Mother is innocent until proved guilty

6/22/2003

The recent News story, "Charge in boy's death is based on negligence," was anything but unbiased journalism. It seemed to lean heavily in the direction of the court documents The News obtained from the prosecutors.

Our system of justice proclaims a person innocent until proved guilty, but one would never know this from the article. This type of one-sided journalism jeopardizes everyone's liberty. What if Jessica Vitale-Elgie is innocent? The article did not portray even a consideration of that outcome.

For the past three years, Jessica has been separated from her family; forced to live elsewhere or her children would be placed by Department of Social Services into foster care with strangers. Knowing the emotional trauma this would cause her children, she has voluntarily lived elsewhere, yet she still does the laundry, meals and bills for her family.

The reason she has been separated from them is due to an allegation from an unknown source. She has not been proved guilty of any crime in three years, no speedy trial has been afforded, and she has been denied her right to face her accuser. Her children have suffered from the loss of their mother, who is allowed only to see them very minimally and only while supervised. Phone conversations have, for the most part, not been allowed. This is cruel and inhuman treatment for a family that has already suffered enough with the loss of a child.

Jessica has been denied her liberty for three years and no verdict has been given or sentence passed. Where is the due process? Or has the verdict of public opinion already been passed and our system of justice circumvented?

If we as a society can no longer protect our citizens' basic human rights, our liberties are in real jeopardy.

MARY JO MARCEAU-HAWTHORNE

Vice President, VOCAL NY

(Victims of Child Abuse Laws)

Note: (Similar to the one printed in the Buffalo News)

My Original editorial follows:

So what if she is innocent? Has anyone thought of that? It seems our system of justice is treating her like she is guilty before being proven innocent. Separating her from her family for 22 months. Why? Isn't this the very basis of our constitutional rights. Presumed innocent until proven guilty.

And How does a judge get to taint the publics mind the way the judge in this grand jury indictment did? You reported that "the judge said she caused her son to drink poison". How can you report this with a clear conscience? Are we all now deemed judges? It was not in quotes and therefore is your opinion. And How does the judge know this? Is the judge clairvoyant or is he patterning his presumptions after the judge who deemed our pledge of allegiance unconstitutional because it contains the word, God?

This form of justice is intolerable to a free people. A wise man once said "Those who deny freedom to others, do not deserve it for themselves and will not long retain it", the honorable President Abraham Lincoln. Have we become a nation who no longer holds the idea of freedom near and dear to our hearts? With this kind of biased journalism, how can any one of us be presumed innocent before proven guilty?

Concerning: Westmoreland judge cancels weekend visits in child custody case  

Hello, I am the Vice President of VOCAL NY (Victims Of Child Abuse > Laws). We are a non profit organization composed of parents, children, and others who provide support, advocacy, lobbying efforts, and information to families who have been negatively impacted by the child abuse laws and are involved with the family court system. VOCAL stands  for 'Victims of Child Abuse Laws'. 

We wish to see children protected from all forms of abuse,  including that which is being inflicted upon them as a result of poor > judgment made by child protective agencies. We want to see due process  accorded to all. We wish to see preservation of the family unit made a  priority in the handling of suspected child abuse cases. Families afford  a key source of emotional stability in a child's life.

VOCAL NY recognizes a real problem in our current family court  system and DSS Agencies. Constitutional rights are not afforded and in  most cases they are trampled. Guilt is assumed until innocence can be  proven. Our website is www.vocalinfo.org 

Parents have the constitutional right to raise, educate, nurture, and have a relationship with their children according to the 14th  amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Troxel vs Granvile in 1999 and other as follows: 

Parents have a constitutionally protected interest in the control and  raising of their children without state interference. 

a) Parham v. J.R., 422 U.S. 584, 99S. Ct. 2493, 61 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1979)  (parent's right to make decisions involving child's medical treatment) 

b) Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S. Ct. 571, 69 L. Ed.  1070 (1925) (parent's right to make decisions involving a child's  education) 

c) Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S. Ct. 625, 67 L. Ed. 1042 (1923)  (liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment includes the right to  establish a home and bring up children) 

d) Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753-54, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d > 599 (1982) ("Parents therefore have a constitutionally protected liberty  interest in the care, custody and management of their children.") 

e) Troxel v. Granville, 527 U.S. 1069 (1999) (Parent's interest in the  nurture, upbringing, companionship, care, and custody of children are  generally protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) 

My question about the article is just this, why does the judge get  to decide on what is in" the best interests of the child"? Has there been  a crime committed here or did I miss something and where is the due  process? 

Mary Jo Marceau-Hawthorne

"Those who love your teachings will find true peace and nothing will defeat them." Psalm119:165

 "Love is not unarmed, but also wields a sword!" St. Francis of Assisi