HOME
Sex News Online
NEWS YOU WON'T SEE ELSEWHERE
TOPICS
Brother, Sister Lose Parental Rights to Son
Send news items to:
Sex News Online
By Mary Beth Murphy of the Journal Sentinel staff
MILWAUKEE, Wis., February 11, 1997 -- A Milwaukee
County Children's Court judge Monday terminated the parental rights of a
brother and sister after determining that their 7-month-old son was conceived
in incest -- as were the couple's two other children.
The parents, who previously lost parental rights to their other children, are
believed to be the first to be prosecuted in Wisconsin for the sole reason of
having children through an incestuous relationship, according to court
officials.
The 1989 Wisconsin statute is believed to be the only one of its kind
nationwide.
The same grounds were used last summer to terminate the parents' rights to a
daughter, 6, who has genetic deficiencies caused by incest, court records show.
James Weber, attorney for the mother, is appealing that decision, contending
the law is unconstitutional. "This case is extreme. It is symptomatic of
pretty severe deviancy of behavior by these individuals," said Nancy
Ettenheim, an assistant district attorney who prosecuted the case. "To
this date, she (the mother) continues to lie about the origin of paternity to
all three" of the children.
The 1989 law added incestuous parenthood to the grounds for termination of
parental rights. That is established by "showing that the person whose
parental rights are sought to be terminated is also related, either by blood or
adoption, to the child's other parent in a degree of kinship closer than second
cousin."
After the ruling Monday by Judge Daniel Noonan, the brother, 44, and sister,
30, voluntarily agreed to be booked by sheriff's deputies. They were released
but are scheduled to be charged Wednesday morning with incest -- a felony. If
the two had not agreed to be booked, a warrant would have been issued for their
arrest, Ettenheim said.
"My heart goes out" to the baby boy, Noonan said. The child seeks
love and affection and has the right to "a decent life," which would
be difficult to achieve without the termination, he said.
Weber, who argued against the termination, said the court did not give the
mother a chance to prove she could be a fit parent. The baby, who was born in
Waukegan, Ill., was removed from the home shortly after the mother returned to
Milwaukee last year. "A form of legal sterilization is happening
here," Weber said, contending the state has decided to terminate parental
rights for any future children as well.
However, the prosecution and court records show that the parents' two older
children suffered from severe neglect when they were removed from the home.
The brother and sister claimed for a time to be married but later admitted that
was false. The parental rights to their oldest child, now 10, were terminated
by a Texas court in 1989. The couple's second child, who was 3 when removed,
was diagnosed with "failure to thrive" and received little or no
parental affection. In addition, the woman had a child by another man as a
teenager, and the brother has at least three children from a former marriage.
Noonan said it was difficult to listen to the developmental and physical
conditions of the two older children. Referring to the baby, Noonan said,
"I don't think it would be wise for any court to take that chance
again." The brother and sister were born and raised in Wisconsin, but grew
up in separate homes.
According to county officials, the woman, who was removed from her biological
parents as a baby and adopted at age 7, reunited with her brother when she
became 18. The biological family -- described in court records as extremely
dysfunctional -- has a 20-year history with county social service agencies.
The brother's and sister's biological parents were clients of the county's then
Department of Public Welfare, which held 30 hearings involving their nine
children. Most of the children were in and out of the foster care system.
In 1974, Judge Victor Manian terminated parental rights to the three youngest
children. The sister in Monday's case was the youngest child. The parents, like
the brother and sister in Monday's case, were hostile to social service workers
and threatened to kill some of them.
The woman's biological family showed up at her adoptive home on her 18th
birthday to reclaim her and she went to live with them, said Jeff Aikin,
spokesman for the county's Department of Human Services.
In addition to Monday's case, there is a history of incest within the rest of
the biological family, including a half-brother and sister who had a child from
an incestuous relationship, court records show.
The brother and sister contested the paternity of their 7-month-old son in
court Monday. The sister testified that she never had sexual intercourse with
her brother during the time she would have conceived her son.
Asked whether he had intercourse with his sister then, the brother replied,
"I really couldn't say." Saying that was a "most bizarre
response," Ettenheim countered that most people would be able to confirm
or deny whether they had sex with a sibling.
Debra Endean, a genetics specialist, said results of paternity and genetic
testing showed that the brother was 99.99% more likely to be the father of the
child than any other man.
It's "practically proven he is the father," she testified.
The sister also testified that when she entered into a relationship with her
brother she didn't know they were related.
According to the sister, they met in a mall in Texas and she first realized the
man was her brother when she was 4 1/2 months pregnant with their second child.
The sister said that she knew such a relationship was morally wrong and
detrimental to any children born from incest, and that she has severed her
relationship with her brother.
However, Ettenheim said there is no "shred of evidence" to support
the sister's story. The brother and sister have continued to repeat a
pathological pattern of lies and sociopathic behavior that has dominated their
family history.
"It appears nobody has learned a lesson," Ettenheim said. The worst
part is that the brother and sister continue to deny the consequences of their
incestuous behavior on their children, she said.
Brother, Sister No-Shows at Incest Trial
Associated Press
MILWAUKEE, Wis., July 24, 1997 - A brother and sister
on trial for incest didn't show up in court for their trial Wednesday and
warrants were issued for their arrest.
Defense attorneys said they didn't know where to find the pair, who were living
apart and being represented separately. Their phone numbers were not in
service, said James Weber, the woman's attorney.
"There's no reason for us to believe they've absconded," Weber said
after the court proceedings.
"I have no idea where they are, to be honest. I believe they're still in
Wisconsin."
The brother, 44, and the sister, 30, face up to 10 years in prison and a
$10,000 fine if convicted of the felony incest charge.
They were charged in February, two days after losing parental rights to their
7-month son on the grounds of incestuous parenthood. Last summer, they lost
parental rights to a 6-year daughter on the same grounds.
While living in Texas in 1989, they lost their parental rights to a daughter,
now 10, because of neglect.
Additionally, the woman gave up a child for adoption from a teenage pregnancy
and the man had three children from a previous marriage.
The couple were born and raised in Wisconsin, but the state removed the sister
from the biological parents and she was adopted at age 7. Her biological family
appeared at her adopted family's home on her 18th birthday, and she left to go
live with them, according to court records.
Assistant District Attorney Nancy Ettenheim, who originally handled the case,
said the state regularly prosecutes incest cases between an adult and child as
sexual assault cases, but this case is "notable" because it involves
consenting adults.
Weber repeated his claim outside court Wednesday that the charges are
retaliation for the woman fighting the termination of her parental rights.
Judge Finds Brother, Sister Guilty of Incest
Felony: Pregnant women faces jail time
Associated Press
MILWAUKEE, Wis., October 10, 1997 - Eight months after
losing parental rights to a fourth child, a brother and his pregnant sister
were found guilty Thursday of having consensual sex.
An attorney had argued that the state had no legitimate interest in a
relationship between the two adults - the man is 45, his sister 30.
But Milwaukee County Circuit Judge David Hansher said the evidence of felony
incest was "overwhelming and unrefuted." He could sentence the pair
to 10 years in prison on Nov. 11.
Hansher also ordered the two kept in jail until sentencing, despite pleas from
their defense attorneys.
"I don't want to have a pregnant woman in jail but there are other
pregnant women in jail," Hansher said. Attorneys won't say if the man is
the father of the child his sister is carrying.
The couple were born and raised in Wisconsin, but the state removed the sister
from her parents and she was adopted at age 7. Her biological family appeared
at her home on her 18th birthday, and she left to go live with them, according
to court records.
The woman previously gave up a child for adoption when she was a teenager.
During the trial, Assistant District Attorney Donald Jackson called only one
witness: Debra Endean, an expert in genetics at the Blood Center of
Southeastern Wisconsin.
She testified that genetic testing found that there was a 99.99 percent
probability that the man was the father of his sister's child born last year.
The brother and sister were charged in February, two days after losing parental
rights to their son.
Parental rights to two other children were terminated in earlier court
proceedings. The pair also lost parental rights to a child in 1989 in Texas,
where they formerly lived.
The state regularly prosecutes incest cases between adults and children as
sexual assault cases, but this case was notable because it involved consenting
adults, authorities said.
The woman, whose baby is due Oct. 31, has been dehydrated and lost some weight
in jail, said her attorney, James M. Weber.
Weber asked that she be put on electronic monitoring, but Hansher refused.
The two had failed to appear on their original trial date in July, and Hansher
had them thrown in jail with $10,000 bond after they were later found in Texas.