa's dependency _would not_ protect him at all, it would merely endanger her dependency.

There has to be a reunification plan based on Ohio law. That is to say, statutorily the goal _has_ to be stated to be reunification. This isn't some plot that means that Rifqa was deceived and is now going to be forced to reunify with her parents. There is every reason to believe that since she has the dependency declaration, that will never happen. Moreover (and mark this), a dependency declaration after a trial would be *just the same*. It's not like a dependency declaration after a trial is "more final" than this one or wouldn't include a "reunification plan." In fact, statutorily, my understanding is that there would still have to be a "reunification plan," because that's what there is supposed to be unless parental rights have been terminated, which a trial on Rifqa's dependency _would not do_. (Dependency does not terminate parental rights in itself.)

Okay, so the parents aren't having to go to counseling. So they are being treated with kid gloves. That's bad. But a trial wouldn't guarantee anything different, nor would it guarantee her ability to communicate with people or _anything_. In fact, she's being allowed to talk to her friends now on the phone and might _not_ be after a trial. It would just risk having her sent back to her parents. I could not disagree more strongly with any implication that somehow FCCS would "see the light" after a trial and handle the whole thing differently. It wouldn't help and shouldn't happen.

Lydia--thank you for posting on this and allowing comments. I sincerely hope that you do not find me to be "too liberal" to post her (or accuse me, as some have, of being Muslim). I also have some problems with Geller's blog--one being that she relies on anonymous sources and even seems to regard this as a mark of honor. The second being that she jumps the gun and publishes conclusions as fact.

It is hard to sort out 1) whether Brian Williams is actually being charged (and I believe that he should be); and 2) what role, if any, Rifqa's attorneys have in giving him legal advice.

There has been a sizeable hue and cry about this case since the first You-Tube video went out alleging the possibility of "honor killing," and I fear that rationality has frequently gone by the wayside. While Williams and Lorenz may have had Rifqa's safety at heart--they certainly chose the most problematic of all routes by which to ensure it. Rifqa might have been placed in a protective foster home in the custody of Ohio months earlier, and with far less drama, trauma and publicity--had any of the pastors involved followed standard protocol required of any mandated reporter (which includes ministers) in the State of Ohio. Geller was highly critical of the New Albany Schools when she believed that they were privy to information indicating abuse and made no report. And yet Williams, Lorenz, and even Jivanjee are all claiming now that they were absolutely certain that Rifqa was being abused regularly in addition to any threats of death--and Williams has even cited sexual abuse.

There is a real social need here to send the message to all children that there are means by which they can receive help if they are in trouble at home--and it is not by hopping a bus to another state. Folks like Williams (and Lorenz and Jivanjee) need to come to understand that the ministry includes serious obligations--both moral and legal. And even without the censuring body of a denomination (as each are "non-denominational"), there are consequences for embroiling somebody else's child in a legal drama when there are already in place legal, moral and ethical options for ensuring the safety of minors.

"Rifqa might have been placed in a protective foster home in the custody of Ohio months earlier, and with far less drama, trauma and publicity--had any of the pastors involved followed standard protocol..."

Then again, she might not. For one thing, absent a decision by CPS to remove her immediately as an "emergency" (which is totally up to them), there would have been no reason why her parents could not have hopped on a plane to Sri Lanka with her, which they had suggested they might do. Or, if she were not instantly removed, she might have been killed. It is not as though CPS always has a stellar record protecting children from such things. And, yes, I totally believe in the "honor killing" thing. I believe in the hue and cry. I support Williams and the Lorenzes. Williams chose not to trust the authorities. Technically, that may have been illegal. Practically, I think he may have been right and may have saved her life. I do not think he should be charged. I think this is an _obvious_ case for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, just as in a case where a policeman doesn't give a guy a ticket for speeding on the way to the hospital with his child who is turning blue.

The sexual abuse was alleged to have occurred years ago. It is relevant to the case, but that does not mean it was occurring at the time.

I find it interesting that you bring up "mandatory reporter" laws. I would have to research to see if pastors fall under them, and in any event, I'm not at all sure that Williams was officially a pastor. But let's think: What's the point of mandatory reporter laws? Oh, that's right, it's to protect the child. So you're citing mandatory reporter laws to say that they should have reported this _rather than_ doing something they considered _more_ effective and _necessary_ to protect the child. So now, the mandatory reporter statutes are being cited to _lessen_ the sense of urgency about protecting the child. Because procedure is everything, right? Well, I don't agree.

"ensuring the safety of minors."

Tell that to Amina and Sarah. Oh, wait, they're dead.

Googling around is probably the best strategy = Pammy's site seems link impoverished and as disordered as its proprietor; there are few hard news sources; most of the sites are wing-nutty and seem over wrought on this case.

Some of the criticisms of the legal strategy seem strange. Running the clock seems to me to be a good strategy. Unless she was born here, showing that her parents were here illegally would also open her to deportation unless an asylum claim was upheld.

Is there a good source for the claim that Williams is going to be charged? Given the findings of the Florida authorities and the actual honor killings that have taken place, he would seem to have an affirmitive defense.

Lydia--if you are going to play the odds that Children's Services would act decisively enough (and recall that Rifqa would be able to tell them everything that she made public on the You-Tube video--this is not the case of a three-year-old whose testimony is difficult to obtain/understand) to protect Rifqa, ought you not be also willing to play the odds of an internet friend in another state who sends you bus fare is not a predator, drug dealer or lunatic?

Are you willing to accept responsibility for saying publicly to any number of young girls that what they should do if they are fearful of their parents (and abuse is by no means limited to Muslims) is trust someone who hides them from the authorities for their protection? There are countless pimps across the US willing to sing high your praises for that one.

Unless she was born here, showing that her parents were here illegally would also open her to deportation unless an asylum claim was upheld.

Actually, Al, my understanding is that the dependency also takes care of that. There's some kind of special immigration status for minors who are dependents of the state, and this puts her on a track to be here fully legally when she is 18, *which would not be the case if she didn't have a dependency declaration in place on her 18th birthday*. That's another reason why running the clock out is a good idea. (So I agree with you. There must be something wrong, if Al and I agree twice within two weeks...?) For the dependency to go to trial, the court would have to _set aside_ the current dependency declaration, which could result in her not having one in place, depending on the length of the trial, when she turns 18. Which is another reason we definitely should be hoping that the judge tells the parents to go pound sand, the dependency agreement is in place, they should live with it.

Ohioan,

Are you willing to accept responsibility for saying publicly to any number of young girls that what they should do if they are fearful of their parents (and abuse is by no means limited to Muslims) is trust someone who hides them from the authorities for their protection? There are countless pimps across the US willing to sing high your praises for that one.

Every case has to be considered individually. Of course I'm not going to tell girls that _in general_. But Rifqa made a really good choice here. The Lorenzes really love her, they really were kind to her, and I maintain that she was really safer running away in this case than staying with her parents. So I guess she wasn't such a dumb bunny. I don't believe she picked people to trust her at random or foolishly and just lucked out. She knew that the Christians she was associating with were trustworthy people and much more trustworthy than the Muslim community that was urging her parents to "deal with" the situation of her conversion.

I refuse to think of _everything_ in terms of precedent. I know of people who really would cast a child's life and well-being into danger for the sake of precedent and procedure. I'm not saying that you are one of them, but there are such people. Williams had to look at the case with which he was confronted when he was confronted with it. Like the Good Samaritan.

Lydia--whether you intend for your message to apply to all young girls or not, the message that you are endorsing is that the authorities are not to be trusted--better off to strike out on your own. I don't know that Williams looked very deeply at the case confronting him. He did not know the Barys, or "the Muslim community." He is a young free-lancing pastor (some accounts have listed him as being "licensed," and apparently his father ordains ministers as a part of his own free-lance ministry) caught up in some incredible rhetoric from the likes of Lou Engle and Mike Bickle, and enchanted by his own ability to save the soul (through Baptism) of this young Muslim. So far as I can tell, he did not "act" so much as "act on" the request of Blake Lorenz--who summoned him back to Columbus from Kansas City and paid his expenses, just to ensure that Rifqa had a ride to the Greyhound station in Columbus.

BTW--the story of the Samaritan is apt in this case, but not as you intended it to be. What is frequently overlooked in the Samaritan story is that the people of Samaria were outsiders, heathens, not to be trusted, viewed in the way that many portray Muslims in our society. In leading His followers to be able to identify their neighbor (Love thy neighbor--who is my neighbor?), He selected a non-believer, one outside of not only the community, but also the body of faith. The Samaritan story is a cautionary tale to look beyond the trappings of identity and see people as they truly are. Recall that before the travellor received help from the Samaritan he was passed over by two highly credible people of faith.

Oh, geez. So now I _do_ know what I'm dealing with. No, Ohioan, Rifqa's story _is_ credible, she _was_ in danger, and the Islam connection _is_ relevant. I don't give two figs for your gooey "outsider" talk. The beliefs and actions of Muslims are _hard evidence_, not "trappings." Brian Williams was certainly, undeniably, unquestionably right to accept that Rifqa was in danger _at least_ of being dragged back to Sri Lanka and mistreated there, if not worse. His and her decision not to talk immediately to the Ohio police and follow their advice is the _only_ thing that might be questioned, but given that Rifqa, by her own account, had told teachers (who definitely are mandatory reporters) of bruises in previous years and gotten nowhere, and given the influence of CAIR in the Columbus area, I cannot really blame them for wanting to get her out of the state pronto.

Oh, and btw, Rifqa was not a "young Muslim" when Brian Williams got to know her but had already been a secret Christian convert for some time. And Brian almost certainly does not believe in the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, so you are also theologically ignorant regarding varieties of Christians.

Forgive my flippancy as regards Brian Willaims beliefs regarding Baptism. I do not (nor do I suspect that you do either) know a good deal about the specifics of his belief--although I have picked up enough knowledge about International House of Prayer to be very concerned. But, I support an educated and ordained ministry, and for good reason. At his age and stage, he should not be in a position to be independently making decisions about people's lives (or souls).

While you suggest that the "only thing" that might be questionable is Mr. Williams skipping the step about contacting authorities (and I would suggest Children's Services in preference to the police) in Columbus--this is in fact THE THING that I question and it is A BIG THING. I don't adhere to your belief that the world is a simple place--Islam bad/Christianity good. Trained professionals may not always get things right--but there is a reason for their training and the public trust that is placed in them. You can quote until the cows come home Muslim families who have harmed their children. Someone else can easily counter the number of Christians who have hurt their own, or other people's children. And both would overlook the larger numbers of both faiths who DO NOT participate in such acts. But what you are asking the world to believe is that in a case where a young man knew very little about a family--except that they were Muslim and from Sri Lanka (not a country known for honor killing by the way) AND knew nearly as little about a Christian family in another state--the appropriate action for him to take, on his belief of abuse within the family, was to aid the minor in running away from her family to hide from authorities with the other--because they were Christians.

These are actions based not on logic, the law, professional ethics or rational thought--but on romantic notions of good and evil. Maybe you find my assessment "gooey." I do not.

You seem to think you know a lot about what Brian Williams knew about Rifqa and the Lorenzes. May I ask how you think you know all of this about how little he knew about them all?

And I don't accept the "faith equivalence" stuff. Honor killings and specifically killings of children by parents, as well as the law of death for apostasy, are rooted in Islamic law and long, long-standing Islamic practice in a way that simply is not even remotely true of Christianity. I get very tired of the attempted equivalency stuff. And Rifqa's word is worth something. You seem to think CPS should have listened to her but to think Brian and the Lorenzes were unreasonable for doing so! Yet her own testimony refers to the threats as based in Islam and the need to reclaim family honor, the pressure from the Muslim community on her family to "deal with" her, etc. Make up your mind as to whether she's to be trusted or whether she's hysterical and untrustworthy or a liar.

And I would not trust a Child Protective Services social worker (for crying out loud!) to decide whether to take seriously the threat of death for a Muslim apostate on the grounds that this person is a "trained professional." A trained professional _what_? Social worker. I have known of social workers who have accused innocent parents and of social workers who have allowed kids to slip through the cracks and get killed or abused. Unfortunately, but deservedly, CPS does not have a very good reputation in the U.S. for separating the sheep from the goats. They go overboard in some cases and try to fix crimes on men just because they are men. Then in other cases they won't act where action is clearly required. Moreover, they would certainly agree with you that Islamic law should _not_ be taken into account in this case, which in my opinion is a further reason _not_ to trust their judgment in a case of this kind. Telling us that CPS workers are "trained professionals" to whose judgment we should all defer is nearly a ROFL kind of statement.

Oh, and there was also the jolly Ohio policeman who met with Rifqa's father and then told the press (the press!) that he thought the father seemed like such a loving guy, etc. How professional is that? Not. Franklin County Children's Services has, as far as I know, made no attempt to investigate independently any of Rifqa's allegations. There was a long-distance Florida "investigation" (of which I have read partial transcripts, which looks almost like a joke) by Florida law enforcement, and that's been _it_. How professional is that? How seriously is that taking the danger to the child? It looks to me like the only reasons she got dependency at all are a) the high-profile nature of the case, which is a result of her having run away, b) her age and her vehement refusal to agree to return to her parents quietly, and c) the relatively lax Ohio law regarding declarations of dependency--e.g., "conflict in the home." The actual allegations of her father's threats or of the abuse from years back have pretty much just been left quietly to one side by everyone but us "hysterical" conservatives. Bizarre. And good evidence of the undue influence of pro-Muslim politics on children's services. As is the outrageous treatment Rifqa suffered during the previous months in her isolation. John Jay, a lawyer who comments at Atlas Shrugs, is beyond all doubt right when he says he has never seen that kind of treatment of any child in state custody. The parents' wishes that she be isolated were unduly deferred to in a terrible way. That tells me she and Brian were to no small degree _right_ to think that the Ohio authorities would not be able rightly to evaluate the threat to her from her parents.

Lydia--I don't know that we are going to find much in the way of common ground. I do hope, however, that you will reconsider your rejection of the legally authorized professionals who are charged with the protection of our children. They, like all human beings, are fallible. Nonetheless, we have laws for a reason. Pam and friends are fond of making comparisons to Ann Frank, Corrie Ten Boom and Sojourner Truth. I would hasten to point out that each of these people--whose lives were genuinely endangered--operated outside of unjust legal systems. We have in our country no laws to mandate the imprisonment of people who are Jewish (or gay) or the enslavement of people who are black. The laws that provide for parental responsibilities to and for their children apply across lines of race, religion, even socio-economic status. When we act as though this is not the case--and urge disobedience to the very laws that protect all children, much is threatened. Social workers and police may not be psychic, and they are not perfect. However, tragic history has shown that neither are members of the clergy. Legally authorized protective agencies and services do work within a framework that seeks to minimize errors. We cannot say the same for free-lancers who disregard the law and authorities to take the law into their own hands. It is for good reason that well-meaning do-gooders are prohibited from resuing other people's children by taking them home to hide.

operated outside of unjust legal systems

Ohioan, we can agree that the laws as written are not an "unjust legal system." But can we also agree that the laws are not being enforced justly, and the officials are not even attempting to enforce them in a rational manner. To elucidate that point, I would say that a rational attempt to follow the dictates of law would be for the authorities to take a 17-year-old's claim of mortal danger with enough seriousness to do an investigation, and then to SHOW the results of that investigation so that it can be SEEN to be reasonable, to the interested parties, such as the 17-year old herself. But nothing of the sort appears to have taken place.

I hesitate to say that we know everything we need to know about this case, but it is pretty clear that the authorities have NOT acted in a manner that would represent blind justice performing appropriately regardless of who comes before her: If Rifqa had been converting from Fundamentalist Mormonism to some New-Age "religion" in order to become an out-of-the closet gay without reprisal from her family, we can be pretty confident that she would have been treated differently. That implies that she is not being handled with blind justice - her Christianity does not seem to create a compelling "story" of danger to the judges etc.

It is one thing to say that authorities "get it wrong" some of the time, and another thing entirely to be able to point out specific, obvious ways in which they aren't even in the ball park of getting it right, that they aren't even trying. This is one time to push the issue against the authorities.

I think we're straying from the point.

(1) Rifqa had already been abused at home.
(2) Rifqa had already reported the abuse.
(3) The mandated reporters (teachers) had already failed to protect her.
(4) Therefore Rifqa decided there was no point in reporting further abuse.
(5) Rifqa's father threatened to kill her.
(6) Rifqa ran as far from her father as she could.

Perhaps Brian "should" have reported the abuse, but he had probably decided it wouldn't do any good. The danger was immediate. Social Services takes time. The system had already failed Rifqa. Brian's goal was to keep her alive.

Of course it was a risk for a teenager to go and stay with strangers, but not as big a risk as to stay within her father's reach. The strangers would be highly unlikely to kill her. If they turned out to be less than nice in other ways, I suppose Rifqa would have just run away again.

I have no problem with the fact that people are now asking Brian questions. However, the spirit of the child protection laws is to protect children. It would be absurd to convict Brian for breaking child protection laws because he protected a child.

BTW, you don't need to be a "licensed minister" to baptise someone. Most denominations agree that any baptised Christian can baptise any unbaptised Christian. Rifqa could have legitimately asked a Christian person younger than herself to do the deed. But would that have made anyone happier??

Diana--According to Rifqa, she had never reported the abuse to anyone. In fact, she claims that when her friend saw bruises, she lied and said she fell. Beyond that--she believes that the friend told a counselor (unnamed) and further believes that the counselor contacted her parents. There is nothing to substantiate this contact--with the counselor, or further, with the parents (which would not have been the appropriate means of handling this).

Beyond that, there are vague claims of multiple internet friends who "knew her situation," as well as Brian Williams and Jamal Jivanjee, who similarly "knew her situation." From Williams and Jivanjee come reports that they were certain that she faced abuse at home--although they reported it to no one. Further, Williams actions were to participate in hiding Rifqa from authorities. Not only does this violate statutes in a legal sense, but it's going to be pretty hard to take a case to court saying that he broke the law because he did not believe (based on no evidence) that the authorities were not up to the task.

"I have no problem with the fact that people are now asking Brian questions. However, the spirit of the child protection laws is to protect children. It would be absurd to convict Brian for breaking child protection laws because he protected a child."

Bingo, Diane. That was a point I was making above.

And Tony, your point about a clear and good investigation is supported by this further detail: One of those "trained professionals," Eric Fenner, the _head_ of the Franklin County Children's Services, told the press that he saw no reason why Rifqa could not be reunited with her parents when she either had not yet returned to Ohio or had just returned a day or so before. Without citing _any_ investigation by Ohio itself. He just made this casual comment ab initio to the press. That is _so_ unprofessional and shows _such_ a willful disregard for Rifqa's word and for her safety that it merely confirms the wisdom of her running away in the first place. It's funny that people like Ohioan don't seem to realize this. So too, as I said above, does the excessive deference to her parents in isolating her over a period of months, isolating her to an extent that, if parents did it, they would practically be open to investigation on those grounds alone for having something to hide and for being draconian to the young person. The actions of the Ohio authorities do _not_ inspire confidence, yet here is Ohioan lecturing us and Brian Williams for not trusting them!

The risk with depending on the agencies is that they are over worked and often operating in an environment that burns out the staff. Reconciliation is usually mandated as a first preference because it usually is preferable to other choices and is usually the path of least resistance. From the point of view of staff, the phrase "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" comes to mind.

These positions don't usually encourage innovative thinking (for good reason) so we shouldn't be suprised at their conservative approach but (pace Ohioan) neither should we defer to their "expertise". Their usual operating situation doesn't involve a socially conservative family environment and a child (actually a young woman) who isn't acting out and who fears for her safety over religious differences. It seems to me that there should be a presumption that her fears may have grounds.

BTW, we might also want to ponder on the wisdom of making the family the basic social and legal unit (previous post by Jeff) as that would strengthen the presumption that her parents know best (we really couldn't carve out a Muslim child converting to Christianity exception).

Al, I think that a vaguely-defined phrase like, "The family is the basic social and legal unit" might be open to the questions you raise. And oddly, I remember having exactly that discussion something like twenty years ago with a paleoconservative friend. However, if it's a matter of having one head-of-household vote in terms of the franchise, I don't think that really has this implication. That's a pretty limited proposal. After all, minors don't have the vote now, anyway.

The reason I mentioned it, is that there are grave implications for our notions of individual rights that would be involved in any such project. Age alone is a qualitatively different distinction; one that operates on an individual basis and, once satisfied, applies to all individuals equally and which has a necessary function. Without going too far into the weeds, I would note the tension between institutions like slavery and coverture and the implications of "created equal" and Equal Protection were resolved in favor of freedom and equality.

Based on simple reflection and certainly on history, it should be clear that the arbitrary and legally formal delineation of classes in one aspect of life usually leads to other formal and informal distinctions (N.B. the "one man to another" assumptions with the police officer referenced above).

RB deserves to be taken seriously as an individual. She appears to be law abiding and acting rationally. Putting another layer of legally created assumptions between her and her basic rights isn't where we should go.

The reason I mentioned it is to perhaps cause some reflection on the unintended consequences that flow from ideology and schemes of social engineering.

Al, I'm going to be pretty blunt: Overall, you and I have very little in common politically. We both know that from past discussions on a number of issues. So I want to avoid all appearance of taking the side of a quite liberal commentator against a highly valued blog colleague.

I think that it is possible within a traditionally conservative framework to protect individual rights, such as the ones that are in danger in the case of Rifqa. I realize that psychologically and sociologically there are tensions. In fact, I'll go you one better: I believe that part of the reason more conservatives aren't on board with this case is that they are nervous about parental rights. I see that very clearly. In fact, this very tension was the reason for my highly controversial proposal that conservative parents, especially traditionalist parents who, say, home school and who are _not_ in any way harming their children have an interest in stopping Muslim immigration. Why? Because it tars religiously conservative parents with the brush of being dangerous to their children. Possible dangers to Christian parental rights are exacerbated because it is strongly contrary to liberal sensibilities to admit that one religion has child endangerment and even killing children much more heavily ingrained in its sociology than another religion. But the more Rifqa Bary cases there are, the more Amina and Sarah Said cases there are, the worse it looks for all religiously conservative parents and the more danger there is of some kind of crackdown that would include totally innocent parents and families, including children, as collateral damage.

We need to live in a society where parents can generally be trusted to seek their children's best interests and not to harm them, where parents are not under suspicion. That's what keeps things moving smoothly and allows the kind of presumption of innocence that avoids undue governmental intrusion into families--an intrusion that is not, as a general rule, good for kids, either, and that can be highly and unnecessarily traumatic to them.

A case like Rifqa's is a case where total individualists like you and traditionalists like me probably can find some common ground. To my fellow traditionalists, I say--You need to be willing to support Rifqa and not to worry that somehow this undermines parental authority, because it really looks like her parents abused their authority in a way that we traditionalists should not countenance in any way. To individualist liberals like you, I say--I suppose we should enjoy our moment of agreement while it's here, because it won't last long. No, I don't think this supports some kind of "children's rights." Yes, I think parents should be presumed innocent, but I think the evidence in this case of danger happens to be sufficiently credible that the minor should be heeded. No, I don't think making kids, more than they already are, naked individuals before the state is going to help them. In fact, I can name cases where such an approach has resulted--from the ostensibly "individualist" side--in, ironically, taking children away from their parents when they don't want to be taken away, on the grounds that they are "too influenced" by their parents' worldview. So, no, I don't think this case supports such a strongly individualist approach as you probably think it supports.

You need to be willing to support Rifqa and not to worry that somehow this undermines parental authority, because it really looks like her parents abused their authority in a way that we traditionalists should not countenance in any way.

Absolutely. Understood properly, parental authority exist totally for the sake of the common good of the family, which means NOT for the personal good of the parents. And that means that when there is a conflict of a grave nature that arises before the state, the parents should be able to explain their actions. And explain them so that they are seen to be using their authority for the good of the children. Whatever else is the case about religious freedom in this country, we do not think that parents can use "religious freedom" to explain that killing a child is better for the child than allowing them to convert to another religion. Sorry, that's not what religious freedom means.

BTW, we might also want to ponder on the wisdom of making the family the basic social and legal unit (previous post by Jeff) as that would strengthen the presumption that her parents know best (we really couldn't carve out a Muslim child converting to Christianity exception).

Not to get too far off track, but acknowledging the fact that the family, not the individual, is the fundamental social unit does not mean that individuals do not exist, do not have rights, or do not have meaningful lives of their own.

What is more, in the Christian West it is the Christian family that is the basic unit of society. Conversion from Islam to Christianity should be made easy; the reverse, difficult. And not just because Christianity happens to be ours, but because Islam is wicked and violent and tyrannical.

Please, let's stop pretending about this. The jig is up for American ideological pluralism: Islam has called our bluff. It's Us or Them ... unless there is no Us anymore.

I think a good example of something questionable, particularly in light of problems with Muslim culture, is a proposal by the HSLDA to add a parental rights amendment to the Constitution. I forget the exact wording, but by my recollection of having read it before, it's very sweeping and not very well-defined. It seems to me like a classic attempt to do something by amendment that can be done only by legislation and that, in the states now, is done largely by common law. I know why HSLDA is proposing it: They are rightly concerned that an international treaty like the UNCRC will be used to attack home schooling (which already appears to be happening in England) and that families will be attacked and broken up by crazy ideas to the effect that all children need to have different ideas from their parents (which is already happening, to the distress of the children, in Germany, though the German authorities don't appear to need a UN treaty as an excuse). But a sweepingly worded constitutional amendment doesn't seem to me a wise way to counter this. Not that it has a chance of passing. But qua proposal, it seems to me unwise. A better proposal might be a federalism amendment in this area, something like, "No foreign treaty nor any other part of this Constitution shall be construed to supersede state laws concerning parental and children's rights." If their main concern is to maintain the status quo against possible attacks from the "children's rights" crowd, this would seem to be a promising way to go. Not that that's going to pass, either. Constitutional amendments these days are mostly in the realm of wishful fantasy.

Lydia, a few days ago I sent an email to one of the organizations promoting this amendment, asking some questions. As far as I can tell, the amendment cannot work to do what is intended, which is to make it so that the UN CRC treaty would not supercede state laws or state constitutions or the federal constitution on issues relating to the rights of parents in overseeing the upbringing of their children. However, international treaties are already being interpreted as superceding national constitutions (where there is a conflict), so if a judge wants to, he can simply say that the treaty ALSO supercedes this amendment in the US constitution, as well as superceding some state constitution or law. And I don't know of any possible constitutional manner of stopping this (much less do I know of a method that is actually feasible in the current climate). Maybe if we got rid of the Constitutional provision that puts treaties on an equal footing with the basic law of the land, that might be a start.

It is issues like this in international "law" that make it more imperative than ever that the principle of subsidiarity become more widely understood and more widely become a bedrock part of society. And shows why the UN as currently constituted CANNOT be the cornerstone of any future world government, without such major, sweeping reforms that it would no longer be recognizable. Any suggestion that the UN should morph into a world government, without also requiring such sweeping changes, would constitute a reckless endangerment of the common good.

In America treaties are being interpreted as superseding the Constitution? I mean, technically, they are only supposed to be _equal to_ it. But of course, since international treaties don't have to be made _consistent_ with the Constitution, a choice would have to be made. Of course, part of the problem is that the founders never envisaged a world in which international treaties would have _anything to do with_ issues like education or (heaven help us) domestic gun control!

I'm totally opposed to there ever being a world government. (I fear this may be another reason I should be glad I'm a Protestant, but perhaps I shouldn't say that...)

Well, in the really long run (in excess of 100 years?) I think a world government is unavoidable, the only question is what kind. I would much rather it be limited in scope, so that by its very construction it only deals with limited areas of power, which (Surprise!) is just what subsidiarity would require anyway. Sure, I would prefer that there be no world government, but I doubt that we will be able to stave that off permanently.

But of course, since international treaties don't have to be made _consistent_ with the Constitution, a choice would have to be made.

That's exactly the problem I meant. I don't see a way around it. I mean, logically it makes no sense if you view sovereignty as arising out of the fundamental powers of the people, because the larger entity (either America, or some world government) can only hold that sovereignty that is ceded to it under an agreement (such as the written constitution) granting just that ceding of authority. Therefore, any interpretation of a treaty at the higher level which abrogates the authority of the treating party such as the US to decide how far they intend that treaty is to apply with respect to their own laws, by that very fact uproots the very capacity of the lower entity to cede power to the higher, and that unravels the very "authority" the higher level organization has to do anything, including its authority to overrule the lower level. So it is self-defeating. But judges who view political authority as magically originating somewhere else (maybe from ether?) don't worry about where they get the authority to overturn the lower order, so they can decide any irrational, contradictory ruling they please, as we have seen all over the place.

Judges are using international treaties [including treaties that we have not ratified :( ] to determine how they construe American law and the Constitution (for example, attempts to use European horror at the death penalty to construe the meaning of "cruel and unusual"). I am not yet aware of a deliberate attempt to use a treaty to overturn an explicit constitutional provision, they may not have gone that far yet...here. But judges seem to be doing that in Europe, so it's only a matter of time.

Maybe the best idea is to put in the federal Constitution that no treaty entered into can abrogate a state constitution, because the federal authority does not itself extend to that power, so it is impossible for it to give that power up under treaty. But Federal judges all the time think that they have the power to abrogate state constitutions, when they appear to be in conflict with penumbras and emanations of the federal powers.

Which leads to a larger problem all around: the federal reality exists precisely because 13 sovereign states chose to cede some power to the federal union, while retaining some sovereign power. In designing that federal arrangement, they wisely distributed the powers between 3 branches with checks and balances against each other, so no one of the three could become all-powerful. However, there is no sufficient mechanism of check against the federal absorption of power from the states themselves, since (de-facto) the authority to decide how far federal authority can be pushed runs with the Supreme Court (since Marbury vs Madison), and the Supreme Court is a federal power, so it has no impetus to want to limit federal power. What is worse, while the original constitution provided that the states as such (i.e. state legislators) selected the senators, this state power was amended away also. So effectively for at least 180 years the federal authority has been gobbling up power at the states' expense without check. If the idea of checks and balances is critical to the defense of tyranny between the 3 federal branches, then all the more so are checks and balances needed between the federal and the state powers. And that doesn't exist. I see no way of creating such a check other than by constitutional amendment, and that might work somewhat, but (as long as the Supreme Court sits in judgment on that document) that would always be precarious.

I can think of an easy way to create such a check: if 2/3 of the states vote to say that Congress (by law) or the Supreme Court (by ruling) exceeded their powers, then the law or ruling would be nullified. Yes, it probably needs a lot of refinement, I can see that. But the basic concept is clear.

@ Lydia
You say that statutorily the goal "HAS" to be reunification. Can you sight me that statute? It's not that I disagree with you, its that I am working on a similar case, one where reunification was never the goal, and I am having some trouble finding a statute that dictates what the case plans have to look like.

I don't have the statute, but I am working from a number of lines of evidence: Jamal Jivanjee has concluded that he must criticize the strategy of Rifqa's lawyers, yet he repeatedly acknowledges that he has been told that the "reunification" is just boilerplate and is standard. For some reason this doesn't seem to him to be a sufficient answer to his concerns. Pamela Geller and her cohort, including specifically Attorney John Jay of Oregon, have been very critical of Rifqa's lawyers' strategy, yet back at the beginning when John Jay was writing letters to the head of Franklin County Children's Services (Eric Fenner) he actually said in an e-mail words to the following effect: "I realize that you are required to have reunification as your goal, but you have a great deal of latitude in the ways in which you pursue that goal." That is from memory and doubtless not his exact words, but that was the import. He published the letter at Geller's site after sending it to Fenner. It would take a search back through Geller's archives, for which I don't presently have time, to find it. But I thought it was very relevant when, later, all this stuff started flying around about what a shocking and terrible thing it is that reunification is in the case plan.

Now, it's entirely possible and even plausible (to me, though I'm not a lawyer) that reunification doesn't have to be the goal if an investigation of abuse charges has been carried out and Children's Services is itself alleging abuse or neglect. But no such investigation has been carried out in Rifqa's case, and FCCS is not making any such accusation. Hence, it may be that the reunification goal is a default in cases where there is simply conflict in the home or something more general like that but where FCCS is not claiming actual wrong-doing on the part of the parents.

Chapter 2151: JUVENILE COURT
2151.01 Liberal interpretation and construction.

The sections in Chapter 2151. of the Revised Code, with the exception of those sections providing for the criminal prosecution of adults, shall be liberally interpreted and construed so as to effectuate the following purposes:

(A) To provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of children subject to Chapter 2151. of the Revised Code, whenever possible, in a family environment, separating the child from the child’s parents only when necessary for the child’s welfare or in the interests of public safety;

2151.419 Court's determination as to whether agency made reasonable efforts to prevent removal or to return child safely home.

(A)(1) Except as provided in division (A)(2) of this section, at any hearing held pursuant to section 2151.28, division (E) of section 2151.31, or section 2151.314, 2151.33, or 2151.353 of the Revised Code at which the court removes a child from the child’s home or continues the removal of a child from the child’s home, the court shall determine whether the public children services agency or private child placing agency that filed the complaint in the case, removed the child from home, has custody of the child, or will be given custody of the child has made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the child from the child’s home, to eliminate the continued removal of the child from the child’s home, or to make it possible for the child to return safely home...

2151.412 Case plans.

(F)(1) All case plans for children in temporary custody shall have the following general goals:

(b) To eliminate with all due speed the need for the out-of-home placement so that the child can safely return home.

Perhaps a relevant amicus brief,

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/jfc/amicus_project/docs/Foster%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

Also federal grants under certain sections of 42 U.S.C. mandate reunification as a goal.

Meanwhile, tick tock.

Thank you, Al. I don't know how you find that stuff that fast. And tick, tock, indeed. I wish I knew what is going to happen with the immigration thing. But I must say that it seems pretty hard to get deported nowadays. I suppose that's one reason why I don't join those who are really freaked out over the immigration issue. The biggest relevance of it, it seems to me, is her ability to earn a living here legally when she is legally an adult.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.