Pedo-Parents and the Child Welfare System

Late last year, [Kid’s Voice]( executive director Scott Hollander, “argued that just because a person is on the Megan’s Law Web site it doesn’t mean they are a danger to their child.”

In a [televised interview]( on Pittsburgh’s WPXI, Hollander–whose child advocacy organization approved Masha Allen’s placement with and adoption by Faith Allen–admitted that “Megan’s Law . . . raises a huge red flag that has to be investigated.”

Kid’s Voice, which reps itself as “a voice of hope, a voice for rights and a voice of experience for children who otherwise cannot speak for themselves” is a impregnable and well-connected Pittsburgh institution with links to the [Greater Pittsburgh Chapter of the ACLU]( (Hollander’s father is president of the board of directors), [Child Watch of Pittsburgh]( (Hollander serves on the board with and gave a campaign contribution to Masha’s namesake [Judge Cheryl Allen](, and [Hollywood]( (Hollander was a technical consultant to his brother’s hit television show *The Guardian*).

[Note that reporter Barbara White Stack, a favorite of Judge Allen, wrote both these Post-Gazette pieces and serves on the ACLU board with Hollander’s dad – but more on that later.]

According to their website:

> “KidsVoice vigilantly guides each child through the court process and ensures that every agency involved meets the full range of the child’s needs. Through in-depth investigation, KidsVoice delivers informed recommendations and advocates in court for the child’s best interests–in court and beyond–making a dramatic difference in the lives of children, parents and the community at large. KidsVoice ensures that the most appropriate services are in place to protect children from future harm, with the ultimate goal of providing a safe and permanent home for every child.”

Enough pablum about the kids, what about the pedo-parents? Can a convicted sex offender ever be an appropriate parent? What about a single divorced middle aged man seeking to adopt a young blond Russian girl? Are guys like Mancuso worthy of investigation and a second chance? Is anyone less a viable option? Who? And how do you decide who is rehabilitated and who isn’t?

4 Replies to "Pedo-Parents and the Child Welfare System"

  • FatherPitt
    February 28, 2008 (8:17 am)

    None of this surprises me. Since 2000 S. HOllander has given lots of dough to judges – $200 to Judge Jill Rangos, $250 to Judge Christine Ward, $275 to Judge Max Baer and $250 to Gov Rendell. Thomas Hollander gave $500 to Rendell, $500 to Baer, $550 to Ward, and on and on. Welcome to Pittsburgh.

  • Scott
    March 3, 2008 (3:46 pm)

    On behalf of all “… single divorced middle aged [men]” in the world … get your head out of your @$$! If it’s okay for a single, divorced middle-aged woman to adopt a boy, then it’s okay for a single, divorced middle-age man (who had no criminal record at that time, so there was no indication a crime would be committed) to adopt a girl. Period! Oh, btw hypocrite, does it really matter that the girl in question is blond? Unless your point is that little blond girls are inherently more innocent, more attractive, more valuable or just “have more fun” then what difference does it make?

  • Anonymous
    March 3, 2008 (8:37 pm)


    Speaking of getting your head out of your #%$, you can start now. The issue is not so much “single” parents, it’s using common sense. Kids have been harmed by both single men and women as well as married couples. In many of those cases it was a lack of screening, especially when there were obvious warning signs. In Matthew Mancuso’s case no one questioned why he had a poor relationship with his biological daughter. In a number of other cases involving single women in child abuse cases, there were other obvious factors that were not pursued. As for your brilliant suggestion that a criminal check is enough, few pedophiles have criminal records. Likewise, single and married adoptive parents who abuse their children often appear “normal”. What many of them have in common are risk factors, concealed histories of mental illness, drug abusing spouses and/or partners. What kind of an idiot would suggest that just doing a criminal check would be enough? If that were the case, there would be no Boy Scouts, altar boys, pre-teen babysitters, middle school students and, finally, adopted children who were abused by perfectly normal LOOKING people. Get a grip. It’s time to take this problem seriously. How about profiling? How about really, really thorough background checks? Anything would be better than the touching exercise in self delusion and self policing we have now.

  • Dudesweat
    May 6, 2008 (3:45 pm)

    Two words… Woody Allen