Homosexual Duke U. Director Charged with Offering Adopted 5-Year-Old for Sex
By Kathleen Gilbert
DURHAM, North Carolina, June 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An openly homosexual Duke University official has been charged with delivering up his 5-year-old adopted African American son to sexual predators online.
Frank Lombard, the 42-year-old associate director of the Center for Health Policy and a licensed clinical social worker, was arrested Wednesday after he invited an undercover police officer to take advantage of one of his two sons, whom he had adopted with his male partner.
The Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and the FBI conducted the sting operation.
Investigators were tipped off to Lombard’s criminal activity by an informant who said he had seen Lombard molest an African-American child four times over an Internet video chat service called ICUii. The informant said Lombardi described himself on his profile as “perv dad for fun.”
According to the arrest warrant filed by D.C. Metropolitan Det. Timothy Palchak, Lombard told the undercover detective that he had raped his son on several occasions since infancy, and that “the abuse of the child was easier when the child was too young to talk or know what was happening, but that he had drugged the child with Benadryl during the molestation.”
The FBI stated that two children have been taken from Lombard’s home and put into protective custody by the North Carolina Department of Social Services.
Lombard will be transferred to Washington, D.C. this week to face federal charges, and could face up to 20 years in prison if convicted.
Duke University spokesman Michael Schoenfeld told ABC News that Lombard, a Duke employee since 1999, has been placed on unpaid leave.
Family Research Institute Chairman Dr. Paul Cameron has said that the case appears to coincide with a pattern of abuse established in a recent review of the literature describing the impact of homosexual fathers on their children. The review by Dr. Cameron, published in the peer-reviewed Psychological Reports, noted that such children were more frequently exposed to parental molestation.
“While every gay parent does not molest his child, the scientific literature records a much higher incidence of molestation by gay parents or foster parents,” said Cameron. Cameron, an expert in homosexual foster parenting and adoption, also said it is likely the child victim “developed interest in gay sex through these activities.”
Cameron cited a 1978 Kinsey Institute study that found 23% of surveyed homosexual men admitting to having had sex with boys.
“The cant that ‘gay parents are no more likely to molest’ is not based on evidence but liberal ideology,” said Cameron.
“By endorsing gay adoption, President Obama, the state of North Carolina, and Duke University share blame for this tragedy. These policy makers let dogma blind them to evidence that has been in the literature for years.”
It’s sad, though not surprising, that the mainstream media has diligently worked to cover up the fact that Lombard is a homosexual. The police affidavit clearly states the fact so this was known to the media, yet they chose NOT to report it.
Shame on FoxNews.com, CBS, the AP, and Huffington Post (and more, I’m sure) for such a serious lack of journalistic integrity.
I wonder what your post might say if the predator had been heterosexual.
It seems there are far more heterosexual folks doing this than there are homosexual folks.
Perhaps it’s the person, not the sexuality.
As a former newspaper reporter I believe it’s necessary to report all the pertinent facts, and the fact that Lombard is homosexual is pertinent.
And the fact that there are more heterosexuals abusing children than homosexuals proves nothing since homosexuals only make up about two percent of the population.
Here is some additional information about Dr. Paul Cameron:
The American Psychological Association began investigating Cameron after they received complaints about his work from APA members. In December 1983, APA President Max Seigel sent Cameron a letter that stated the Board of Directors had decided to drop him from membership for failure to cooperate with their investigation. In addition, the Nebraska Psychological Association issued a statement in 1984 disassociating itself “from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron”. The American Sociological Association passed a resolution in 1986 denouncing Cameron for “consistent misrepresentation of sociological research.” This condemnation was based on an ASA Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology report. The report summarized Cameron’s incendiary statements and read, in part: “It does not take great analytical abilities to suspect from even a cursory review of Cameron’s writings that his claims have almost nothing to do with social science and that social science is used only to cover over another agenda. Very little of his work could find support from even a bad misreading of genuine social science investigation on the subject and some sociologists, such as Alan Bell, have been ‘appalled’ at the abuse of their work.” Yet again, 1996, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Psychological Association presented a statement disassociating themselves from Cameron’s work on sexuality. They stated that he had “consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism.”
In addition, here is some information worth reading regarding gays and the supposed much higher incidence of molestation by gay parents. It is worth reading:
http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html
A quick question: As a former newspaper reporter would you also insist that when a heterosexual offers his/her children to sexual predators on line, the fact that this person is a heterosexual should be stated clearly? If one’s sexual orientation is pertinent, do you think it should be pertinent in all cases?
Elizabeth, the quick answer to your question is no.
It’s not necessary in most cases to point out what is assumed, but only what is out of the ordinary.
When a Major League ballplayer pitches a no-hitter, it’s not necessary to say he has two hands; it’s assumed. But when Jim Abbott pitched one in 1993, it WAS pertinent to say he only had one hand.
When a college athlete wins the 50-yard dash, it’s not necessary to say he has sight; it’s assumed. When my father won the 50-yard dash in 1953, it WAS pertinent to say he was legally blind.
Heterosexuals far outnumber homosexuals in the United States. Whether you accept the ten percent figure (which I don’t) or the two percent figure (which I do) or something in between, homosexuals are a small minority. When a crime like this occurs, it would be assumed that, unless the press reports otherwise, the pervert is a heterosexual. Unless the press tells you the ballplayer has one hand, you assume it’s two.
And the fact that adoptions by homosexuals are illegal in the vast majority of states, and this is something they want to see changed, it is certainly pertinent that Lombard’s homosexuality be pointed out.
Perhaps you would assume, if the sexual orientation is not included, that the criminal is straight. However, not everyone would make the same assumption (a Major League, one-handed pitcher such as Jim Abbot is much, much more rare than a gay man or woman), and so I believe if orientation is to be mentioned at all with the goal of complete and open reporting, it should be mentioned *for* all.
One’s sexual orientation (gay, straight, or bi) has nothing to do with one desiring sex with children. And a child molested by an opposite sex adult can be just as violated and traumatized as one molested by a same sex adult. The crime is a heinous either way. As one who was molested when I was young, I can vouch for that.
The fact that Lombard was gay is not a pertinent point regarding the issue of legalizing adoptions of children by gay couples. Unless, again, the incidents of straight adults who have adopted children and then offered them as sex objects to other straight adults is also considered a pertinent and is examined when those cases are reported.
We have to look at the real issue, the real problem. And that would be the adoption system and the lack of manpower, oversight, and care taken when examining an individual or a couple for consideration. The fact that two loving, stable, compassionate men who are committed to each other form that couple should not prevent them from becoming loving parents. To disallow them to adopt based on a harmless, natural aspect of who they are, an aspect that in no way creates a greater risk of committing child abuse, is unjust and wrong. It is this kind of understanding that will eventually change the adoption laws to give equal rights to gay couples.
I understand that you believe there is no moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. I disagree.
So from your perspective, “The fact that two loving, stable, compassionate men who are committed to each other form that couple should not prevent them from becoming loving parents. To disallow them to adopt based on a harmless, natural aspect of who they are, an aspect that in no way creates a greater risk of committing child abuse, is unjust and wrong.” It is your opinion that homosexuality is “a harmless, natural aspect…” It is not fact.
As for my Jim Abbott example, I don’t think I’m off quite as far as you may think. In 1993, there were approximately 280 pitchers on the major league rosters (28 teams times 10 pitchers each). That would make one-handed pitchers about .35% of all major league pitchers. If homosexuals account for 2% of the U.S. population, that would equal 5.6 one-handed pitchers. Not that different. So a one-handed pitcher is not much, much more rare than a homosexual.
I do agree with you that child abuse is a heinous crime regardless of who commits the crime. Anyone who commits such a despicible act needs to be punished to the full extent of the law.