Say Anything Blog

This is kidnapping.
Here is a little more information and there’s also a response from Nancy, the mom, at the bottom of the page.

This is more than crazy, it is scarry.  They are going to attempt to come into a home with an armed parent and the outcome will not be pleasant.

atease

The social service minions do things like this because they can and they can because they have the support of the courts.  Societies breaks down when the courts instead of being impartial favor one side or the other in a dispute.  We see similar injustices in child custody cases where the mother (wife) is give special consideration by the courts.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

Unfortunately, the answer to your last question is no! Only by constant vigilance can we get judges who make these outragesous decisions off the bench.

Social acts to perpetuate their own existence.  And the courts allow their shenanigans time and again.  Having cross examined MANY of them, I find they are the least credible of ANY witness...lower than police and run-of-the-mill defendants.  They thrive on painting a utopian picture of “family life” and judges eat it up and justify their constant stretches of logic with the “best interests of the child” mantra. 

If you’ve had a petition written up against you, you’re in trouble.  And it should scare every single person how easily this can be done.

Oh, and don’t even get me started on the “bonding with the foster parents” thing either.  I am involved in a TPR case right now involving that very same issue. 

I knew what was up 2 months into the original petition proceedings.  The foster parents had immediately fallen in love with the young child, unable to have their own.  And low and behold, two years later, the State is petitioning for TPR.  It’s not a coincidence.  It’s state-funded adoption.

It is pretty scary that stuff like this is allowed to go on in America.  I agree whistler, these people should be charged with kidnapping.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

jay, nanny government is the ulltimate tyranny managing its citizens lives from cradle to crypt.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

Taking their cues from Texas, I see. andydakotard must be orgasmic after seeing this.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I dont’ get it, how is this another miscarriage of justice?  Where was the first miscarriage?

This is one of those stories that makes me think there is more to it than is shown in the printed word.  Regardless I don’t understand them putting a child with a non-foster trained family.  Seems weird.

Did any of you bother to read the judge’s decision http://www.ourstory.com/thread.html?t=250376

There’s a lot more to it than a simple taking of the child, bonding with foster parents, etc.  The biological mother is, unfortunately, a very sick woman—“Pervasive Developmental Disorder - Not Otherwise Specified”, or PDD-NOS, is a serious condition.  Despite repeated attempts to train, educate, and help the mother and father learn how to be responsible parents, they didn’t become so in the view of healthcare professionals.  Read the judge’s opinion for yourself—it at least should provide some doubt and some reconsideration.

Baby in a milk crate?  Still in filthy clothes from the hospital after going home?  Refusal to show the child to social workers or police?  What about that?

mdmdc.  It is none of their business.  Watashiwa, thanks for your comments.
The family unit is the only thing that allowed the Hungarians to withstand communism for all those decades.  We are quickly approaching communism here in the USA.

Communism is evil

mdmdc, and what about the other relatives willing to provide care? Why wasn’t that allowed?

Baby in a milk crate?  Still in filthy clothes from the hospital after going home?

Oh, and excuse me, although this is probably not something any of us would do, it’s not grounds for removing a child. Perhaps, they should concentrate on families who are actually abusing a child?

Refusal to show the child to social workers or police?  What about that?

Yes, and I don’t blame them for wanting legal representation before doing so.
Like I’ve said before, the only way someone will take my children away from me is by prying them from my cold dead arms.

Chief RZ—we disagree, then.  Because I think a child under the age of 1 month, in the same filthy clothes she was put in during the first hours of her life, being kept in a milk crate, and undergoing the other treatment outlined in the judge’s opinion, is all of our business.

Your family unit/Hungary/communist USA statement is just silly.  I’m all for a strong family unit—this wasn’t one of those.

mdmdc, as my brother-in-law and his family have been put through the wringer for this kind of thing recently, I humbly ask you to shut the **** up.

I’m sorry, but what I’ve seen, sad to say, is that social workers who should be coming alongside parents to help them all too often use their position to lay unconscionable burdens on them--in the process completely missing what’s really going on.  Thankfully, in this case, the social workers did catch on to the fact that the child was OK.

Per your claims, the evidence you present is probably enough to justify a social worker offering, or even insisting, that periodic help be offered by the social worker.  I don’t buy the claims in toto, though, as evidenced by the fact that the family completely cooperated with the investigation.  Sorry, that’s not the sign of a family that’s going to drown their baby in his own meconium.

Even if your claims were true, however, they do NOT justify taking the child from her parents, especially to be placed in the arms of political friends of the judge with no foster family training.

Sorry; this is grounds for de-benching the judge, disbarring him, and possible criminal prosecution as well.  We bind social services with laws for a purpose, and as the judge ignored these rules, he needs to go.  Permanently.

I dont’ get it, how is this another miscarriage of justice?  Where was the first miscarriage?

I did two posts last night.  The first was about a miscarriage of justice.  This one was right after than one, hence the clever name.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

jay, nanny government is the ulltimate tyranny managing its citizens lives from cradle to crypt.

Thanks doc.  Does it just blow your mind that a liberal like me may not like this brand of social services abuse?  After all, you thrive on broad generalities.  And if the pegs are square, just hammer ‘em until they fit.

Does it just blow your mind that a liberal like me may not like this brand of social services abuse?

It blows me away that more don’t.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

is that social workers who should be coming alongside parents to help them all too often use their position to lay unconscionable burdens on them--in the process completely missing what’s really going on.

This is shockingly true.  Social services picks and chooses the families they intend to persecute.  And the process that the families endure in the process of defending themselves, is completely rediculous. 

It all begins with a 960 report by a biased, truth-stretching social worker with an agenda against the parent(s).  This turns into an oft-arbitrary list of “recommended services” by the agency to the parent(s) which are, by no means, legally enforceable...many of which must include social workers to be completed.  It may shock you, but JUVENILE COURT OFFICERS can remove custody from a parent in favor of social services, WITHOUT A JUDGE!.  The rules only require that a judge be involved within 96 hours, at which point the state must show that the removal WAS and continues to be necessary.  Then, when social workers and state’s attorney’s office petition for custody (12 months), they use the failure of parents to engage in their “recommended services” (which were by no mean legally binding and, in many cases, impossible to complete) as evidence against a parent’s ability to raise his/her/their child.  Finally, the Court enters ambiguous, un-measureable orders requiring the parent(s) to do things like “provide a safe environment” or “address alcohol issues”, and delegates the determination of “success” to Social Services.  Allthewhile, the young child is placed with foster care parents who eventually fall in love with their new little baby.  This prompts social services to petition for permanency and, eventually, termination.  They base their decision to do so on the fact that the parents failed to meet the requirements of “reunification”, set by the Court.  However, everyone knows that their justification for termination was that they find the foster parets acceptable, and the biological parents unseemly.

It blows me away that more don’t.

Then they aren’t paying attention.  However, I should narrow this a bit.  Some forms of social services are necessary.  The Orwellian “Child Protective Services”, however, is a sham.  I’d let Brittany Spears parent my child before I’d let these morons touch ‘em.

Jay, I think many people (and mostly on the left) think that when it comes to services “for the child” the state can do no wrong.

I think I would compare it with a reactionary who thinks that if the cops did it then the guy had it coming.  I don’t think any true conservatives are that way (at least this one isn’t). 

I laugh when the moron’s get tazed, but will loudly denounce it when it wasn’t coming.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Okay, show of hands: How many of you have read the judge’s decision?

I just did, and there’s a lot more to this matter than what is mentioned in the editorial.  Not enough for me to say whether I agree or disagree with the judge’s decision, but enough to keep the question open.

I did, I also read into the decision the fact that judges write those decisions to justify their actions not to give both sides of the story. 

Take this into account that the child was healthy but they took it without giving the parents a chance to present a defense. 

Besides the first reason he gives was that the baby had bonded with the “foster” parents.  BS, if the state hadn’t acted inappropriately that wouldn’t be a problem.  It would be akin to a cop swinging a nightstick at someone’s head (for no reason) and charging them with resisting arrest for trying to block it.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Jay, I think many people (and mostly on the left) think that when it comes to services “for the child” the state can do no wrong

I know there are a lot of bleeding hearts that believe Child Protective Services can do a better job parenting than the parents they see being “handled”.  However, I beg to differ in your assessment that no conservatives believe this.  While those involved in social services tend to be an uninformed sect of democrats, those that perpetuate their existence through the Courts, and allow their shenanigans to continue, are conservatives...at least where I live.  You aren’t going to find too many Court officers, probations officers and State’s Attorneys here that are Dems. 

On the other hand, people like me, that spend their entire workday defending these unfortunate souls, are democrats.  And sadly, many conservatives see my “state funded” public defense position, as unnecessary spending, when in actuality, it’s the only bullet in the gun for these poor folks.

I did, I also read into the decision the fact that judges write those decisions to justify their actions not to give both sides of the story.

This is a very important point, whistler.  The Judges are required to write their findings, aka why they DID make the decision they did.  They do not have to elaborate on the decision they did NOT make.  Some do, but it is not required by statute.

If you read the last judicial order from a juvenile deprivation case of mine, it will list all of the things she did wrong, thereby justifying the position.  However, there will be nary a mention of the good things she did to keep her family afloat.

Well there’s no point to argue about something we agree over.  Besides there’s many aspects of conservatism, let’s just say my type is very skeptical of the government.

There’s a place for public defenders, they don’t always take the right cases.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Whistler, I’ll agree it seems that the original taking of the child by CPS was inappropriate, as is the attempt to justify the TPR because the baby bonded with the foster parents. 

However, there still remains the issue that the mother and her husband were given over a year to correct certain problems that made their home UNSAFE for a small child.  The mother’s medical condition simply made her unable to perceive the dangers to a child that would be instinct to healthy women, such as putting up the crib rail, and the husband reportedly has his own issues of anger and drinking.  They were advised to get a live in (not “full time") nanny but did not, for whatever reason.  I suspect that that one action might have resulted in a different outcome.

There’s a place for public defenders, they don’t always take the right cases.

Lol.  God, I wish I had a choice.

Yeah I understand how that works around here.  The Law School here controls the money.  The powers that be up there decide what cases to take.

I’m not talking about criminal charges which seem pretty no-brainer. 

I’ve been sued by someone getting free legal help.  Winning cost more than settling would have cost.

Also the law school took a case against the city of Fargo for displaying the ten commandments.  Regardless of your opinion, if you want to sue, you should raise your own money. 

Those were the cases I was thinking of.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

However, there still remains the issue that the mother and her husband were given over a year to correct certain problems that made their home UNSAFE for a small child.  The mother’s medical condition simply made her unable to perceive the dangers to a child that would be instinct to healthy women, such as putting up the crib rail, and the husband reportedly has his own issues of anger and drinking.  They were advised to get a live in (not “full time") nanny but did not, for whatever reason.  I suspect that that one action might have resulted in a different outcome.

Iambs,

These are all valid points, but it is not an exaggeration at all to say that these are all boiler plate points used in almost all of the judicial decisions that I read.  Not the specific facts about the bed rails, nannies etc., but the “given over a year to correct certain problems that made their home UNSAFE for a small child” is textbook argument and findings.  It’s a game plan, and it’s executed by social services on a discriminatory basis against those families they intend to “perfect” by removing their children.  Judges are elected officials and they absolutely EAT up “best interests of the child” crap.  After all, like those that are “soft of crime”, who’s going to elect a judge that’s “bad for kids”?

I suspect that that one action might have resulted in a different outcome.

Unfortunately, it probably wouldn’t have.  This decision was made by social services long ago.  It was going to happen.  They just needed a judge’s signature. My opinion, of course.

Those were the cases I was thinking of.

That’s “legal services”.  Don’t get me started. 

The North Dakota public defender’s office is criminal/juvenile only.  And we don’t have a choice.

Ah, I didn’t realize there was a difference.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Obviously you have more experience in these cases than I do, Jay, and you may be spot on about this case.  I’m just saying that the evidence so far (the editorial and the decision) doesn’t make this a slam dunk, at least not IMHO.

CPS should be eliminated.  They wield too much power that requires too little evidence to execute.  Regardless of whether this judge’s decision was right AT THIS POINT, the whole problem could have been avoided at the beginning, by taking action other than just taking the child.

CPS should be eliminated.  They wield too much power that requires too little evidence to execute.  Regardless of whether this judge’s decision was right AT THIS POINT, the whole problem could have been avoided at the beginning, by taking action other than just taking the child.

I think we can all agree on this.  Funny, this last sentence is something that I argue all the time.  CPS always harps on the fact that the target parents don’t do what’s necessary to properly parent their children.  However, instead of providing “social services” to them in an effort to help them along, they remove the child to “protect” it.

It’s truly messed up.  And I’ll say again...terrifying to witness.

mdmdc.  Glad to debate an adult.  Remember swaddling clothes?
I agree with Bike here: 

I’m sorry, but what I’ve seen, sad to say, is that social workers who should be coming alongside parents to help them

There are way too many children actually being abused, given illegal drugs, being taught to lie, cheat and steal to worry about a case like this.  I will give you (mdmdc) this, that it may be an outlander, but nonetheless, on the heels of the mass taking in Texas, it seems like one more step toward communism.

Communism is evil

In order for Secular-Socialism to become a reality in this or any other country, the state must seize absolute control over the minds and bodies of our children. The people of this country have for the most part conceded this as a fact of life and under the label “for the children,” the state now has such absolute control over every child in this country.

This blog has posted numerous stories wherein it has been established that the state is the supreme authority over our children; and, absent a public outcry and rebellion, this trend will continue unabated in the years ahead. Why won’t the citizens rebel against this intrusion? Because it has been constructed in small steps over several decades and piece by piece the people have not seen what has been happening and now I believe it is too late.

When good people doing nothing, evil will prosper!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.