Children Deserve Better

by Diane Fanning

Richard McFarland murdered his wife Susan (left) during Thanksgiving week, 2002 and burned her body at an abandoned farm in rural Bexar County. He told their three sons, ages 5, 9, and 11, "Mommy needed a break from you because you are so bad."

After Richard went to prison, the oldest boy was adopted into one home and the other two children were adopted by their fundamentalist, evangelical foster parents, Roy and Judi Block. The world wished the boys well--they deserved a safe and loving environment.

Unfortunately, all was not well in the Block home. The two youngest boys gained a dangerous sibling, Sean Michael Block (below left), the biological child of Roy and Judi. Sean was a married adult but he had free and easy access into his parents' house.

On May 29, 2009, after a short two-hour deliberation, the jury found Sean Block guilty of aiding and abetting his girlfriend, Jennifer Richards, in an attempt to sell her five-year-old daughter for sexual purposes. He also was found guilty on another charge of distributing pornography.

Sean first came to the attention of authorities in 2004 when he made contact with a Los Angeles Police Department detective who was posing as a teen aged girl on-line. Block popped up on investigators' radar again in 2006. But it wasn't until August, 2008, that they had gathered sufficient evidence to arrest Block and his girlfriend, a former Phoenix stripper.

Sean Block came to the attention of William Gholson, owner of Billy Bob's Beds in San Antonio, who was working as an FBI informant in their crack down on child pornography. Gholson played the role of an older man seeking sex with children. He received a text message from Block: "Nice piece 5 yrs old belongs to my gf and she wants to sell it." In another message, Block referred to the little girl as "our little play toy."

Jennifer Richards met with William Gholson and agreed to grant sexual access to her 5-year-old because she wanted to train her daughter how to perform sex acts "'cause I want her to be comfortable with it all." Jennifer also said that her 10-month-old girl might be available later.

Block and Richards negotiated a filthy bargain: Jennifer's daughter would be available for sex acts, photographs and videotape in exchange for $300, a used Toyota Corolla and rent payment on the two-bedroom apartment where the young child would be victimized.

The relationship between Block and Richards was dark and violent. Prosecutors revealed the contents of their on-line chats and emails discussing their sado-masochistic sex preferences, their desire to have sex with both of Jennifer's daughters, Sean's scheme to blackmail Gholson after the assault of the 5-year-old and his plan to abduct, rape and cut up the face of a female teenage runaway.

Jennifer Richards (right) pled guilty, testifying that she only agreed to the sale of her daughter because of pressure from and fear of Block. The prosecution supported her statement saying that Block "...found someone broken, pathetic with children and who is open sexually..." and browbeat her into submissiveness. He made Jennifer drink his urine and have sex with other men for money. "He was grooming her to deliver her children to.." a predator. In court, Prosecutor Wannarka backed this up by reading one of Block's messages to Richards: "Don't ever for a second forget who owns you."

In return for her plea, Jennifer received a reduced sentence of twenty years in federal prison--where typical convicts serve 85% of their time--followed by ten years of probation and registration as a sex offender when she is released. Sean Michael Block faces thirty years to life on the attempted sale of the child along with five to twenty years on the child pornography distribution charge. Judge Harry Lee Husdpeth will sentence him at the end of this month. We can only hope he will give Block the maximum on both counts.

Prosector Wannarka told the San Antonio Express News, "Children are safer because Sean Block and Jennifer Richards are in jail." And she is right.

But what about Sean Block's parents? Did they demonstrate poor judgment when they allowed their son Sean to be a frequent visitor to the home where they cared for a number of foster children and adopted others including Susan McFarland's two sons. Wouldn't staunch believers with strong moral recognize his moral depravity? And yet, these children under their roof--kids who were already harmed by previous tragedy or abuse in their lives--were exposed to this dangerous man. Is that responsible parenting?

Who knows what damage may have been done to Susan's boys or the other children? Did the Blocks turn a blind eye to their son's disturbed and violent desires? The presence of Sean in their home raises questions about their fitness to foster and adopt children. It also raises concerns about Roy Block's position as the Executive Director of the Texas Foster Family Association. The message that connection delivers is troubling.

I wrote about Susan McFarland and her sons long before this problem with the Block's son came to light. If you are interested in their story, you'll find it in Gone Forever from St. Martin's Press.

Tweet

Failure to Act a Capital Crime?

by Diane Fanning

Guilty by omission. In other words, the defendant is found responsible for another person’s death by not acting quickly enough to save that life.

A fair enough charge. If someone sits by and watches while another person is clearly in medical distress, there should be a penalty.

But capital murder? Capital murder convictions, we’ve been told, are reserved for the worst of the worst—for the crimes that we all find inconceivable and horrendous. In Texas, a capital conviction means the defendant receives the death penalty or life without parole. These ultimate penalties are intended to be used for the most heinous crimes.

But a jury in Corpus Christi found Hannah Overton , the biological mother of five, guilty of capital murder for failing to act quickly enough to get medical attention for an ailing child.

That’s right, according to an in-depth investigative piece written by stellar journalist John MacCormack in the San Antonio Express News, the jury did not believe, as the prosecution alleged, that Hannah intended to harm or kill Andrew—they simply believed she took too long to get him help. The judge’s instructions led the jurors to believe they had no other choice. They did not know that their guilt by omission conviction would result in the ultimate punishment under the law.

Hannah and her husband Larry were fostering Andrew Burd and working toward his adoption. Child Protective Services claimed Andrew was a perfectly healthy child when they placed him in their home. But it simply was not true: Andrew had an unhealthy obsession with food. Not only did he gorge on foods in the refrigerator, he also ate inappropriate items.

If they left a bar of soap in the bathroom, Andrew took a bite out of it. He’d eat any food left behind in the cat’s dish. He ate toothpaste. He once broke a glow-stick and tried to eat it. Hannah and her adoption counselor were seeking help for his condition, known as pica.

The day of Andrew’s death, Hannah made Cajun stew seasoned with Zatarain’s spice. Andrew loved the hot flavoring and his insatiable appetite did not diminish after eating. In order to soothe him, Hannah sprinkled Zatarain’s into water in his sippy cup.

Soon after, Andrew exhibited symptoms of hypernatremia, sometimes caused by salt poisoning. Typically, victims are not recognized as being critically ill for an hour and a half. On the outer edge of that window of time, Hannah and Larry entered the emergency room with Andrew. They drove him in their car because they thought there was not enough time to call 9-1-1 and wait for the arrival of an ambulance.

The jury’s rejection of the prosecution’s belief in intentional poisoning made sense to Dr. Michael Moritz, an expert on salt poisoning. He arrived in Corpus Christi to testify for the defense but he was never called. He told John MacCormack, “There is no evidence of force. No salt on the body. No lacerations to his mouth. No salt crystals in his mouth or nose. . . . If you go into the literature, in every single case of alleged salt poisoning, they were kids just like him… There’s nothing to say he didn’t dump the whole damn thing of Zatarain or the salt shaker into his drink. A normal kid won’t eat it because it’s unpalatable. But this is not a normal kid. He’s having a highly stressful day. He’s a gorger. He’s got pica. And boom. He gorges it and ten minutes later, his brain is starting to shrink.”

So how did Hannah end up in such a mess?

At one point after Hannah’s arrest, Child Protective Services submitted an affidavit with a long list of child abuse allegations in the household. But that could have been a cover-up for their failure to act when Hannah requested a referral for Andrew’s pica problem. Every point was proven to have no basis in fact—all twenty accusations were shown to be false and CPS dropped the case. The employee who wrote the affidavit, no longer works for the agency.

On the forensic front, the autopsy was flawed. Although the pathologist ruled the death a homicide, he admitted on the stand that he could not be certain of his own determination. In addition, he never analyzed the contents of Andrew’s stomach or examined the microscopic sections of key organs that could have shown his underlying condition.

Further, in the trial itself, the prosecutors never called one of the witnesses on their list, including the doctor who treated Andrew, and they never disclosed to the defense the opinions they received from this doctor.

It seems as if law enforcement and the prosecution lost their way in an extreme case of tunnel vision. They could only see one possibility and refused to look at any others. The judge appeared to aid and abet their prosecutorial misconduct by instructing the jury in a way that led to a mandatory sentence of life without parole for a crime that the jury believed was committed without premeditation, without intention to harm or murder, and without malice.

Even the jury’s decision of negligence is considered unrealistic by medical experts. But even if you do agree with the jury, how could any reasonable person believe that a faulty judgment call merits total banishment from society for life?

The case is under appeal at the Texas 13th Court of Appeals—I fervently hope that common sense and justice will prevail.

Tweet