Sex-offender grandfather key to visit...

Sex-offender grandfather key to visitation ruling | The Columbus Dispatch

There are 25 comments on the Columbus Dispatch story from Mar 26, 2011, titled Sex-offender grandfather key to visitation ruling | The Columbus Dispatch. In it, Columbus Dispatch reports that:

At not quite 5 years old, Christian Zook is too young to understand what his grandpa did.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Columbus Dispatch.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Yankee Doodle

AOL

#1 Mar 26, 2011
Once again the courts have "interfered" in custody and subject a mother to a position of stress and mental anguish. The child to the grandfather is "another relative." Sex offenders do not take just "one bite of the apple." And the child molested - was he deemed to have successfully completed counseling and it all went PFFT?
Concerned

Columbus, OH

#2 Mar 26, 2011
I can understand the mother's concern. I feel strongly that we don't have to worry so much about the ones who have been caught but about the ones who have not!
Moving to Texas

United States

#3 Mar 26, 2011
In a case like this there should not be any consideration for the offender. If the mother has any concern at all, than no one should be able to over rule her. The most important concideration should be for the child.
Buck

Independence, OH

#4 Mar 26, 2011
I sympathize with the the mother, but the idea that the father doesn't care enough about his son to ensure his safety bothers me. The son shouldn't be penalized because of the actions of his father.
Perhaps the worst part of the story is that this article will now be archived forever. When Christian Zook googles his name (or anyone else in his life ever does), this story will be one of the first things to come up. In the long run, he's being punished more than anyone. I'm sure that wasn't his mom's intent in this fight (or the intent of the Dispatch or the author), but it certainly will be a consequence.
I hope that the Dispatch would remove this article from its permanent archive after it's given a reasonable "circulation" time.
arg2015153

Westerville, OH

#5 Mar 26, 2011
Next election, remember that this judge felt that contact with a diaper-sniper was in the best interests of this child.
Common Sense

Zanesville, OH

#6 Mar 26, 2011
Unless the Grandfather was wrongly accused and falsely imprisoned, a child molester is a child molester. I personally do not believe that a person that is attracted to children and does heinous things to them is able to be rehabilatated. Just because the monster is out and has been so-called "rehabilatated", doesn't mean he would not be attracted to blood related children in the family. Blood should not be thicker than water in this siutation. I sincerely wonder what kind of person, let alone a Father, would knowingly put his child at risk just to participate in family gatherings, picnics, ect... My thoughts and prayers are with that Mother and child. And I also wonder WHY this 5 yr olds name is listed in the paper...
fiery buddha

Columbus, OH

#7 Mar 26, 2011
i side w/the mom. the dad should have rights, but the grandfather should be banned. let's face it - it's the least he's earned.
fiery buddha

Columbus, OH

#8 Mar 26, 2011
Buck wrote:
I sympathize with the the mother, but the idea that the father doesn't care enough about his son to ensure his safety bothers me. The son shouldn't be penalized because of the actions of his father.
Perhaps the worst part of the story is that this article will now be archived forever. When Christian Zook googles his name (or anyone else in his life ever does), this story will be one of the first things to come up. In the long run, he's being punished more than anyone. I'm sure that wasn't his mom's intent in this fight (or the intent of the Dispatch or the author), but it certainly will be a consequence.
I hope that the Dispatch would remove this article from its permanent archive after it's given a reasonable "circulation" time.
I don't think Dispatch news stories are available online after a certain period of time. So your point is probably moot.
fiery buddha

Columbus, OH

#9 Mar 26, 2011
arg2015153 wrote:
Next election, remember that this judge felt that contact with a diaper-sniper was in the best interests of this child.
The judge did NOT say that or rule that way. He ruled that the FATHER should not be punished.

I don't agree w/the ruling, but don't pull a Fox News and change the facts just to sound pissy.
ICare

Hilliard, OH

#10 Mar 26, 2011
Not All former sex offenders recidivate in fact evidence suggest they may not.

Each case should be looked at on merits.

I applaud any person who takes the effort to look at the facts of any case.

I diaapprove of those who quote Nancy Grace lies...chances are if this child is abused in the future, it will be by someone else who is not a registered offender.

Be Aware fearful parents.
Personal Responsibility

Dublin, OH

#11 Mar 26, 2011
Quote from article:
David Zachau, an Elyria therapist and board member of the Ohio chapter of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, said courts and child-welfare agencies often are called on to find the balance.
"Absolutely, the mother's concern is totally understandable, and the risk should not be ignored," Zachau said. "But just because an individual has been convicted of a sexual offense in the past does not necessarily mean he should never have contact with children in the family."
-------
Wow. It scares me to hear a therapist say that he believes it's OK for a convicted sex offender to be around children in the family. Those people are NEVER cured. I feel for the mom; she should do everything in her power to protect her child.
Whatever

Grove City, OH

#12 Mar 26, 2011
Buck wrote:
I sympathize with the the mother, but the idea that the father doesn't care enough about his son to ensure his safety bothers me. The son shouldn't be penalized because of the actions of his father.
Perhaps the worst part of the story is that this article will now be archived forever. When Christian Zook googles his name (or anyone else in his life ever does), this story will be one of the first things to come up. In the long run, he's being punished more than anyone. I'm sure that wasn't his mom's intent in this fight (or the intent of the Dispatch or the author), but it certainly will be a consequence.
I hope that the Dispatch would remove this article from its permanent archive after it's given a reasonable "circulation" time.
Amen. As you can tell from the comments here there is a witch hunt going on when it comes to sexual offenders. I don't like them any more than the next guy. But you all should be careful what you wish for. It only takes one person's accusation to ruin your life forever in a society that is hell bent on making sexual offenders pay forever.

I think the court ruling is fair. Don't trust the grandfather with the kid alone. But don't assume that the guy is going to "take another bite from the apple".
TimH

Columbus, OH

#13 Mar 26, 2011
This sounds more like a case of the mother trying to use the courts and the media to keep control over the baby daddy.
rowdy1

Jackson, OH

#14 Mar 26, 2011
Moving to Texas wrote:
In a case like this there should not be any consideration for the offender. If the mother has any concern at all, than no one should be able to over rule her. The most important concideration should be for the child.
Make it simple for everyone. Ban the offender, not the kids.
observer

Miami Beach, FL

#15 Mar 26, 2011
I personally am in the same situation but it is the mother who's step-father molested her for years, so what I did was make a promise to my daughter-in-law, if my grand daughter is ever hurt by her stupidity by allowing her to be alone with her mother and the man that abused her, I promised her that I would cut her head off period then her mother's for keeping this piece of s--- around. And this grandmother keeps both eyes open!!!!!!!!!
leary

Dublin, OH

#17 Mar 27, 2011
I know someone whose grandfather molested her mother and her uncle. The old man would french kiss her as a child, she didn't understand what was going on. He did this to all his grandchildren.
Once a child molester, they remain child molesters. This judge and 'father' are putting this child in danger, and they are responsible for the harm this is very likely to bring. I can't imagine as the child's father ever wanting the child to even have to look at a photo of this man, let alone be around him.
This disgusts me. The child is a victim..and is very likely to be again and again. Any father who would rather take his child to events and risk him being molested than pick another weekend is a fool and I say, a participant in any future molestation, because he is putting the child in harms way. What about the child's right to not see his molester and be protected? The judge is an idiot.
leary

Dublin, OH

#18 Mar 27, 2011
Sex offenders, and child sex offenders repeat and repeat their offenses, often over many years.
Anyone who thinks they don't should open their eyes. News stories on all channels usually say a child was abused by the same offender for a number of years, because children are unable to defend themselves from predators and rely on their parents/the courts. The mom is trying to protect her child, she isn't saying the 'father' should be denied seeing the child, just HIS father. The 'father'(loosely using this term)cares less about his child than going to an event. What is that saying? I would give up my life to protect MY kids..a party? Who cares???!!!!
Columbus Idiots

Columbus, OH

#19 Mar 27, 2011
I doubt the father will allow the grandfather to be alone with his child given the old mans history.

The assumptions made by the idiots posting are silly.You people act like the father will leave his son with the grandfather.

As long as the whole family is aware of Grandfathers problem nothing will happen too the child.

We had a older relative that had mental health issue's late in his life and he would attempt to fondle younger relatives.The solution was to never allow him to be alone with young females and the whole family knew about so he was effectively shut down.
Sucks

Dublin, OH

#20 Mar 27, 2011
Once again, the criminals rights takes precedence over the safety and rights of an innocent. This is so F-Ed up I can't even believe it.
TimH

Columbus, OH

#21 Mar 27, 2011
Sucks wrote:
Once again, the criminals rights takes precedence over the safety and rights of an innocent. This is so F-Ed up I can't even believe it.
It has nothing to do with the criminals rights. The father should have
he right to take his children around his family, without the mother's interference. Certainly, some precautions should be taken. But the father should not be restricted for something completely unrelated to him and his son.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Urbana Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What streets do the hookers hang out? (Sep '10) 5 hr Earl of skanks 8
Original Stores at the Upper Valley Mall (Dec '12) Mon Stephanie 12
Yamada North America Lovers Mon I know 1
renegades mc (Jul '09) Sun little bonz 103
sonics drive in (Jun '16) Feb 17 HesNotJustADirtyA... 26
Any good cleaning services in the area Feb 11 Emily17 1
Schools that used to be in Springfield (Jun '13) Feb 10 Old resident 6

Urbana Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Urbana Mortgages