MI: Judge to rule on ex-wife’s request for sex-offender boyfriend

Admin

A Macomb County judge said Monday he will issue an opinion this week on a woman’s attempt to allow her boyfriend to have contact with her children even though he is a sex offender. Judge Matthew Switalski promised the opinion from the bench after listening to attorneys for the ex-husband and ex-wife argue the motion in Macomb County Circuit Court.

____ ____ of Warren wants to be able to eventually marry ____ ____ who is on the Sex Offender Registry for a 1994 one-time sexual incident when he was an 18-year-old high school senior and the girl was 14. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Oh for pete’s sake…one can NOT make this stuff up!

The lawyer trying to convince the judge to prevent the registered citizen from living with the kids is attempting to use OUR arguments AGAINST the RC!

But Anthony Lanni’s attorney, Vince Manzella, said Rachael Lanni is “putting her needs above her children’s.” He said the children would suffer if Ireland resides with them.

He cited a 2009 study that by two university professors that indicate the “psychosocial consequences” on a child who has a parent on the sex offender registry. Fifty-eight percent of respondents said the child was treated differently at school, 78 percent said the child’s friendships were impacted, and 71 percent said the child had become “stigmatized.”

Other effects include anger, 80 percent; harassment by others, 47 percent; ridicule by others, 59 percent, depression 77 percent and suicidal tendencies, 13 percent.

SERIOUSLY? You realize that this argument, now that it is part of a court record by a source that did NOT emanate from the RC’s legal arguments, can now be appropriated by US as ADMITTING that the registry hurts kids. The idiot just opened the door for us!

(As for the actual case, it should be a slam dunk for the allowing the RC to live with the kids, but then again, I’ve seen slam dunks missed before.)

0
Reply
View Replies (1)

link for this ?

0
Reply
View Replies (1)

What ended up happening? I can’t find the judge’s decision anywhere.

0
Reply