This Made Me HOT

**OfficerResource.com** · 08-23-06, 06:58 AM

Couple arrested for child endangerment

By MARK J. MILLER, Staff writer

TORONTO — A city man and woman were arrested Aug. 5 by City Police and charged with child endangerment in connection with a drunk driving charge.

Michael D. Ellis, 37, 808 Daniels St., Toronto, was charged with driving with no license, fictitious registration, driving a motor vehicle under the influence and two counts of child endangerment after being arrested by police, according to reports.

Christina Fluharty, 28, 808 Daniels St., Toronto, was charged with permitting an unlicensed driver to drive and two counts of child endangerment, stated police reports.

Patrolman Tony Porreca said he observed Ellis driving in a vehicle at 11 p.m. on Franklin Street Extension with Fluharty and two children, ages 2 and 3, in the back seat. Porreca said he pulled Ellis over “because he’s known by officers not to have a driver’s license.”

Ellis was taken to the police station and tested for alcohol consumption, Porreca said.

“He (registered) a .224,” said Porreca of the alleged incident. “That’s almost three times the legal limit.

“His girlfriend (Fluharty) was in the car,” Porreca continued, adding she was sitting in the passenger’s seat. “She had a license, and she was sober.”

Both were then charged, after which officers called Jefferson County Children’s Services, which dispatched a representative to interview the mother.

Ellis was taken to the Jefferson County Jail, said Porreca.

http://www.torontosceneonline.com/ne...articleID=4956

**BigDawg** · 08-23-06, 08:31 AM

There should be a law against people like that being able to reproduce!!

**conalabu** · 08-23-06, 09:02 AM

Nice job, Reca. Is the child endangerment on the part of the mother going to stick?

CopsRCool302 · 08-23-06, 09:54 AM

Good Job Reca Bro!

**OfficerResource.com** · 08-23-06, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by conalabu

Nice job, Reca. Is the child endangerment on the part of the mother going to stick?

I believe it will under this section

No person , who is the parent, guardian, custodian, person having custody or control, or person in loco parentis of a child under eighteen years of age or mentally or physically handicapped child under 21 years of age, shall create a substantial risk to the health or safety of the child by violating duty of car portection or support.

The Mother was in the car, Had a valid license, was sober, and knowingly placed the children in the car with the father who was intoxicated. So I will say yes it will stick! If not it is her penny to hire a lawyer.

I also have child services involved in the case!

**Growler** · 08-23-06, 01:35 PM

Good job!!

I want to know who keeps putting all that friggin chlorine in the gene pool!!

Sad part is, county services will probably give the children back soon. When they think she has learned her lesson.

**OfficerResource.com** · 08-23-06, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Growler

Good job!!

I want to know who keeps putting all that friggin chlorine in the gene pool!!

Sad part is, county services will probably give the children back soon. When they think she has learned her lesson.

NO the sad part is the kids were never removed from the mother. LIBERALS!

**Growler** · 08-23-06, 01:52 PM

WTF!!!??? My goodness, what will it take? A nuclear friggin explosion.

**OfficerResource.com** · 08-23-06, 01:59 PM

Maybe but even after that if they complete the "program" they will get the kids back.

A few years ago i had a case where parents left the 3 kids home alone ages 4 2 and newborn while they went and sold a tv for crack. call child services 6 mths later they had the kids back!