A couple of notes at the beginning of this post. First, I'm experimenting with accepting comments to the post. In the past, I've not allowed comments to my posts on the Rifqa Bary situation, because there was a Muslim commentator that came in and wasted my time, and my purpose is to inform sympathetic people, not to argue with Muslim (or liberal) commentators. If I do end up closing comments on this post, I ask my good readers not to take it amiss.
Second, I am linking to Atlas Shrugs, because that is the only place that I have found reports on this most recent development. I have my problems with the site, most notably that Atlas has an extremely tacky banner (to put it mildly) and also, even more seriously, that she has a habit of publishing distinctly inappropriate videos and content in her attempt to show the horrors of things like Muslim persecution of Christians, etc. One never knows when going to the site what bloody picture might come up in one's face while looking for the entry one actually wants to read. So if readers want to avoid the Atlas site, you can just, er, get the info from me and trust me on it.
The present situation with Rifqa Bary is this: Her parents are trying to have her dependency declaration (which was a victory for her) thrown out by the court and to have the matter sent to trial instead. A number of legal opinions in threads and posts I have seen indicate that it seems unlikely that the judge will do this. Atlas is not, in my opinion, wholly accurate on this. She seems to believe that the parents can simply "renege" on the dependency arrangement, whereas in fact it is up to the court to decide whether to reverse the dependency ruling, and the court may well just dismiss the parents' motion. This would be a good thing, because right now, as a dependent of the State of Ohio, Rifqa is not being sent back to her parents against her will, whereas if the matter went to trial, the question of her being sent back to them would be reopened. Here, too, I think Geller is way off-base in believing that somehow a trial would be helpful by getting things out into the open. A dependency declaration is a dependency declaration. We have one now; let's hold onto it.
This most recent development is a very disturbing thing, though, for the young man named Brian Williams who baptized Rifqa. He also drove her to the bus station, at her urgent request, when she originally ran away from her parents last summer. He now believes that he is going to be arrested and charged with "interfering with custody" (that is, her parents' custody over her) and "contributing to the unruliness of a minor." Evidently once Rifqa pled guilty to being "unruly" in exchange for dependency--that is, she admitted that she broke her parents' rules by running away from them--this opened the way to charging Williams with contributing to that "unruliness" by driving her to the bus station.
Williams is being pressured to plead guilty to a lesser charge. (I haven't been able to figure out if this is the lesser of the two charges above or some third charge not yet named.) He is determined not to do so, and if he is tried, we could get that "bringing the truth out into the open" thing in the course of his trial without any risk to Rifqa's dependency. Presumably she would be called as a witness. The "interference with custody" law even carries explicit provision for an "affirmative defense" that one acted to protect the well-being of the child. Williams does not want to cop a plea. We should pray for him.