As Bonnie Dennison struggled with a decision that allowed her son’s ex-father supervised visits, 11 years after she nearly beat the then-infant to death, one question plagued her: Why Maine laws protect the parental rights of an abuser over a child who has been abused?
When the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in June upheld a decision allowing her ex-husband, Allen-Michael St. Clair, to exchange written correspondence and then control visitation with her son, who nearly died in infancy because of St. Clair, Dennison did not was of sound mind and did not have the energy to advocate for the changes she wanted to see in the laws of Maine.
So Corrine Corbin, Dennison’s sister, helped by reaching out to several legislators in the Lewiston and Auburn areas, including David Boyer of Poland; Katie Shaw, Adam Lee and Laurel Libby of Auburn; Joshua Morris of Turner; Stephen Wood of Greene; Margaret Craven, Kristen Cloutier, Mana Abdi and Michael LaJoie of Lewiston; Richard Mason of Lisbon; and Joseph Galletta of Durham.
When Corbin received no responses, she sent an email to all of the Legislature’s remaining 174 representatives and senators.
“Best wishes,” Dennison said of most responses. “I’m clearly not reaching out to the right people.”
“Unfortunately, I received an alarming lack of response, and the responses I did receive were very selfish: ‘It’s an election year, vote for me!’ Only a small handful of representatives expressed interest,” Corbyn said.
One of those representatives was Daniel Sayre of Kennebunk, who, moved by Dennison’s story, promised to reach out to colleagues more involved in the Department of Health and Human Services and family issues in general.
“It’s terrible to read about CC’s experience,” Sayre responded, referring to Dennison’s son, “and I can only imagine how terrible it was for your family. I am deeply sorry for what you all have had to endure.”
(To protect its privacy, the Sun Journal refers to the boy by his initials.)
Sayre said the lack of response from lawmakers may have a lot to do with timing, a lack of detail and a need for more direction to make positive changes.
“Do you want to see tougher sentences? … Do you want to see changes in how visitation rights are granted… (or) controlled?” Sayre asked Dennison’s sister. “Problems with how your nephew’s father was prosecuted or convicted? … Please understand that I am interested in helping you and your family. My questions are intended to help you provide information that legislators will need to know to be able to help you.”
Although the Maine court’s decision requiring Dennison to allow the father to communicate with and visit his son was based almost entirely on Section 19-A §1653(3) of Maine law, which deals with parental rights and responsibilities and the “best interests of the child.” Corbin said the main concern is §1653(6), which could grant parental rights to those convicted of domestic violence.
Custody and contact may be granted “only if the court finds that contact between the parent and child is in the best interests of the child and that adequate measures can be taken to ensure the safety of the child and the parent who is the victim of domestic violence.” “
Additionally, §1653(6A) provides similar parameters for parents convicted of child sex offenses “only if the court finds that contact between the parent and child is in the best interests of the child and that adequate accommodations can be made for the safety of the child.”
Corbyn and Dennison said they believe a distinction needs to be made when criminals try to gain access to their victims: “Anyone who is responsible for abusing their child should never have the right to see them,” they said They.
Sayre advised the sisters to contact state Reps. Suzanne Salisbury of Westbrook and Holly Stover of Boothbay.
In a joint statement, Stover and Salisbury wrote that while it is difficult to look back at the facts of a case that happened 11 years ago, Maine law should provide guidance in Title 22, which covers “various aspects of health and welfare, including the Child Welfare Act.” , which addresses the issues surrounding child abuse.”
“In this case, it is our understanding that a reasonable finding and conviction occurred,” Stover and Salisbury wrote. “Under Title 22, specifically Section 4055, a court may terminate parental rights if a parent is found to have committed violence that poses a threat to the safety or welfare of the child. It could be argued that at the time of this judgment the court could, based on the conviction of abuse, order the termination of the biological father’s parental rights. Without details of the decision making, it is impossible to determine why this was not implemented at the time.”
Dennison said she doesn’t hope sharing her and CeCe’s story will change the outcome of the decision and ruling, but she does hope it may spark some changes in the legal system.
“Every single person I’ve spoken to is absolutely appalled by what’s happening and can’t believe St. Clair was even allowed supervised visits after what he did. “No one realizes that abusive parents are protected and people need to know that.”
Dennison said her mission is to create a new law that would end parents’ rights immediately after they are found guilty of physically or sexually abusing a child. Part of that mission is asking the public for help to make this happen.
“I’m working with a woman from Walk a Mile in Their Shoes to try to contact legislators to pass a law that would take away your right to be a parent if you’re accused of physically or sexually abusing a minor. It seems like common sense, but apparently that’s not the case in Maine,” Dennison said.
Corbin added: “The court’s decision to help CeCe deal with the possible trauma of meeting the man who nearly killed him is to send him to therapy. For me this is a clear indicator: this is not in his interests. Every child abused in Maine counts on adults to speak up for them.”
Copy the link to the story