Charleston, South Carolina, September 2016The Charleston Police Department arrested  Kevin Michael Wesley Jr, 30, a Berkeley County School District bus driver, on charges of sexual misconduct with a minor.

In September 2015, Wesley began sending private messages, initiated phone calls and engaged in a sexual relationship with a 14 year old girl. Wesley insisted on secrecy, the molestation could not be hidden once she became pregnant. The teen gave birth a year later.


Bond was set at $400k. The terms of release include: “…the judge ordered Wesley to have no contact with the victim, her family members or anyone under 18 without a supervising adult present. The judge told Wesley he can see his own family, including his two boys.” <– QUESTION: Wesley is accused of a sexual crime involving a vulnerable young girl. He used his position as a school bus driver to gain the trust of this girl, and then sexually molested her. The criminal complaint indicates that Wesley was aware that his actions were wrong, and that he could “get in trouble” if he was caught. Clearly Wesley poses a danger to children.


How can this judge justify allowing this potentially dangerous predator contact with any children, even his own?? As Wesley has shown, sexual abuse does not always begin with a sexual act but begins with gaining trust and gaining control of the victim. Any form of contact with a child can be used to later exploit or harm that child – physically, mentally, psychologically and sexually.


Sex offenders groom not only children but adults are well, and are adept at manipulating people and situations to gain access to their victims, and to gain the trust of those they later exploit. According to The Mama Bear Effect,”People think that grooming a child for sexual abuse is something done in isolation – quite the contrary. Why? By establishing a close relationship with a child in front of others, people are less likely to be suspicious (after all, many believe sexual predators would not be so bold), and secondly, if the adults aren’t suspicious, it creates a false sense of security with the child that they are safe with this person and what they do is acceptable.” The Mama Bear Effect wrote an article titled “There Is No Stereotype For Offenders” that is an excellent source for general information on sexual abuse and the characteristics/red flags of sexual abuse offenders. The article describes the 4 common stages of abuse, and offers tips on how to protect your child as well as tips on how to confront a person whose behavior may be concerning. 


Wesley is no longer employed by the school district.


The victim’s anguished mother appeared in court during the bond hearing stating,”I felt like she was safe when she got on the bus with him. I had no idea he would prey on her innocence.” An estimated 90% of victims of abuse know their abuser.

Sources: Berkeley County School District bus driver charged with sexual misconduct with minor

Police: School bus driver had baby with student who rode on his bus

 What behaviors might a person who sexually abuses children use to gain trust?

Operation Hydrant, created by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), has identified 1,400 child abuse suspects, which include politicians and celebrities, in the UK. Operation Hydrant does not investigate the abuse allegation but, instead, gathers information about abuse complaints about “historical child sexual abuse“. Local police departments are called on to do the actual investigations.

According to the BBC News, “Of the 1,433 suspects identified, 216 are now dead and 261 are classified as people of public prominence, with 135 coming from TV, film or radio.”

We are talking about systemic, widespread child sexual abuse and trafficking in the UK whose list of suspects include:

* Schools and Educational institutions
* Children’s Homes
* Politicians
* Sports celebrities and Sports venues
* Music celebrities
* Religious leaders or figures
* Medical institutions
* Community institutions
* Military groups
* Prisons
* 17 institutions classified as “unknown”

This information is compiled by police in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and relate to reports of abuse, or abuse investigations, from the summer of 2014. There is no exact figure of how many children have been victimized, the number is expected to be in the thousands, if not more.

Norfolk Police Chief Constable Simon Bailey, the NPCC’s lead on child protection, says, “We are seeing an unprecedented increase in the number of (abuse) reports that are coming forward.”

Read More:

1,400 Child Abuse Suspects Identified” by BBC News, 5/20/2015:

College of Policing (2015) : Operation Hydrant [Internet, Accessed 21 May 2015]. 

Teach Your Child the Underwear Rule and Help Keep them Safe from Abuse (NSPCC):

US Child Help, National Child Abuse Hotline 1-800-4-A-Child:

UK NSPCC Report Abuse Don’t delay – call the police on 999,
or call us on 0808 800 5000, straight away:


In 2004, Genevieve Kelley, along with her second husband, Scott Kelley, and daughter 8 year old Mary Nunes, went into hiding in Central America. Genevieve claims her daughter was being sexually abused by her ex-husband, Mark Nunes, and that she fled with her daughter in order to protect her.

Genevieve Kelly (US Marshals)

Wayne Rioux, who was then the police chief of Whitefield, New Hampshire claims Genevieve was brainwashing her daughter to believe abuse had occurred. There were concerns over a video Genevieve made, questioning Mary about the alleged abuse. Genevieve says a therapist told her to make the video, that her intentions were to help not to harm. Guardian ad litem on the case, Abbie Teachout, says Genevieve was alienating Mary from her father, “She (Genevieve) appeared to be really, almost obsessed in her concern over Mary and that Mark had done something to harm the child…Out of all the families I’ve worked with, this was a case where parent alienation was 100 percent evident – that Genevieve was doing everything she could to alienate this child from her father, from the beginning.

In 2004, the Kelley family moved to Colorado. The child custody order said that Genevieve was not to remove Mary from the state, and in 2005 the court would award Mark sole custody. By then, the family had fled the country.

In Colorado, Mary was evaluated by two doctors, one who diagnosed trauma in the child but did not state what caused it. The family also sought help from a noted attorney. Attorney Alan Rosenfeld specializes in child advocacy and domestic violence cases, says that Genevieve had no other option than to run away with her daughter, after a court-appointed guardian and social service agencies didn’t believe the abuse allegations.

The abuse allegations against Mark Nunes were investigated then dismissed, no charges were filed due to lack of evidence. It is worth noting that before their divorce, Genevieve filed for, and received, a restraining order against Mark (who claims he never abused her).

(March 2015) In a recent court motion, Mary states that she was being abused by her father, and that she begged her mother and step-father to protect her, ” “and I asked them to do it.” Mary also refers to herself as a “rape victim” and her father as the perpetrator.

Now the family is back in the United States, with both Genevieve and Scott Kelly facing criminal charges in Coos County Superior Court for noncustodial kidnapping and unlawful flight to avoid prosecution.

Scott Kelly (wanted poster)

The Kelley family emerged from hiding when U.S. Marshals were alerted by officials at the U.S. embassy in Costa Rica that Mary, Scott and their attorney, Alan Rosenfeld, had asked the embassy to help them get US passports.

In November 2014, Genevieve returned to the US to seek medical treatment for a son born to her and Scott, while in hiding. She refused to reveal the whereabouts of Scott and Mary when arrested in Lancaster, New Hampshire. Genevieve has since been released on bail and is barred from having any contact with either Scott or Mary.

In April 2015, Scott was told that he could come back into the US without facing charges, a lie. So Scott and step-daughter Mary boarded a plane for the US, not knowing they were being tricked in order to get them to return to US soil.

On April 14, 2015 Scott was taken into custody as soon as he stepped off the plane at Atlanta International Airport. Scott was arrested on a kidnapping warrant. Mary was questioned then released.

Father, Mark Nunes, has expressed that he is concerned about Mary, and wishes to reunite with her. Markhad hired a private investigator to find Mary but had not been successful. Mr. Nunes says (The Associated Press): “It’s very hard for us to reconcile our mental image of her as a 7-year-old girl with the reality that she’s a gawky, beautiful, 18-year-old teenager that we could pass on the street and might not even recognize. We love Mary and are overjoyed that she is alive and back in the U.S. Our hearts and home are open to her, and we will do everything we can to insure she remains safe and healthy. We look forward to the day our family is finally reunited.”

Mary Nunes is expected to testify on behalf of her mother, and shows no indication of wanting to reconnect with her father.


For updated related to Genevieve Kelley: “Friends of Genevieve Kelley”

“Missing girl taken by mom in custody battle found after 11 years; stepdad arrested” by Dave Solomon, New Hampshire Union Leader, 4/15/2015:

“Search for girl reveals bitter family split” by Associated Press, AZ Central, 5/10/2009:

“Scott Kelley, fugitive featured on ‘The Hunt’ surrenders” by Stephanie Gallman and Catherine E. Shoichet, CNN, 4/15/2015:

  • “Teen in high profile custody case pleads for her mom – Mary Nunes breaks an 11 year silence as mom faces trial” by Newser Editors and Wire Services, 4/28/2015:


    It is important to refuse to be intimidated. That refusal must not be based simply on a calculation of the odds of succeeding.

    At times, in my case, multiple lawsuits and an ethics charge seemed overwhelming, and the fact that I knew my work to be accurate and responsible was only partial solace. l was well aware that court, like the National Football League, is an arena in which, on any given Sunday, anybody can win.

    The refusal to be intimidated must come, in the end, not from a sureness of succeeding but from a knowledge of the cost of scurrying for shelter through fake retractions and disowned truths. It is a question, in the end of self-respect.

    Who among us could, in good faith, ever face a survivor of childhood abuse again were we to run for cover when pressed ourselves? Children are not permitted that choice, and the adults who choose to work with them and with the survivors they become cannot afford to make it. It would be a choice to become. Through betrayal and deceit, that to which we object. Our alternative, then, is not to hide. not to refuse to treat adult survivors, not to refuse to go to court in their defense, not to apologize and retract statements we know are true, but to cultivate endurance and tenacity as carefully as we read the research.”

    “Confessions of a Whistle-Blower: Lessons Learned by Dr. Anna C. Salter. Ethics & Behavior, Volume 8, Issue 2 June 1998”

    I highly recommend “Confessions of a Whistleblower”: In 1988 Dr. Salter began a report on the accuracy of expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases utilizing experts Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield as a case study. In response, Underwager and Wakefield began a campaign of harassment and intimidation, which included multiple lawsuits; an ethics charge; phony (and secretly taped) phone calls; and ad hominem attacks, including one that Dr, Salter was laundering federal grant monies. The harassment and intimidation failed as the Dr. Salter refused demands to retract. In addition, the lawsuits and ethics charges were dismissed. Lessons learned from the experience are discussed.

    About: Dr. Salter received her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology and Public Practice from Harvard University and obtained a Masters Degree in Child Study from Tufts. She was a Teaching Fellow at both Universities. Dr. Salter has lived in Madison Wisconsin since 1996 and consults half time to the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. In addition, she lectures and consults on sex offenders and victims throughout the United States and abroad. She has keynoted conferences on sexual abuse in Australia, New Zealand, Scotland and England. In all, she has conducted trainings in 50 states and 10 countries. Dr. Salter also evaluates sex offenders for civil commitment proceedings and other purposes.

    (Stearns County, MN, 2014) Shocking family court order: Supported by testimony from GAL, Family Court awards joint custody and primary residence of a child to a convicted child molester. GAL cites concerns that the mother is “protective” and orders orders her to have a “psychological evaluation” because the child has been tardy to school on several occasions….

    As reported on the blog “Family In Law” by Michael Boulette on Jan 31, 2014 (I edited the names for privacy reasons)

    “One unpublished case out of the Court of Appeals this week.

    In re the Marriage of H vs. H, A12-2127, (January 27, 2014) leaves the impression that Appellant (Mother) took for granted that the court would never award custody to Respondent (Father) because of his criminal history. (Father was a registered sex-offender for an offense he committed as a 13 year old.) It appears she was wrong.

    After awarding Mother sole legal and physical custody in the parties’ 2009 divorce, the Court later granted Father temporary sole custody of their child in 2011. The district court restored custody to Mother a few months later, only to permanently modify custody in 2012 by granting the parties joint legal and joint physical custody and establishing Father’s home as the primary residence.

    Perhaps the most interesting thing about H is the basis upon which the Court found “endangerment” sufficient to modify custody under Minn. Stat. 518.18: missing school.In affirming the district court’s custody modification, the Court of Appeals found support in the case law for the concept of endangerment-as-educational-neglect.

    Apparently, the child’s difficulties in school, coupled with Mother’s interference with Father’s parenting time were enough to tip the scales towards endangerment and sustain the district court’s ruling.”

    Background: Mr. H and Ms. B married in June 2006 in Stearns County, Minnesota. A daughter was born in the fall of that same year. A separation occurred in 2007 with formal divorce proceedings initiated in 2009. After the divorce, the mother, Ms. B was granted sole physical and sole legal custody of the child. Mr. H was ordered into supervised visits. Mr. H did not exercise parenting time during the time he was jailed for failing to register as a sex offender — this would have been the second offense for the same reason.

    The Father, Mr. H, has a lengthy criminal record dating from 2003- with the most recent case being in 2012. Charges range from passing bad checks, theft to various traffic offenses. And two separate charges of intentionally providing false information under the Minnesota predatory offender registration rules (failing to register as a sex offender). There are conflicting reports about the age of the victim involved in the sexual offense. Mr. H was 13 at the time, the GAL reported the victim as age 11 while the police report states that an officer learned from the BCA the age of the victim as age 4. What is know is that Mr. H was found guilty, and was convicted of molesting a child.

    In 2010, Mr. H petitioned the Court for more parenting time and an un-named GAL was appointed. The GAL criticized the mother Ms. B for being “protective and somewhat possessive” and felt it was in the best interest of the child to further parenting time, unsupervised, with Mr. H. Ms. B alleged that sexual abuse had occurred and on two occasions, failed to bring her daughter to visits. Ms. B also claimed that Mr. H brought her daughter to bars. A police investigation was conducted and found no evidence of sexual abuse.

    As parenting time advanced, Ms. B continued to express concerns and in May 2011, denied Mr. H parenting time on other occasions. In June 2011, the Court gave Mr. H temporary sole physical and sole legal custody because Ms. B would not bring her child to visits.Keep in mind, at that time – Mr. H is still on probation and is a registered a sex offender. The Court felt it was in the best interest of the child to be reunited with her father, a convicted sex offender with a lengthy criminal record — and that the mother posed more of harm to the child by refusing to take her child to now unsupervised visits.

    Reading the history of this case from the Appellate findings, it appears the Court moved rather quickly to push reunification with the father. Also, upon being released from jail, the father begins a new relationship with a woman who has a minor child living with them for part of the week. Which should be concerning — the guy just got out of jail for an offense related to child molestation, he is supposed to be establishing a better relationship with his own child and now is moving in a woman with her own young child. How much time and energy is Mr. H really putting into improving his own life? And how much can he provide his child when he is moving another family into his home–and his own relationship with his own daughter has not been established. And given his history, does Mr. H really need a minor child in his care? Not to mention the guy was in supervised visits for a reason and is now moving a woman and a new child into his home.. The Appellate findings do not answer these questions but they would have to be addressed by the GAL at some time, and clearly she was not concerned with any aspect of Mr. H’s parenting or home environment.

    Around this time, the mother Ms. B suffered a mild concussion and while recovering, claimed she had trouble getting her child to school. Ms. B also said that some of the absences were excused because the child had medical issues and required frequent doctor visits. The record shows at least 3.5 absences and one tardy per semester. Ms. B. subsequently signed an Attendance Contract with the school. The school did not take any other formal action against Ms. B and did not notify social services.

    The father Mr. H also suffered a back injury at some point, and missed at least one visit with his child because of it. Yet it appears the GAL dismissed his ability to parent based on a physical injury and instead focused on Ms. B’s physical injury as an indicator that she was not able to provide for her daughter.

    It appears that the GAL pushed for Ms. B to get a psych eval, which the Court did order. The record offered does not show if Mr. H. was also ordered to undergo a psych eval. Ms. B psych eval showed that she has adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression, concerns with economics and concerns with the safety of her daughter and occupational problems.

    When the child continued to be absent or tardy from school, the GAL cited “educational neglect” to recommend physical custody to Mr. H. It is unclear if other interventions or measures had been tried before removal was recommended by the GAL. Mr. H was living in a home with a girlfriend and her daughter. The GAL cited evidence that the daughter of the girlfriend was rarely late for school so the home would provide a better environment for the child. Which is somewhat strange because Mr. H never married the girlfriend, and is not the biological father of her child, so he is not considered a legal guardian. Further, the nature of their relationship as dating only, not marriage, does not indicate stability…the relationship could change at any time, and should not be used as a basis to determine custody. The Court then granted joint custody to both parties with primary physical going to Mr. H.

    The appeal filed for this case was problematic in that the transcript from district court was not submitted, thus limiting the ability of the judges to make a decision on the Court’s conclusion of law. Also, Ms. B’s claims about contradictory statements made by the GAL could not be verified without an actual court transcript. Ms. B also did not submit the findings of her psych eval to the appellate court. When reading the findings, it seems clear the Appellate Court largely interpreted the psych eval based on what was in the GAL report. So presenting the psych eval would have been crucial. Also important, would be an updated medical report to note any change in condition or improvements. The Appeals Court upheld the findings of the district court.

    Mr. H was discharged from probation in March 2014.

    I am having trouble finding the best interest of the child in this ruling – The mother, Ms. B divorces her husband, specifically stating safety concerns for her child. At the time, Mr. H is put in jail and removed from society because he is a danger. Mr. H gets out of jail to be awarded increased unsupervised parenting time — while he is still on parole, and still be monitored because of concerns with his ability to be safe with children! And then the Court awards Mr. H joint custody and primary residence even while he is dating another woman, and moved a child into the home. That means the Court is awarding the non-relative woman who is staying in a relationship with the convicted child molester while punishing the blood relative mother who chose to divorce, and clearly expressed concerns for her child’s safety and left the relationship for safety rasons. Now we have two children in the home with a convicted child molester. And somehow missing a few days of school is supposed to be a bigger concern?!? The child molester father is given more resources and support to help gain custody of his daughter than help given to the protective mother, who has raised the child continuously since birth. And now the Court wants to introduce a live-in girlfriend and her daughter into this young child’s life? And this is really supposed to be in the best interest of the child? This ruling is problematic on so many levels — and yet it is so similar to so many stories many of us have experienced due to systematic failures in family court, and failures of the GAL program.

    — EJ Perth

    This is what men will never understand, she realizes…

    Their dishonor, men’s dishonor, can always be redeemed,
    defeat followed by victory,
    capture by escape,
    escape by capture.
    Up hill and down dale.

    But women are dishonored once and for all.
    Their only hope is to hide it.

    To keep it to themsleves

    Peter Ho Davies, author.
    The Welsh Girl (p.271). Houghton Mifflin Company. New York, New York: 2007.

    Summary: The narrator of this quote, Esther Evans, lives in an isolated Welsh village whose traditions have not changed for centuries until World War II, bringing refugee children, soldiers and the advances of modern life. Esther develops a crush on a soldier who rapes her and is shamed into silence. Esther struggles with the trauma of rape while the village views the soldiers as heroes– rugged men on an important mission. The consequences of the rape will forever change Esther’s life, her place in the village…and will shape her attraction to a German POW, a dangerous enemy that seems much safer than the soldier supposed to keep her safe.



    National Sexual Assault Hotline, USA | 1.800.656.HOPE | Free. Confidential. 24/7.

    National Teen Dating Abuse Helpline, USA | 1-866-331-9474 | 1-866-331-8453 TTY

    Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), USA:

    Rape Crisis England and Wales:

    UK Domestic Violence Free Phone (24/7): 0808 2000 247

    UK Rape & Sexual Abuse Support Centre National Helpline (Females, Males, Friends & Family in Crisis or Needing Support). Every day 12-2:30pm/7-9:30pm. Free from all UK landlines and mobile phones. 0808 802 9999

    Find A Rape Crisis Centre in the UK:

    UK Domestic Violence Resources & Hotlines:

    Victims of child molestation in Depok face a new trauma: being forced into an insensitive form of therapy that is aimed at preventing the children from becoming future child molesters – NOT identifying the trauma or treating the wounds.

    Thirteen children between the ages of 5-14 were molested by a man known as “Yohanes” from Depok.

    Depok is a bustling city in the West Java province of Indonesia; it’s name means “place of one living in seclusion”. It’s name seems to fit these victims, whose plight is misunderstood by adults claiming to help but are only pushing these vulnerable children into isolation and mistrust.

    According to Arist Merdeka Sirait, the the secretary general of the National Commission for Child Protection, “The treatment is very important as we have to make them recover after they experienced sexual violence. We do not want them to suffer trauma or do the same thing to another child when they are older.”

    This is very disturbing–these children are being told something is wrong with them, they need therapy, and if they don’t get it they will become the very monster that molested them! And how is a child supposed to understand any of this or feel “cured” when the have experienced the rape of their childhood and innocence, now they are being told if you are not good enough or you don’t try hard enough in therapy or if… you could become a molester too. Somehow, you have become tainted. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is just wrong! These children will likely need therapy but even more they need compassion and understanding in order to heal and come to some kind of acceptance.

    “Debri Pristinella, a lecturer at Pelita Harapan University’s psychology department, told the Jakarta Globe that it was possible for victims of sexual abuse to become pedophiles themselves later in life, particularly if they experienced pleasure while they were being harassed….The root is that the children, especially when they were still very young, do not understand that what happened to them was categorized as violence.”

    These children were violated in the worst possible way. They were scared, intimidated and not consenting to any of these acts. Yohanes used force and manipulation to terrorize the children in this village. More victims may come forward. And he is going to be released from prison and go back into the community where the victims will have to face him all over again.

    From my heart, I want to say to these 13 children: I am so sorry this happened to you. You did nothing to deserve this kind of treatment. It was wrong. But that DOES NOT MEAN anything is wrong with you. You are a beautiful child made in the image of God. You were called by name before you were born. God has given you a hope, a life and a future. You were very brave to come forward and tell others about what happened to you. As brave as a soldier or a fire fighter or one of the fairy tale heroes you may read about. I understand you may be hurting now. And all your feelings are mixed up. Maybe you feel different from other kids. Maybe you feel so alone, scared. Please know I am praying for you. And from across the world this Mommy is sending her love to you. So many people care about you. Because of how brave you are, things will get better. You are safe now, and have so many helpers to keep you safe. I wish you all the best. And know that you did the right thing in coming forward and getting help. If you ever get scared, remember all the people who love you and are praying for you”.

    My heart really goes out to these children… And I hope this man dies behind bars before he can ever hurt another child. And those therapists and so-called government experts need to leave these children alone so they can heal, and they also need to get better educated.



    March 18, 2010
    Nurfika Osman

    Molested Children to Receive Therapy
    Thirteen children who were allegedly sexually abused by a man in their village in Depok will receive trauma treatment from the National Commission for Child Protection to prevent them from possibly becoming pedophiles in the future.

    “The treatment is very important as we have to make them recover after they experienced sexual violence,” said Arist Merdeka Sirait, the secretary general of the commission, also known as Komnas Anak.

    “We do not want them to suffer trauma or do the same thing to another child when they are older,” he said, adding that commission officials went to the homes of the 13 victims in Lio Village on Thursday to talk to their parents and prepare for the counseling.

    Of the 13 children, all are boys except for one 9-year-old girl. They range in age from 5 to 14 years old, and they were sexually abused over a time period ranging from two weeks to seven months.

    “The oldest victim is a 14-year-old boy who has been abused for seven months and he is the nephew of the perpetrator,” Arist said.

    The suspect, Yohanes, a parking attendant who was living in his brother-in-law’s house, was arrested on Tuesday by Depok Police and could be charged for violating the Law on Child Protection, with a maximum penalty of 15 years in jail.

    Arist said Yohanes would ask children to play a ball game with him when his brother-in-law was not home. If the children lost, they had to engage in sexual acts with him. Arist said all 13 children had given similar accounts of abuse.

    Debri Pristinella, a lecturer at Pelita Harapan University’s psychology department, told the Jakarta Globe that it was possible for victims of sexual abuse to become pedophiles themselves later in life, particularly if they experienced pleasure while they were being harassed.

    “Therapy is important so that we can make them understand that what they have experienced is a wrong thing,” Debri said. “The root is that the children, especially when they were still very young, do not understand that what happened to them was categorized as violence.”

    She said that if children were molested when they were young, it was hard for them to understand it as an act of violence.

    “And this is the most dangerous thing as it is an unseen impact,” she said.
    Source: Jakarta Globe Online
    Author: Nurfika Osman
    Retrieved: 3/19/2010