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.

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.

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.

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.

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.