Post On Todd Wilhelm’s Injunction Will Be Up Late Tonight or Tomorrow Morning

“After our mom died, her parents (our grandparents) had this big court battle with dad. After six lawyers, two fistfights, and a near fatal attack with a spatula (don’t ask), they won the right to keep Sadie with them in England. ” Rick Riordan

https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/en/view-image.php?image=134981&picture=making-brownies
Yep- this is a spatula for making brownies

Two creepy (in my opinion 😉 Of course they could also be the most godly couple to ever walk the face of the earth, who knows? Right? ) people who have been convicted of child abuse got an injunction against Todd Wilhelm which he successfully got dismissed. TWW first wrote about this couple here.

TWW acknowledges that this couple did not admit to burning their foster child. They claim they only spanked her with a spatula….So they got mad at Todd for describing what happened.

Todd is planning on posting over the next few hours and I want to use his description of the events since this couple, soon to have time on their hands while serving their prison sentence, might decide to do the same thing to me.


Comments

Post On Todd Wilhelm’s Injunction Will Be Up Late Tonight or Tomorrow Morning — 14 Comments

  1. “…they admitted to him that they spanked L. O. and knew it was against their foster agreement.”

    “Against their foster agreement” sounds like “against the law,” although I’m not an expert. In many states, it is illegal for adoptive parents to use corporal punishment on their adopted children. People comply out of terror that the child they love will be taken away. They also learn how to discipline without hitting.

    Of course, these are merely the laws of man, not that higher law that people with spatulas prefer.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  2. Todd writes, “I was now effectively guilty until proven innocent! … I didn’t realize that two convicted felons could whine about me writing on my blog about their criminal actions and a Justice of the Peace would then revoke my Constitutional right to free speech until such time as I requested a hearing and got the injunctions dismissed.”

    In court, was this case about freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, or something outside the First Amendment?

    The issue here is the local officials’ decision to pursue a blogger. In general, though, people have restrictions and penalties before hearings all the time, even though they remain innocent until proven guilty.

    It’s a relief to know that things worked out as they did.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  3. Wow, just wow. If the Beerys or their supporters are here, I’d just like to point out that in this particular matter (suppressing Todd’s First Amendment right of freedom of speech), you have just rocketed up to Scientology Gold Standard Cult status. To put it more succinctly, yeah, I’m comparing you to Scientology in just this matter, and it’s not a good thing.

    I would also like to point out that the appropriate step the Beerys should have taken here is not to run down to the justice court and file for protective orders. What the Beerys should have done is a lawsuit for libel. However, the problem with that is the Beerys would have a very tough time proving that Todd lied, since everything Todd has said has come from documents in the criminal case.

    Lastly, I do know what it’s like to look up my name on the Internet and the first thing that used to come up is “Religious Bigot.” Thankfully, that never interfered with my job at the evil too big to fail financial institution, where I celebrated 20 years of employment yesterday. But there was a time when I was really concerned this could cause me to lose my job. So I do get it. But taking out protective orders was the wrong thing to have done. Really.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  4. Friend: “Against their foster agreement” sounds like “against the law,” although I’m not an expert. In many states, it is illegal for adoptive parents to use corporal punishment on their adopted children. People comply out of terror that the child they love will be taken away. They also learn how to discipline without hitting.

    From what I recall reading what Todd posted this was a lot more than some basic spanking. There is conflicting information on what was done but Todd’s post quotes one document that the damage to this 18 month child will be permanent scars. The couple claim it was excessive spanking while the report posted indicates that the injury to the child is more consistent “with a child being dipped in scalding hot water.” On top of this this “punishment” was due to the couple’s way of trying to get this 18 month child to come to them when called.

    I can understand sometimes wanting to use some physical punishment on older children but sure don’t understand using this extreme of discipline on an 18 month old child. According to someone I know who has worked with children for a number of years says not coming is a normal stage that children go through at this age when they are testing independence etc. This person also stated that an 18 month old child wouldn’t understand being disciplined.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  5. Steve240: From what I recall reading what Todd posted this was a lot more than some basic spanking.

    Spanking don’t put you in the burn ward with your skin peeled off from second-degree burns.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  6. Steve240: I can understand sometimes wanting to use some physical punishment on older children

    I can’t. When and why would a parent start? Stop? The American Academy of Pediatrics “recommends healthy forms of discipline, such as positive reinforcement of appropriate behaviors, limit setting, redirecting, and setting future expectations. The AAP recommends that parents do not use spanking, hitting, slapping, threatening, insulting, humiliating, or shaming.”

    https://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/family-dynamics/communication-discipline/Pages/Where-We-Stand-Spanking.aspx

    Steve240: this “punishment” was due to the couple’s way of trying to get this 18 month child to come to them when called.

    Yup. This is a big hint that they viewed their version of God’s Law as infinitely preferable to the laws they signed up to follow.

      (Quote)  (Reply)

  7. Steve240: On top of this this “punishment” was due to the couple’s way of trying to get this 18 month child to come to them when called.

    “Come to them when called”?

    “HERE BOY! (whistle)!”
    (Or… Remember James Dobson, his belt, and his dachshund?)

      (Quote)  (Reply)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *