Woman Assaulted Officer During DWI Arrest, Police Say
A West St. Louis County woman had her 6-year-old daughter in her car when she was arrested for drunk driving and assaulted a police officer, according to police.
Photos
Rachel Wilcox, 27, of unincorporated West. St. Louis County was charged Thursday with driving while intoxicated.
(Sign up here for the FREE Patch Newsletter, including Breaking News Alerts.)
According to Officer Melissa Doss with the St. Peters Police Department, the DWI charge and others stem from a Jan. 6 incident where Wilcox was arrested, suspected of DWI. Doss said the woman's 6-year-old daughter was in the car at the time.
Doss also tells Patch, that during the arrest Wilcox attempted to spit on one police officer, then she allegedly slapped another officer in the face in the booking area.
Authorities said Wilcox was initially pulled over after a bystander called police to report Wilcox’s vehicle swerving near the intersection of Mid Rivers Mall Drive and Cottleville Parkway.
Police said prior to pulling Wilcox over, officers also witnessed additional traffic violations.
Doss said once Wilcox's child was found in the backseat of the car, the Division of Family Services was notified. However, the child was released to another adult close to the family.
Kelley
2:24 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
wow! doesnt even look like the same chick as in this photo:
http://www.suntrupautomotivefamily.com/profile/RachelWilcox
Mike K
2:29 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
'The child was released to 'another adult close to the family'. What the ???
Does this child not have a father?
Typical misandrist DFS family destruction in action. Paid for by your tax dollars and single father's child support collections.
And we wonder why our kids grow up so messed up as adults in this 'system'. Or why fathers abandon their children under 'family' court-enforced and outright DFS 'parent of last resort' mentality.
Jacqueline
6:57 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Fathers shouldnt abandon their children in the first place. Typical mentality of a man.
Mike K
10:17 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
And that justifies assuming that all fathers will abandon their children to rationalize pre-emptively preventing any ability for a father to demonstrate that they are not and won't do so? Typical mentality of a woman. Or rather lack thereof.
The statistics of the feminazi misandrist dystopia we've constructed bear this out.
HHS reports show that the children at highest risk of abuse, harm, and death are those under sole custody of their *mother* where the father is nowhere to be found in the child's life. As if divorce in and of itself somehow makes a man magically incapable of being a father only after papers are filed.
As if domestic violence has only one possible perpetrator - men.
If this sad situation were gender reversed, how fast do you think that the father would lose custody? I doubt this woman will have any of her parental *privileges* revoked by the courts. QED.
Read Baskerville's "Taken Into Custody" if you want more proof.
And if I understand your comment correctly, you are *defending* this woman's actions?
Seriously?
Jim
8:14 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
I am afraid I didn't see a chicken in any photo. Am I missing something?
Mike K
9:40 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Thank you Cassidy. I wonder why the police blotter indicated otherwise.
Or if DFS has no record of the events, why would they claim 'a friend of the family' instead of 'the child's father'. So much for putting the 'Family' in DFS.
Care to elaborate on your source? It would be a sad day indeed for children whose mother is arrested and taken away in front of her, and then kept from the only other person with legal parental rights. I could understand if Dad doesn't live in the area, is in prison, or physically unable to care for his child. So far, that didn't seem to be the case and this little girl was left without either parent able to care for her, from the story sources before you shared. Thanks for posting.
john Donley
3:15 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
I know her this was not her first dwi either. How sad for the kid.
Brittany
5:32 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Shouldn't she be charged with endangering the welfare of a child as well? This is ridiculous- it goes much further than just a dwi.
Jacqueline
6:55 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Maybe we should pray for her instead of judging her.
Brittany
8:39 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
The girl needs a lot more than just prayers. She needs rehab. According to court records, it isn't her first DWI. The fact that she would drive with her child in the car after she had been drinking shows how irresponsible she is, and that she didn't learn anything from her first mistake. If you have ever lost a child to a drunk driver, you might think something else should be done than just a "prayer".
Mike K
10:23 pm on Friday, January 25, 2013
Maybe we should pray that this little girl gets to have her father raise her instead of the drunken excuse of a mother the courts and DFS have determined is 'the better parent' for this little innocent girl who now has *no* parent to care for her. 'best interests of the child' my butt.
Jim
8:15 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Everyone is talking about the existence of a father. How do we know the mother even knows who the father is?
Brittany
11:38 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
It wasn't the fathers time with the child. It was the mothers. And we see how she utelizes her time with her child.
Mike K
12:34 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Any takers on when we will see the judge 'adjust' her time with her child?
Wish judges could be held accountable for child endangerment especially since the judge would have been aware of the priors in this case.
Diana
12:52 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
i saw the friend of family drinking heavily that night and heard that Rachel was scared of him. I am a friend of Rachel's. She was not charged with assault either! Her child is not 6. St Peter's told the dad he couldn't have any information as to where child was. Sounds more like the 911 call was the "family friend" and the cops endangered the child. The media still is. Get your facts straight.
Mike K
9:08 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Bingo! Think you Diana.
No #1 child abuser/killer is the single mother's companion.
That claim is straight from the HHS.
If they truly cared about kids, more dads would be given the opportunity to ... well ... actually parent their own children.
Shame on St. Peters and DFS for their inexcusable practice of refusing and outright interfering with the child's right to access by *BOTH* parents. And if I understand your comment, they basically gave the kid to the mom's drunken boyfriend. I won't comment on the she 'was afraid of him' because they were both drinking and it takes two to tango.
And we wonder where 'family values' have gone in today's society.
As for Ms. Wilcox, the Patch is going by the blotter. I am pretty sure their facts are 'straight'. What the DA decides to go forward with is another matter. If she was afraid of her boy toy, she shouldn't have gotten into a car with her child and driven away. She should also reconsider her status as the primary caregiver and custody schedule for her daughter. If she truly cares about her daughter growing up with a better life. Sadly for the child, Ms. Wilcox is probably too self-centered and self-destructive to actually do that.
Pray for that little girl to get into the care of her father.
Jackie Schmidt
9:09 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Diana, everyone is so quick to judge. I will pray for you friend and hopefully she will get the help that she needs and learn from this.
Carrie
10:07 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
I am pretty sure she had a restraining order against the man! Rumor was he came over and police blew it off and she was headed to her parent's. The jerk called 911,made up a story and they bought it. Mike, she and the Dad are close. She isn't keeping child from him. You know nothing of the situation with that. Dad still defends and says she is a good Mom. The story says she was doing traffic violations. Actual report is,expired plates..... Not OK but this shouldn't be news. At least not until she is found guilty. Far worse crimes happen and the accused are not put on blast. This is a hard working single mom, not some bum. Now the entire area thinks she is a monster and a bad mother.
Carrie
10:29 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
What was her BAC?
Was she given a sobriety test?
Mike K
5:35 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Carrie, if what you say is true, if she and the dad are close, then why doesn't DFS turn the kid over to the dad instead hunting for a suitable stranger.
And why would the cops make up that her child was in the car? Your story doesn't add up, and the cops can only testify to what they see, not what someone else says they saw. They likely pulled over Ms. Wilcox (based on the 911 call) and she exhibited behavior consistent with someone intoxicated. Maybe failed a field sobriety test or refused. If she refused, that is an automatic DUI arrest.
Either way, the kids dad should have been contacted to take care of the child until the mom either sobered up or to keep her away while the mom and her boyfriend get drunk and fight - because that is some good parenting right there. Not!
And DFS should have turned the kid over to the dad or dad's proxy at the dad's direction. Mom has enough on her plate without having to care for her daughter during this anyway.
Carrie
6:14 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
@Mike, I wasn't clear. She had the child with her. I was told by another friend she grabbed the child and ran. I don't think DFS was called. The guy just came up and got the child. Didn't verify anything!
Perhaps why she is accused of getting aggressive. I'd flip if the cops gave my child tosomeone I was running from! She wasn't out drinking either!
St Peters denied Dad his right to the child. They don't even know how old she is!
St Peter's police has had repeated corruption problems! Hope I am wrong but, looks like they are trying to scare her into a plea so the truth doesn't come out.
Kyle J
11:21 am on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
I was with Dad when she called hysterical. And HEARD the police tell him he couldn't have any information
BLT
11:43 am on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
I’m not going to pass judgment as I don’t know all the facts. If you look at her rap sheet, it certainly raises some questions. Again, there could be other things at play there but if I had to guess, she’s not always the victim.
Carrie- Regarding the restraining order...I’m not seeing one but I could be overlooking it. Where are you seeing there is one in place or is that just what you’ve heard?
Mike K
12:50 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
@BLT: I agree. The facts are unclear. And Ms. Wilcox bears some responsibility here.
From the article and comments, it isn't clear if "the guy" being referred to is Ms. Wilcox's paramour or the girls father or both, whether she was living with "the guy", or who the restraining order was against, or what "the guy" was doing at Ms. Wilcox's residence. From the comments, it appears she was at home with the daughter and "the guy" came over - there was adult drinking and some disagreement - and then she left her own residence "to flee" with her daughter. Likely "the guy" called 911 to "get her into trouble" and then shows up at the scene to take custody of the daughter? And she was not aware of the restraining order she has against "the guy"? Why didn't she call 911 when he showed up at her residence? Or, why did she go to *his* home when she had a restraining order against him ("the guy") (violating her own restraining order, which would make it arguably null and void). Or is "the guy" the girls father? If so, then it sounds like they completely forgot (or more likely lawyers who should know better did) to put in safe, non-confrontational procedures for performing child exchanges.
Sadly, there is a little girl in the middle of this mess and nobody is really looking out for her interests.
BLT
1:04 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Carrie is the only person I've seen make mention of a restraining order and I don't see one documented but again, I could be overlooking it. If it's simply a rumor that there is a restraining order, all that does is muddy the water and spread more inaccurate information.
Am I overlooking where people are seeing this order?
Kyle J
1:14 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
You won't find a restraining order by the "protected's name". The Dad is not the guy the police released child to. Two different men. Don't know everything either. Do know child's father defend's Mom. Having prior charges doesn't mean she is incapable of caring for child. She may have a rap sheet. Seems to be a nice girl and great Mom. She maybe guilty, but, St Charles does not have the child or parent's best interest' here. She may have called 911. She had made reports before. Smearing her on TV before a trial helps no one. We may never know what actually happened.
BLT
1:52 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Oops. Sorry, forgot it’s not listed under the petitioner’s name, only the case number will pull up the detail.
I’m not implying that she’s incapable of raising a child but choice’s she’s made implies though that she has had some questionable decision making in the past. However, I fully agree that being presented as guilty to the world before facts even come out and/or found guilty or not guilty is unfortunate. The media these days don’t care about that. They just want to be the first person to report it regardless of all the discrepancies. Reporting news used to mean something. The media is a monster out of control.
Kyle J
1:59 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Yes, there should be accountability! But even the PA went on and stated falasies!
Mike K
5:02 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
It's been a couple of days. Is the girl back with her father? If not, under what judge's order? If the dad has custody orders he should get them enforced and get his kid back until mom is out of jail.
Props to the dad for sticking around for his kid. It is hard when the 'system' encourages dads to shut up, go away, and pay could support and sexist laws like VAWA don't help.
Mike K
5:10 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
So, now it looks to me like the cops/DFS placed Ms. Wilcox's child in the custody of the man whom she has a restraining order against and not the child's father. And HHS statistics clearly and overwhelmingly show the most dangerous person to a child is the mother's unrelated male partner. Good call, DFS!
Jacqueline
11:58 am on Friday, February 1, 2013
You sound very bitter.