Jump to content

Sex Offender Awarded Custody Of 6-year-old Girl


Scruit

Recommended Posts

Sex offender awarded custody of 6-year-old girl

 

A judge in Oklahoma City awarded custody of a child to 55-year-old Nicholas Elizondo, who is a registered sex offender from Bakersfield.

 

 

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/Sex-offender-awarded-custody-of-6-year-old-213445461.html?hpt=ju_bn5

 

 

"The child" in this case is his own child.

 

 

Bullet points from the story:

 

- Father got sex offender status in 1995

 

- Mother was aware of this  when they got married

 

- Mother and father married and living in Bakersfield. Mother moved to Oklahoma after becoming pregnant with the couple's only child. They divorced in 2008, and mother had custody of their daughter

 

- Father filed for custody after Knight stopped allowing him to see his daughter

 

- Both the father, and the alleged victim, said the 1995 thing never happened, and that the victim was encouraged to day incriminating things against the father by the police

 

- Mother accused of fabricating a story that the father's other son recently molested the child in order to keep custody

 

- Judge awarded the father full custody

 

 

Discuss.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the fact that the molestation didnt happen is hearsay. You have to look at it like he did it. hes registered so he was found guilty. Now we have to look at the piece of shit mother that the father is the better option.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what was the father's underlying sex offense?

 

if he molested  his 9 yr old niece, I feel a lot differently about this than if he was convicted of statutory rape when he was 18, and the victim was 15. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have also dealt with "sex offenders" who were taking a piss at a camp site, when a young girl happened to wander by at 11:30 at night and shined a flashlight on his dong. 

 

In the wake of the Adam Walsh Act, even a "tier III" sex offender has to register as such for 15 years.  (tier II is 25 years, and tier I is lifetime registration)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tricky. Why would the daughter testify it never happened. Either true or she's sick of her mom.

 

The original offense was in 1995, not related to his 6 year old daughter.   The victim in the 1995 case testified that the man is innocent of what he was convicted of, and that she was coerced by police into incriminating him.

 

The alleged offense against the daughter was by the man's 19yo son.  This was proven to be lie perpetrated by the mother to create a reason why the father should not have custody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what was the father's underlying sex offense?

 

if he molested  his 9 yr old niece, I feel a lot differently about this than if he was convicted of statutory rape when he was 18, and the victim was 15. 

 

TBH, if the "victim" says it never happened then I don't care what the offense was, as long as the "victim" is not being coerced NOW into denying the crime.  If the judge is happy that the crime did not happen then he's good as far as I'm concerned.

 

He took a plea deal in 1995.  That means he cannot get it overturned now regardless of how good any evidence of his innocence is.   Best he can hope for is to get the "victim" to support him in a request for a pardon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have also dealt with "sex offenders" who were taking a piss at a camp site, when a young girl happened to wander by at 11:30 at night and shined a flashlight on his dong. 

 

In the wake of the Adam Walsh Act, even a "tier III" sex offender has to register as such for 15 years.  (tier II is 25 years, and tier I is lifetime registration)

 

They need to differentiate between public urination and indecent exposure.  The former being not of a sexual nature. I'm ok with it remaining illegal, but nobody should be labelled a sex offender for it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original offense was in 1995, not related to his 6 year old daughter. The victim in the 1995 case testified that the man is innocent of what he was convicted of, and that she was coerced by police into incriminating him.

The alleged offense against the daughter was by the man's 19yo son. This was proven to be lie perpetrated by the mother to create a reason why the father should not have custody.

O, thanks. Bitches. You should post under the articles. Bunch of women going of their rocker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that many have been registered as a sex offender, and in reality they are not a sexual predator, I have a problem with the label and smackdown given to some in certain situations. I see no problem with this guy concerning what little I know about him, we all know there are registered offenders out there that is unwarranted and unfair to say the least.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with that turnout. It says in the article that in the man's area the courts were putting quite a few people in prison as sex offenders wrongfully at that time. "Witch Hunt" or whatever they said. If the mother is going to make up a story like that, I'd trust the father tenfold over her with the daughter.

 

It's the comments on the article that piss me off. I can't stand people that think A.) mothers are the only ones that can successfully raise a child and B.) people that think whatever a court rules is always correct, no matter what. Sheep.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe when someone is a registered it should be eaiser to find out what really happened. 

 

my  neighbor down the street is registered & when we bought this house all I heard from the other neighbors  was how "bad" he was.

 

 

My wife did some digging & found out he was convicted of statuary rape in 1985 at 19 years old...... his "victim"  17 & 8 months  at the time of the filing.

 

 

 

oh yea, the victim is now his wife....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe when someone is a registered it should be eaiser to find out what really happened. 

 

my  neighbor down the street is registered & when we bought this house all I heard from the other neighbors  was how "bad" he was.

 

 

My wife did some digging & found out he was convicted of statuary rape in 1985 at 19 years old...... his "victim"  17 & 8 months  at the time of the filing.

 

 

 

oh yea, the victim is now his wife....

What.. the fuck..

 

I hate our legal system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>   A judge in Oklahoma City awarded

custody of a child to 55-year-old Nicholas Elizondo.

 

>>  The child is Elizondo's 6-year-old daughter.

 

>>  Elizondo was convicted in 1995 of lewd or lascivious acts

with a child under 14 years of age.

 

>>  As for his conviction in 1995, Elizondo said he merely took a

plea bargain given what he was facing. Elizondo was facing

11 felony charges of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14,

but 10 of those were dismissed in exchange for Elizondo

pleading no contest to one charge.

 

>>  The incident happened a few years after Kern County

prosecutors tried and juries convicted numerous people on child

sex abuse charges, known as the "Witch Hunt" trials (a string of

child molestation cases during the 1980s in which 34 people from

Bakersfield were falsely convicted to hundreds of years in prison.

People were given long prison sentences.)  Many of those same

convictions were later tossed out after an appellate court

found the accused had been wrongly convicted.

 

Allegedly, Kern County prosecutors used coercive techniques to

get children to testify against their own parents, and... every

conviction was ultimately overturned.

 

"We were forced to say that a gentleman named John Stoll

  had molested us. I was one of the children that convicted

him," said Victor Monge.

 

Monge says the allegations against Stoll were false. Monge now

an adult, says he was coerced by investigators to tell them what

they wanted to hear.

 

>>  During a court hearing in Oklahoma City regarding visitation,

the victim, who authorities say was molested by Elizondo, testified

that she was never molested.

 

>>  Knight fabricat(ed) a story recently in order to keep her

daughter from being awarded to Elizondo.

 

 

=======

 

Malpractice cases

During the late 1990s, there were multiple lawsuits in the United States in which psychiatrists and psychologists were successfully sued, or settled out of court, on the charge of propagating iatrogenic memories of childhood sexual abuse, incest and satanic ritual abuse.  Some of these suits were brought by individuals who later deemed their recovered memories of incest and/or satanic ritual abuse to be false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome

 

 

False allegation of child sexual abuse

A false allegation of child sexual abuse is an accusation that a person committed one or more acts of child sexual abuse when in reality there was no perpetration of abuse by the accused person as alleged. Such accusations can be brought by the alleged victim, or by another person on the alleged victim's behalf.

 

Of the allegations determined to be false, only a small portion originated with the child, the studies showed; most false allegations originated with an adult bringing the accusations on behalf of a child, and of those, a large majority occurred in the context of divorce and child-custody battles. They may also have occurred when someone was getting back at someone else, if they get rejected for a promotion (for example) or to cover up an affair in cultures that frown on extramarital sex. There is also indication as with other alleged sex offences that the UK system of paying compensation, (quite substantial), can provide a motive for allegations being made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse

 

 

 

It seems the mother has no problem lying.

 

There is evidence to support that the father was falsely convicted.

 

False memories being implanted in children in order to convict someone of

sexual abuse is nothing new.

 

I don't know why the mother should have custody, over the father.  I would

suggest the father have custody and let the mother do the visiting.  Women

want equal rights.  Well, here it is.

 

.

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  I would

suggest the father have custody and let the mother do the visiting.  Women

want equal rights.  Well, here it is.

 

.

 

.

 

 

well said jack!

 

( I've had custody of my daughters for over 12 years)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...