Unfit parenting, unfit ruling

OK, if this doesn’t qualify as unfit parenting, then what does?

Recently, an Oregon judge and the state’s Department of Human Services (DHS) have gone head-to-head in an exceptional standoff: In mid-December 2008, Clackamas County Judge Deanne Darling issued a court order stating that the Oregon Welfare Department pay $50,000 in bail to get Russell Hamblin out of jail so that he can plan for the care of his 13-year-old son.

The DHS refused the judge’s order to post the required bail so that Hamblin can better fulfill his parental obligations, stating that the ruling is not only highly inappropriate, it’s unheard of, and not to mention, they don’t have that much money lying around.

While the agency may be charged with contempt of court, they plan to appeal the decision and steadfastly refuse to pay up. In the meantime, the judge has re-ordered the agency to help spring the man from jail. Her reasoning is that Hamblin does not seem to be a flight risk, nor has he been proven to be an unfit parent.

Hamblin, along with another, older son (Paul Hamblin, 19) was arrested in April of 2008, accused of getting teenage girls drunk and sexually assaulting them. His son has already pled guilty to these charges. At the time of their arrest, six girls between the ages of 14 and 17 came forward to accuse the pair, with more victims suspected.

Any legal decision mandating that the DHS post bail for this dad based on the fact that he might not be a bad father (pending his trial on child rape charges) seems inconceivably strange to me. I can understand why much of the attention to this story has been devoted to the idea that Judge Darling made the demand that one government agency pay money to release someone from a different government agency.

It’s a fascinating concept, having three different branches working against one another, when all the while the function of each is to dole out justice and/or to protect human rights. It’s such a breathtaking example of failure. It’s also a completely unnecessary step. As the DHS points out, they are more than willing (and accustomed) to cooperating with incarcerated parents in arranging for the care of their children.

I can only surmise that Judge Darling knows something the rest of us don’t—something that might explain why the welfare department should post this man’s bail. I’m under the impression that this sort of defeats the purpose of setting bail.

But, more importantly, I hope Judge Darling knows something that helps me to understand what exactly might be construed as unfit parenting. Am I alone in thinking that this scenario indicates some incompetent fathering skills? 

Sharing a few beers with your teenage son is one thing, but making him an accomplice to committing statutory rape (among several other lurid and horrendous charges) would seem to indicate some seriously ill-advised guidance by almost anyone’s standards.

Judge Darling’s decree giving Hamblin a “get-out-of-jail-free” card seems to go way beyond protecting his basic rights. She is asking that he be rewarded in a manner not available to the indisputably innocent (know anyone who hasn’t raped any young girls who could use an interest-free loan of $50,000?) or to those suspected but not known to be guilty.

I can’t even begin to understand why this could be considered reasonable.