We, members of IHeart Justice humbly call to your attention a great injustice burdened on a victim and survivor of domestic violence in our community.
Ms. Nan-Hui Jo, a South Korean national, has been unjustly incarcerated in Yolo County jail and separated from her daughter for the last 300 days on the allegations of child abduction. We are currently pleading Judge Rosenberg and District Attorney Reisig for her immediate release from detention and that they dismiss this case because the defendant was not offered basic access to justice – being incarcerated without bail, therefore unable to prepare an adequate defense. For a victim of domestic violence to be punished for 300 days, without equal access to justice, is unconscionable.
Nan-Hui Jo fled to South Korea to protect her daughter from a life-threatening situation. The father was both mentally and physically abusive to Ms. Jo. The father did not want Ms. Jo to have a child and pressured her on multiple occasions to have a late-term abortion. The father was not present at the birth of Ms. Jo’s daughter. Instead, members of her Church provided Ms. Jo support on the most important day of her life, the day her daughter was born. Ms. Jo was forced to be the sole provider for her daughter. She made numerous personal sacrifices to care for her daughter, including working multiple jobs and taking out school loans to support her. Let the record show that when local child support offices first contacted The father about paying child support, he denied knowing Ms. Jo and having a daughter. It was not until he was forced to take a paternity test that it was confirmed that he was the father. The father then gladly gave up both physical and legal custody of Ms. Jo’s daughter.
In 2009, the much physically stronger and larger The father grabbed Ms. Jo by the throat and threw her against a wall in a fit of rage. Fearing for her child’s safety, Ms. Jo called the police to have The father removed from the premises. Shortly after, Ms. Jo escaped to South Korea to protect her family. The father then sent a series of verbally and mentally abusive e-mails to Ms. Jo in the years that followed. The father is not only unfit to be a father, but also a danger to the wellbeing of Ms. Jo’s daughter. He suffers from PTSD and traumatic brain injury, acts irrationally, and has extremely violent tendencies. Allowing him custody will put Ms. Jo’s daughter in harms way.
Ms. Jo and her daughter have suffered irreparable damage in the months they have been separated. We are pleading that Judge Rosenberg and District Attorney Reisig find it in their hearts to show leniency and mercy to a loving mother who was doing what was absolutely necessary to protect her daughter. We are urging the court to grant Ms. Jo the justice she and her daughter deserve. We are starting a socio-political movement on her behalf, garnished by support from Korean-American leaders and a coalition of community activists against domestic violence.
IHeart Justice, a UCD Campus club, along with many individuals and groups across Northern California are asking if The Davis Vanguard can write a story on this injustice in their paper as soon as possible. Nan Hui Jo’s jury retrial date will be February 17, 2015 so this is an urgent request.
Sincerely,
IHeart Justice, UCD Campus Club Members:
Christine Hwang (UCD, Class of 2015), Grace Kim (UCD, Class of 2015), Andrew E. Chung (UCD, Class of 2015), Andrew Chung (UCD, Class of 2015), Tammy Lee (UCD, Class of 2014), Elena Park (UCD, Class of 2015), Caleb Tan (UCD, Class of 2017), Samuel Lee (UCD, Class of 2016), Jiwon Kim (UCD, Class of 2016), Edward Oh (UCD, Class of 2017), Jean Kim (UCD, Class of 2013), Isabel Yin (UCD, Class of 2014), Gloria Park (UCD, Class of 2015), Colin Anderson (UCD, Class of 2015), Hope Kim (UCD, Class of 2015), JooWan Park (UCD, Class of 2015), Kristen Pham (UCD, Class of 2015), Swon Kimn (UCD, Class of 2015), Duke Cha (UCD, Class of 2015), Hyemin Kim (UCD, Class of 2017), Jessica Park (UCD, Class of 2015), Camillia Kim (UCD, Class of 2015), Scarlett Kim (UCD, Class of 2015), Selah Shine (UCD, Class of 2015), Young Lee (UCD, Class of 2015), Brian Dean (UCD, Class of 2015), Eric Yai (UCD, Class of 2015), and John Park (UCD, Class of 2015).
So Ms. Jo takes the child to South Korea in 2009 and in 2014 foolishly returns to the United States and is taken into custody for child abduction. I can only assume that she did this 300 days ago from the letter. South Korea, like many nations, does not have a treaty with the United States that covers child abduction. This means a South Korean national can effectively terminate the parental rights of the US citizen parent by taking that child to South Korea. This is a problem that some members of the military have had when wedding South Korean nationals. Under the laws of our country Ms. Jo does not get to unilaterally determine the fitness of the father and remove the child from the jurisdiction of our family law court system. Whether Ms. Jo is guilty or not she will most likely be deported never to see her child again if she is not a US citizen as the family court will likely give custody of the child to the remaining parent, the father. I cannot imagine her getting a visa to come to this country after this incident or a family law judge allowing the child to go to South Korea where it has no jurisdiction or reciprocity. When parents engage in this type of behavior it is the child that suffers. We have a court system that is designed to protect the rights of both parents and the child.
These types of propaganda pieces by interested parties without some balanced background information on the eve of a trial are inappropriate. Did the Vanguard contact the father for his side of the story. Was the child in South Korea for the last six years? Was the father allowed any contact with his daughter by Ms. Jo while in South Korea. I look forward to DP’s comments on this one with his legal background.
This is essentially a letter to the editor, we’ll look into the case more fully in the future.
Yes, I thought the same thing, there are two sides to every story. Are we going to hear the other side?
IMO it would have been preferable, if at the end the DV stated they would investigate the matter in the future. As is, it does seem that the DV is sanctioning the letter as the one and only side of the story, though with the signatures us readers should realize it is one side.
We do have a disclaimer: “Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.”
The bigger question is why do you publish this type of letter without additional information on the case. What if all of the allegations in the letter are false and are just an attempt to sway public opinion by Ms. Jo’s friends. All of the names appear to be Korean. The question for the editorial board of the Van Guard is why this letter is on the website. The letter asks the Van Guard to write a story on this case. That would seem to be more appropriate. Why publish it without any fact checking?
The issues involved in a child abduction case may be of interest to the readers. I cannot recall ever having read about a child abduction case in this county or region. Legally what is child abduction?
I just noticed that the letter claims that she is being held without bail. Why? How is this an injustice? Many defendants help prepare their cases while in jail.
Because any newspaper would have done the same. We’ll get the full story at some point, but they submitted the letter for publication and it met our guidelines.
There are two pieces of information that I feel would be more relevant than an accounting of “the other side of the story”.
1. The corroborating evidence that events did in fact occur as depicted here in which case it would seem that the protection of the child from a violent father should be the over riding concern.
2. The corroborating evidence demonstrating that the father is a caring responsible parent who did not disavow the pregnancy, refuse to support the chid and then only recently decide that he wants to exert parental rights. If this could be demonstrated then of course his parental rights should be respected.
What I have seen too often is that the best interests of the child get lost in the demand of “parental rights” because of biology and a desire for control, not any desire to nurture.
Tia,
If the father was violent on one occasion to the mother as described above that does not mean he was a danger to the child? The letter indicates that the mother called the police. Then what? We have mechanisms in place to protect children. CPS can become involved. Court orders prohibiting contact with the child during an investigation of the allegations. Same for supervised visitation. This protects the rights of the father to refute the claims if they are false. Did she violate a court order by taking the child to South Korea? Was there a pending family law action pending at the time she left? How old is the child now? Where is the child now? Does it matter if the father wanted Ms. Jo to have an abortion and did not want the child when it (he/she?) was born but had a change of heart in 2009 and began pursuing his parental rights. How old was the child then. How old are the parents? We have a legal process by which parental rights and the interests of the child are determined. From you post it appears that you think that the father should have not parental rights if he originally disavowed the pregnancy, refused to support the child and then recently decided he wanted to exert his parental rights. Would his recent assertion of parental rights justify Ms. Jo taking the child to South Korea?
I understand that the original trial hung 6-6 back in December
I see no advantage to trying this case in the court of public opinion on the eve of trial. The case will be tried in state court, where all the relevant and admissible evidence will be heard.
Actually, public opinion can matter, especially to an elected District Attorney who may be overreaching in this matter, same as has occurred in other matters since he took office. Cases commonly charged as misdemeanors in Sacramento and Solano counties, for example, are often charged as felonies by the Yolo county D.A. A felony follows a person for a very, very long time — making it extremely difficult to obtain new employment, for example.
In this case, the 6 year old child was ripped out of her mother’s arms in the airport at Hawaii, where both had travelled to give the little girl an opportunity to learn English and to experience a mixed white-Asian culture. She (the child) who did not speak English was then handed over to the biological father, who does not speak Korean, without ANY CPS investigation beforehand of his fitness, despite reams of emails in the possession of the District Attorney that father wrote to the mother admitting to his violence toward her and other quite disturbing addictions and problems which impacted his fitness to care for a child. And in the Vanguard’s earlier report of the mother’s trial, it was noted that the father admitted on the witness stand that he tried to strangle the mother — AND that they argued about the father’s viewing pornography on the mother’s computer. The letter sounds spot on — I do not know any of the students that wrote this, though I am quite disturbed by the D.A.’s actions in this case, particular involving such a very young child, who has likely suffered permanent trauma from being taken away from her mother in a strange country’s airport. How could such a young child understand that the people that wrenched her away from her mother were there to “help” her? I can imagine this little girl is going to have nightmares and need therapy herself for a very long time.
A jury has already hung with many finding mom totally innocent – why is the D.A. reprosecuting? Why not instead (1) allow Ms. Jo to be out on bail (2) allow the family court to make a final custody decision (3) allow the father and mother to work out a way for custody to be shared if and only if the father is a suitable and fit candidate for custody, which of course applies to the mother as well and (4) facilitate and encourage Immigration to approve mom for permanent residency. If mom can become a resident here, that would facilitate custody, visitation, etc. whatever is best for the CHILD.
Zaqzaq – you really believe it is in the CHILD’s best interests for the mom to be convicted of essentially protecting her daughter from a man who has admitted to domestic violence and for the mom to be deported? Or might it rather be in the interests of the child to be returned to her mother who has raised her, with reasonable (and safe) visitation accorded to the father? Does any mother imagine she would do anything differently if faced with similar circumstances with regard to the health and safety of her child?
Here is why I don’t believe it is appropriate to try this case in the court of public opinion:
1. Why did the mother not try to gain full custody of the child w supervised visitation through the court system, but instead chose to cut off all visitation by the father and remove the child from the court’s jurisdiction by leaving the country?
2. If the fear of the father gaining custody and/or abusing the child was so great in her mind, why did the mother risk returning to this country with the child?
3. What makes you think if the mother is out on bail with the child, that she won’t try and leave the jurisdiction with the child again?
4. Are you trying to say the child should never know her father, even if the visits are supervised?
For me, there are just too many unanswered questions that need to be settled in court, where all the evidence can be presented.
Ann,
The only information that I have is from the above letter which appears to be a one sided piece of propaganda. You raised four questions. The first having to do with bail. Why is Ms. Jo being denied bail? Is it because of the criminal case or immigration issues. Is the court concerned that she will flee to South Korea if release or will INS deport her before the criminal case is completed?
Your second issue is allowing the family court to determine custody for the child. One of my questions earlier was whether a family court proceeding had taken place or was being started that endangered Ms. Jo’s custody of her daughter. Shy didn’t she challenge the father’s fitness as a parent in family law court as our laws permit? If she fled to South Korea to avoid a family court order it puts her in a bad light in future custody rulings. Can a family law judge allow her custody? How would a judge insure that she not take the child to South Korea the first opportunity that arises. You seem to know much more about this case than I. Was a family law judge ever allowed to make a custody ruling before she took the child to South Korea?
Are either or both parents fit to raise the child. I can only assume that a family law judge is dealing with these issues or has already dealt with these issues. Who has custody now? I doubt that the DA has the authority to make these decisions and would have to bring these issues to a family law judge. It would be interesting to learn how the DA’s office becomes involved in child abduction cases.
I am not going to address the immigration issue as I do not have any experience in that field.
To answer your question about a conviction. It sounds like six voted to acquit and six voted for guilt. If she took the child to South Korea to prevent the biological father from exercising his parental rights then she should be convicted. Will the conviction have any impact on the custody issue? Our society is based on the rule of law and not allowing the family court to determine custody issues is wrong. What about the father who was denied contact with his daughter for about five years (a guess). Should he have been given an opportunity to demonstrate that he is fit to raise his daughter? I have yet to hear that he in any way abused the child. The only allegations concern the mother. What abut the daughter’s right to know her father? How did Ms. Jo explain to her daughter why she did not have a father? It will be interesting to see how this case turns out.
Ann,
I found an older story in the Vanguard. From this story it sounds like they had a rocky relationship. It also notes that the father is a disabled veteran and a substitute school teacher. I can only assume that school districts to some form of due diligence in background checks and that he passed. Your comment and the letter portray him as an ogre. Again, custody issues should be handled in family court, not by a unilateral decision by one parent which sounds like what happened here.
Zaqzaq, nowhere was I trying to “portray” him as an ogre. You came to that conclusion/opinion yourself by reading the facts regarding the case. In fact, I am more concerned about what all this is doing to that poor little girl. Wrenched from her mother after a long trip to a strange country, didn’t speak English and the person she was handed over to didn’t speak Korean? Nightmares and fear of flying/strange countries and law enforcement for the rest of her life, perhaps? Doesn’t seem like this was handled well at all with regard to the child. And it was much more than a “rocky” relationship that came out in the dad’s own testimony — he admitted to trying to strangle the mom. What if mom never knew about custody proceedings before leaving the country with her child? Looking at it from her likely perspective — she had raised the child from birth with very little involvement from the father, who apparently didn’t want the baby in the first place, so why would he ask for custody (though unfortunately it is the case that a good number of uninvolved dads end up asking for custody when they are asked for child support). The dad admitted himself he was abusive and had problems re pornography. We haven’t heard — what if it was child porn? Or what if adult porn viewed in presence of child? What if this disabled vet with diagnosed PTSD and brain trauma is dangerous to the child? Truly sad. A change of heart is fine, and good for him in wanting to be a real dad to the child, and maybe he can ultimately be a good one. But doesn’t mean mom deserves to be convicted and deported due to dad’s apparent “change of heart.” Do you really think it makes sense that this mother be deported to So. Korea never to see her daughter again until the daughter is an adult and able to go visit her? The child already probably has “abandonment” issues — as she can’t possibly understand why her mother is not caring for her now.
Also, re bail — it appears that the D.A. has coordinated with ICE and there is an ICE hold on mom. If mom is allowed by the Yolo Co. judge to make bail (and many Yolo County judges do not like to grant bail to people with ICE holds if they are pending trial) she will still likely remain in custody, on the ICE hold, so it would be a waste of bail money that she likely does not have, since she is being represented by the public defender.
Also I would note that even if there was a custody proceeding in process when mom left, California law provides a complete defense if there was domestic violence against the parent taking the child and the parent feared that the child could also be harmed. It sounds like the dad admitted to domestic violence against the mom, admitted he has PTSD, brain trauma, problems with pornography and serious anger issues. To me that sounds like the action of the mother in trying to protect her child was quite reasonable, whether or not she knew of any pending custody proceeding.
Something does not add up here. If the defendant is being accused of child abduction, then the father must have had some rights that the mother interfered with by leaving the country and the court’s jurisdiction. Yet the letter contradicts this and states:
“The father then gladly gave up both physical and legal custody of Ms. Jo’s daughter. In 2009, the much physically stronger and larger The father grabbed Ms. Jo by the throat and threw her against a wall in a fit of rage. Fearing for her child’s safety, Ms. Jo called the police to have The father removed from the premises. Shortly after, Ms. Jo escaped to South Korea to protect her family.”
Why didn’t Ms. Jo file a police report, have The father arrested for domestic violence, obtain a restraining order to protect both her and the child? Why did she suddenly decamp to South Korea, and not avail herself of the protection of our court system?
I don’t feel as if I am getting the whole story and again is the reason why this needs to be tried in court, and not the court of public opinion.
Victims of domestic violence often are afraid to access law enforcement and the courts, immigrants in particular. Read up on DV statistics and see what you think after you do … here is a good abstract with reference to a lot of articles, including access to community resources by battered immigrant women. http://fcx.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/12/11/1557085108325413.short
Also, perpetrators often lie and say they didn’t do it or downplay what they did. Father here has actually ADMITTED he committed a crime, on the witness stand, in court — but has the D.A. had him arrested or charged him? No. And why not? You’re right there must be a lot more to this story — but what I am wondering is why does the D.A. want her convicted and deported? Expenditure of resources to arrest in Hawaii? (She didn’t return to California, she flew into Hawaii to allow her daughter to learn some English and experience a more multi-cultural environment). Political reasons? So far 6 people found her not guilty. It takes 12 to convict. Why is the D.A. reprosecuting? Most cases don’t get reprosecuted if half a jury thinks the person is innocent. And in the meantime a young child is still without her mother….
Ann,
The DA does not determine custody, that is done by the family law judge. According to the DA website they represent the Superior Court and/or the People of the State of California. The below is from the DA website:
“Abductions – The child has been moved/taken with the intent of depriving the other parent’s custodial rights. The Child Abduction Unit can begin an investigation whether or not there was an order in place at the time of the abduction. You may be required to obtain an order during the course of the investigation and prior to the child being retrieved.”
The California Child Abduction Task Force website describes the role of the DA as follows:
“The role of California District Attorneys in family abduction cases is unique. California Family Code sections 3130 through 3134.5 mandate District Attorneys to assist the courts in enforcing their orders and in locating and returning missing children to the jurisdiction of the court.”
If there was a family law case pending or filed then the child would be turned over to the control of the family law court. That court would then determine custody issues. It looks like the DA’s office is an agent of the court when recovering an abducted child. The decision to prosecute is another separate function of the DA’s office.
In this case the father was not allowed any contact with his child for five years. That is horrific. Are you saying that California law has a defense that covers a five year time period. I could see a brief period of time to get into the jurisdiction of a court, but five years.
You are concerned about the expense. What is to much to spend to bring a child back to the jurisdiction of a family court so that custody orders can be made that protect the rights of both parents and the interests of the child.
Where do you come to the conclusion that the DA wants her deported? That is a federal issue and not something that the DA has any role in. The DA may coordinate with federal agencies to recover an abducted child which may explain what happened in Hawaii. I suspect Ms. Jo was on an ICE watch list and detained when she entered the country. Just a guess. That would not be hard to do. The website refers to federal and state agency cooperation to recover an abducted child. The FBI does investigate kidnapping cases. What is the difference between a kidnapping and an abduction?
Do you know what the statute of limitations is for domestic violence cases? It could very well have passed by the time the child was recovered in Hawaii and thus the DA could do nothing about that allegation.
Your concern about the well being of child is valid. There is a process by which the child is returned to a parent when abducted. It probably was not pleasant in this case. Imagine the poor father who cannot communicate with his daughter. I am not sure how you would resolve this issue while retaining custody of the mother and returning the child to the jurisdiction of the family law court. The child cannot stay in jail with the mom and the mom cannot be trusted not to flee based on her prior conduct. Does she have a visa to be here now? Would ICE be required to deport her now? Is the only thing keeping her in this country the criminal case? Can she stay pending a family court resolution?
You have taken the allegations and spun a story that only favors the mother. There may very well be evidence that this was a violent relationship between both parents. There are two sides to every story and the father’s has not been presented here. I just feel that taking the child out of the country and refusing to let the father have any contact with the child for five years is horrific and that there should be consequences for doing so. Imagine if you were not able to participate in, have contact with or know what your child was doing for five years. That is why I was so offended by this letter.
So Zaqzaq, who are you? Do you have a personal involvement with this case? There is no “time limit” on the defense. Absolutely someone can stay in the U.S. pending family court resolutions if the D.A. and ICE want that to happen. There is no “requirement” that she be deported. D.A. can request she be kept in the U.S. ICE can exercise prosecutorial discretion. But what I understand is that the D.A. has stated he wants her deported. Hmmmm. This D.A. has a history, since taking office, of anti-immigrant policies and practices. From refusing to sign certifications regarding the cooperation of immigrant victims (including for victims of domestic violence) to claiming that immigration consequences should not be considered in negotiating pleas, this D.A. has been anti-immigrant. It is no surprise that that inclination continues in this case, but hopefully, there will be a change — one can always hope, at least.
And finally, I find that attempted murder/strangulation of the child’s mother is much more “horrific” than the perpetrator having no contact with the child for 5 years, if true. I’m quite surprise that you find it otherwise.
Ann,
I only have the information from the Vanguard articles and some internet surfing and have no personal involvement in this case. There is only one article on the trial that I found on the Vanguard (12/17/14). It does not mention attempted murder/strangulation. Where do you get this information or is this you spin. It sounds like a major exaggeration of the information. Do you have an interest in this case? What is your agenda? You previously mentioned the child was seized in Hawaii. Where did that come from? I note there is an Ann Block in Davis who is an immigration attorney. Do you represent Ms. Jo? In your letters it sounds like you are arguing for a client.
You state, “There is no “time limit” on the defense.” Does that mean she can claim she took the child for to protect her from the father for five years without contacting the police, family law court or any other agency. I find that questionable.
Where has the DA stated he wants her deported? That is not in either of the articles. What is your source of information? Why would the DA want her kept in this country if there is no pending case? Why would the DA have any role in her deportation absent a pending criminal case?
How do immigration consequences impact criminal cases? Is it your position that illegal immigrants should be given a break or special treatment in plea negotiations that would not be afforded US citizens? How should the immigration consequences be considered in plea offers?
Zaqzaq,
Perhaps you have no “personal involvement” but I would bet the farm that you work in the District Attorney’s office, from the many comments you have made to date, some of which are things I have heard over and over from D.A.s in your office — like the statement “Is it your position that illegal immigrants should be given a break or special treatment in plea negotiations that would not be afforded US citizens?” That I have only heard that from D.A.s — in YOUR office.
Yes, I’m a local immigration attorney and I’m not hiding that. You? Why are you hiding your identity? I do not represent Ms. Jo. I am interested in this case, however, as it involves the mistreatment of an immigrant in Yolo County – my county.
I continue to be outraged by the D.A.’s treatment of immigrants in Yolo County, especially since I live here. I wonder if progressive people in Davis have any idea what is being done in their names in this county? Your office is one of the only District Attorney’s offices in the state that thinks that deportation should not be considered by the D.A. or the judge as a consequence of a conviction – as you just argued, our D.A. considers that “special treatment.” Immigrants who have lived here many, many years, LEGALLY, coming here as young children, can be convicted and deported for very minor offenses — smoking marijuana, shoplifting, etc. They can be deported even if they have a U.S. citizen spouse and many U.S. citizen children. That actually happens — all the time.
The U.S. Supreme Court has said that the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction MUST be considered — in Padilla v. Kentucky a case decided in 2010– yet your office regularly refuses to consider what the Supreme Court understands quite well — which again, is evident in the statement you just made about “special treatment.” According to the Supreme Court, on the other hand, “These changes [to federal immigration law] confirm our view that, as a matter of federal law, deportation is an integral part—indeed, sometimes the most important part—of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes.” So no one is asking for “special treatment” of “illegal immigrants” as you claim, never mind that many such defendants are actually long term legal immigrants — they are merely asking for a just consideration of the additional penalty noncitizens often suffer as a result of convictions. Your office has refused, on many occasions, to even consider felony alternatives to pleas, even if the immigrant would accept additional time in jail to avoid deportation — because that would be “special treatment.” Well, perhaps you need to reconsider — because U.S. citizens don’t get deported as an additional consequence/penalty. The treatment of U.S. citizens is much better, in fact, by your office
But let’s get back to Ms. Jo’s case — going back to the December Vanguard article you refer to: it says that the dad, Jesse Charlton, testified:
“During an October 2009 incident, where police were called to the home of Charlton and Jo, Charlton admitted he grabbed Jo by the neck, throwing her up against a wall because she had shoved the baby at him hitting his head.”
But, “I never touched her after that, I was told to leave by police and I did, I just got so angry. Our arguments became more and more heated.”
“Charlton said the argument that time began over his watching pornography on Jo’s computer.”
So the father has admitted in court that he grabbed the mother by the neck, throwing her up against a wall — e.g. trying to strangle her. One can imagine that scene, can you not? It sounds pretty violent and very scary. He admits “I just got so angry”. He admits to watching pornography on Ms. Jo’s (mother’s) computer. He is a vet with PTSD and brain trauma. He should be receiving medical and mental health treatment and as many services from our government as possible to assist him, but does that mean he is a fit father? Would you leave YOUR children in the care of Mr. Charlton? Maybe he has changed, but it certainly appears that the mother had plenty reason to fear him and fear for her daughter as well. Did the D.A. consider that perhaps the father wasn’t the best placement for this child when ripping her away from her mother and throwing her mother in jail? Was CPS right there investigating and monitoring the situation? Would all this have happened if the mother were a white, middle class European? Or the father not from a white, middle class family with prominent, well connected local family friends? One wonders….
Finally, why not just have a mediated solution here — if the mom can attain legal status in the U.S. and is willing to stay here, why not work something out so that the father can see the child on a regular basis, perhaps supervised visitation, or more if he is adjudged presently fit, but the young child is returned to her mother? Wouldn’t that be in the best interests and a just result for all involved? And shouldn’t the D.A. try to facilitate that, if our D.A. is truly interested in justice for all in Yolo County?