The 8th Deadly Sin - WRITTEN BY LEO ALVAREZ - HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION OF CHILDREN

Most people have heard of the Seven Deadly Sins, Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Lust, Anger (Wrath), Greed, and sloth. A Greek theologian named Evangrius of Pontus was the first to draw up a list of eight offenses in the order of seriousness. They were gluttony, lust, avarice, sadness, anger, acedia (not to care), vainglory, and pride. This was later reduced to a list of seven by Pope Gregory the Great. Innovative leaders such as Mahatma Ghandi even created their own list of what they perceived to be deadly sins. I am not as creative nor in Ghandi’s League nor do I pretend to be a flower of Evagrius. But I do propose that there is an eighth deadly sin.

When an adult takes advantage of a weaker and physically defenseless individual for his or her self gratification not only is that a crime but a sin in anyone’s religion. There is hardly any religion which advocates injuring another human being and to do so is regarded as a sin by religions, and by Society, as a crime.

What sin could be more deadly than to return a physically or emotionally battered child to its abuser to be further abused or, as is the case sometimes, murdered? I call that the Eighth Deadly Sin.

There is a State Law, actually it exists in all 50 states, that proclaims that reunification is not mandatory. Those State Laws exist because there is a Federal Statute (Title 42 USC) that funds Social Services and mandates that each state that receives funds from Title 42 must have such a law.

Title 42 USC has other provisions even more insidious. Judges feel that Reunification IS what Title 42 is mandating. Title 42, Section 5106(b)2(A) further provides that a child MAY Not be reunified with a parent who has been found guilty of murder, manslaughter or felony assault that results in serious bodily injury and that conviction of any of these felonies constitutes grounds for the termination of parental rights as to the surviving children although a case by case determination of whether or not to seek termination of parental rights shall be within the discretion of the State. The States delegate these rights to a Judge who in turn makes the rulings. KEY WORDS: ….case by case… This is interpreted as judicial discretion to reunify.

Title 42, Section 5106 requires an assurance from states that there will be methods to preserve the confidentiality of all records to protect the rights of the child and of the child’s parents or guardian. This literally assures that testimony regarding the abuse and Abuser(s) shall also be confidential. Incidentally, to violate this Section is a felony. There is also a provision that a Grand Jury may review such reports (Section 5106(a)(A)(v)(V) “…for the determination of an issue before the court or grand jury.” Ask the present Sitting Grand Jury if they have been made aware of this Section.

It is this reasoning that leads to re-unification being seen as the legally correct thing to do. To put this in perspective, ask yourself, would you give an arsonist a match, a burglar the key to your house, a pedophile a child or an abused child to its abuser? Of course you would be legally correct, but is it a reasonable action? Is it the logical thing to do? Is it the moral or ethical thing to do? You be the Judge. Is there an Eighth Deadly Sin?

Isn’t it time that we voters demand a just and reasonable and logical and moral and ethical law to protect a defenseless human being? I wonder which of our hundreds of Legislators and scores of Senators has the backbone to be the first to propose the re-vamping of this insidious law, Title 42 USC? Which one of you voters will be the first to contact our Federal Senators and Legislators?

This will be a daunting task. Title 42 USC is a voluminous Code that has been modified, added to, cited, cross-referenced, and reinforced by case law. It is a layman’s nightmare and a lawyer’s dream. That alone makes it easy to hid such sections as those cited above.

To further reinforce a law that protects children, an Amendment must be added to our Federal Constitution that will guarantee a child the same rights as any other human being. Such an amendment will not sit too well with many parents who will claim that it will infringe upon their parental rights. To my knowledge so called parental rights have never been codified, they were created by Judicial rulings. Parental Rights should be re-titled to Parental Responsibilities thereby guaranteeing a child certain rights and expectations.