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 - 06:05am on 05/09/2008
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.
Chief RZ - 06:05am on 05/09/2008
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.
Anna - 07:05am on 05/09/2008
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 - 07:05am on 05/09/2008
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.
Bike Bubba - 08:05am on 05/09/2008
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 Whistler - 09:05am on 05/09/2008
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.
Jay - 09:05am on 05/09/2008
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 Whistler - 09:05am on 05/09/2008
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.
Jay - 09:05am on 05/09/2008
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.
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.
mdmdc, and what about the other relatives willing to provide care? Why wasn’t that allowed?
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?
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 did two posts last night. The first was about a miscarriage of justice. This one was right after than one, hence the clever name.
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.
It blows me away that more don’t.
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.
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.