Michael and Angeline Rogers did not say a word in court during the two days of hearings at which Judge Donald A. Poppy ruled that their five children will be split up and sent to four different foster homes.
The judge made it clear that he believes what Mr. and Mrs. Rogers have done to those children–“torture” is the word he used–is the reason the four boys and a girl, in emotional pain and turmoil, must be separated even from each other. Their lives have grown that agonizing.
What did Mr. and Mrs. Rogers say in court about this, when Judge Poppy invited them to speak about the children?
Nothing.
Their attorneys did, though. Mr. and Mrs. Rogers’ attorneys are being provided by the taxpayers of Calumet County; some of the things those attorneys said on Mr. and Mrs. Rogers’ behalf could be dismissed as laughable, or sheerly callous, were the subject matter not so horrifying.
For example:
Calumet County District Atty. Ken Kratz, responsible for prosecuting Mr. and Mrs. Rogers in their criminal trial scheduled to begin in May, has argued vehemently against visits between Mr. and Mrs. Rogers and the children–at least until the trial. Some of the children–including the little girl who was found locked in a dog cage–are expected to testify. These children have allegedly been intimidated and beaten by their parents for most of their lives. Kratz believes that to allow the parents to try to influence the children during visits in the months before the trial would be foolhardy at the very least, as well as frightening and emotionally destructive to the children.
What did Michael Rogers’ attorney say about this?
He said that District Atty. Kratz “wants the court to commit psychological abuse on (the little girl)” by keeping her from visiting Mr. and Mrs. Rogers.
That’s right–to protect the girl from being with the people who are accused of repeatedly locking her in a dog cage overnight would be “abuse” toward her, according to Michael Rogers’ attorney.
There’s more. Michael Rogers’ attorney, when speaking about the 6-year-old and 1 1/2-year-old Rogers boys, said, “I don’t know that there is a good reason” for those boys not to be returned to Michael and Angeline Rogers. Mr. and Mrs. Rogers are each facing 10 felony counts of child abuse, and the lawyer says he can’t think of a good reason for those boys not to be ordered to live with them. The lawyer did concede one thing: “They are not perfect parents.”
Not perfect. Angeline Rogers’ attorney warned Judge Poppy that the court would be guilty of “shutting the door” on the children if Mr. and Mrs. Rogers were forbidden from visiting them. These are people who, it is charged, shut the door of a dog cage on their daughter night after night, shut her behind the door of a dark, filthy basement room in her cage–and Mrs. Rogers’ attorney elected to use that phrase.
Such rhetoric in a courtroom would be merely pitiful, except for one thing:
Visits between Mr. and Mrs. Rogers and the children–with the exception of the girl who was found in the cage–were, indeed, ordered by Judge Poppy.
As soon as he ordered the visits, though, he stayed them–he said they could not be implemented until the judge presiding in the criminal case decides whether a no-contact-with-the-children provision in Mr. and Mrs. Rogers’ bond conditions should be set aside.
That judge is Steven Weinke, whose courtroom is in Fond du Lac County. If Judge Weinke decides to waive the no-contact-with-the-children provision, then the visits will begin.
As it is, this Wednesday Judge Weinke will be asked to deal with the fact that Michael and Angeline Rogers–prohibited, for now, from any contact with their own children–are living in a house with four other children age 15 and under, two of them of elementary school age. Judge Weinke told us that he did not know about this until we reported it.
Judge Weinke also, inexplicably, relaxed a rule that he himself had imposed, a rule that was meant to keep Mr. and Mrs. Rogers from living within five miles of any of their children. When Mr. and Mrs. Rogers informed him that they wanted to live within four miles of the 11-year-old boy whose courage in asking police for help resulted in their arrest, he amended the barrier to 3.2 miles–specifically so Mr. and Mrs. Rogers could live where they wanted. Never mind that it put them close to the boy who is supposed to be protected from them.
We will report on all of this in the days to come. On Monday, though, we will report the details of the most troubling development of all: a court-approved plan that could eventually return the children to Mr. and Mrs. Rogers.
