While Bonnie Dennison was contending with a judgment that would allow her son’s estranged father supervised visits 11 years after nearly beating the then-infant to death, one question nagged at her: Why would Maine’s laws protect the parental rights of an abuser over the child that was abused?
When the Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld a ruling in June that allowed her former husband, Allen-Michael St. Claire, to exchange written correspondence and then to have supervised visits with her son, who almost died as an infant because of St. Claire, Dennison was not in the head space and did not possess the energy to advocate for the kinds of changes she would like to see in Maine’s laws.
So, Corinne Corbin, Dennison’s sister, helped by reaching out to several legislators in the Lewiston and Auburn area, including David Boyer of Poland; Kathy 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 blast to the entire Legislature’s remaining 174 representatives and senators.
“Well wishes,” Dennison said of most responses. “I am clearly not reaching the right people.”
“Unfortunately, I received a concerning lack of response and what responses I did get, were very selfish (with) ‘It is an election year, vote for me!’ There’s only a small handful of reps who showed interest,” Corbin 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 Department of Health and Human Services matters and family matters in general.
“CC’s experience is terrible to read,” Sayre responded, referring to Dennison’s son, “and I can only imagine how horrible it has been for your family to experience. I am deeply sorry for what you all have endured.”
(To protect his privacy, the Sun Journal is referring to the boy by his initials.)
Sayre said a lack of response from legislators may be largely due to time, not having enough details and needing more of a direction to engage positive change.
“Do you want to see tougher sentences? … Do you want to see changes in how visitation rights are granted … (or) supervised?” Sayre asked Dennison’s sister. “Are the issues 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 the information that legislators will need to know to be able to help you.”
While the Maine court’s judgment forcing Dennison to allow the father to communicate and visit with the son was based almost entirely on Maine law Title 19-A §1653(3), which deals with parental rights and responsibilities and the “best interest of the child,” Corbin said the main concerns are with §1653(6), which can grant parental rights to those convicted of domestic abuse.
Custody and contact can be granted “only if the court finds that contact between the parent and child is in the best interest of the child and that adequate provision for the safety of the child and the parent who is a victim of domestic abuse can be made.”
Furthermore, §1653(6A) provides similar parameters for parents convicted of sexual offenses against children, “only if the court finds that contact between the parent and child is in the best interest of the child and that adequate provision for the safety of the child can be made.”
Corbin and Dennison said they feel a distinction needs to me made when offenders attempt to gain access to their victims: Anyone responsible for violence against their child should never have rights to see them, they said.
Sayre pointed the sisters to state Reps. Suzanne Salisbury of Westbrook and Holly Stover of Boothbay.
In a joint statement, Stover and Salisbury wrote that while it’s challenging to look retrospectively at the facts of a case from 11 years ago, Maine law should provide guidance within Title 22 that covers “various aspects of health and welfare, including the Child Protection Act, which addresses issues related to child abuse.”
“In this case, as we understand it, there was a substantiated finding and conviction,” Stover and Salisbury wrote. “Under Title 22, specifically Section 4055, a court may terminate parental rights if a parent is found to have committed abuse that poses a risk to the child’s safety or well-being. It is arguable that at the time of that conviction, the court could have, based on the conviction of severe abuse, sought termination of the parental rights of the biological father. Without the specifics about the decision making, it is impossible to determine why that was not pursued at the time.”
Dennison said she has no hope sharing her and CC’s story will change the outcome of the judgment and order, but she does hope it might spark some change in the legal system.
“Every single person I’ve talked to is completely floored that this is happening and can’t believe (St. Claire is) allowed even supervised visits after what he did. No one realizes that abusive parents are protected and people need to know.”
Dennison said her mission is to create a new law that strips parental rights immediately after being convicted of physically or sexually abusing a child. Part of that mission is pleading with the public for help to make that happen.
“I’m working with a woman with Walk a Mile in Their Shoes to try and get in contact with legislators to make a law that takes away your right to parent if you get charged with a physical or sexual assault on a minor. Seems like that’s common sense, but apparently in Maine it’s not,” Dennison said.
Corbin added, “The court’s solution to helping CC cope with the possible trauma of seeing the man who almost killed him is sending him to therapy. This is a clear indicator to me this is not in his best interest. Every abused child in Maine is counting on adults to speak up for them.”
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.