monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
You're an idiot.
I'm sure you meant to type "without proper discharge"
It still wouldn't absolve the state of blame.
You're an idiot.
I'm sure you meant to type "without proper discharge"
It still wouldn't absolve the state of blame.
Huh? That's EXACTLY who should be blamed for this. This is what happens when you give government agencies unchecked power.
You are an idiot. You love big government and will always defend them.
This is the problem with the nanny state and big government. Are the big government idiots going to condemn this?
CPS and the police had no right to take away that baby, he was in no danger.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
and after the police showed up at the other hospital and saw that the docs said the baby was ok, someone at CPS should have been smart enough to exercise discretion and drop it. that is something the state should be blamed for.
Ah, I love the smell of a good old agency battle in the morning.
State should win, as the state is the ultimate agent with the most resources and best idea of what is best for society.
State should win, as the state is the ultimate agent with the most resources and best idea of what is best for society.
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
No, no, no, as other liberals have come to her defense and explained to us, we just merely misconstrued what she was saying.
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
Agree. This is where I'd see reason to use a weapon to defend my family, regardless of whether it's against cops.
Although, as Wolf sez, there is probably more to this.
I would think that they had the right to kick the door down had no one answered. Anyone know the particulars?
Are you seriously implying that because the parents failed to sign a piece of paper while removing their child from a hospital they perceived as incompetently treating their child in order to get said child treated at another hospital that said child should be removed from the parents custody forcibly by the state?
woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,242
- 14,245
- 136
If anyone is interested in an objective analysis of the information we have on this, here goes.
According the version of events we have, the parents took the child out of the hospital without discharge shortly after the hospital told the parents that the child had a life-threatening condition. The hospital may have been wrong about the diagnosis in hindsight, but they were entirely justified in reporting the parents to CPS based on the information they had.
So far as CPS goes, this wouldn't seem to be a logical justification to take the child into custody, because they either knew or should have known that the parents immediately took the child to another medical facility (the police visited Kaiser so I assume CPS knew), meaning this wasn't neglect but a desire to get a second opinion.
The trouble I have with this is we have only the parent's version of events because CPS can't give details to the public (I'm virtually certain of this.) They can say they conducted a "thorough investigation" but I don't think they can be any more specific than that.
Ordinarily CPS conducts at least one home inspection before making this kind of decision. Did CPS come to the home before the cops came to take the child? Was there already an open file on this particular child for other reasons? If so, we haven't heard about it from the parents.
What I'm getting at is there is a possibility that there were other reasons for this action, and those reasons were not provided to the press by the parents.
Would I be surprised if there were no other reasons and CPS was just incompetent? Not at all. This could very well have been an atrociously bad decision. However, I also wouldn't be surprised if there is more to this story.
According the version of events we have, the parents took the child out of the hospital without discharge shortly after the hospital told the parents that the child had a life-threatening condition. The hospital may have been wrong about the diagnosis in hindsight, but they were entirely justified in reporting the parents to CPS based on the information they had.
So far as CPS goes, this wouldn't seem to be a logical justification to take the child into custody, because they either knew or should have known that the parents immediately took the child to another medical facility (the police visited Kaiser so I assume CPS knew), meaning this wasn't neglect but a desire to get a second opinion.
The trouble I have with this is we have only the parent's version of events because CPS can't give details to the public (I'm virtually certain of this.) They can say they conducted a "thorough investigation" but I don't think they can be any more specific than that.
Ordinarily CPS conducts at least one home inspection before making this kind of decision. Did CPS come to the home before the cops came to take the child? Was there already an open file on this particular child for other reasons? If so, we haven't heard about it from the parents.
What I'm getting at is there is a possibility that there were other reasons for this action, and those reasons were not provided to the press by the parents.
Would I be surprised if there were no other reasons and CPS was just incompetent? Not at all. This could very well have been an atrociously bad decision. However, I also wouldn't be surprised if there is more to this story.
RampantAndroid
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2004
- 6,591
- 3
- 81
This is why I asked if they had force of law. If they did not have a court order or believe the child was in imminent danger (which they clearly didn't given the day before they accepted the child was fine), they would be violating the 4th amendment.
You not following a hospitals discharge procedures is NOT against the law.
Yes I blame the state, based on the evidence they had there was NO reason to proceed.
todpod
Golden Member
- Nov 10, 2001
- 1,275
- 0
- 76
Ok I am going to post this as a child welfare worker. I have done this in the state of PA for about 10 years, so the laws are different from state to state.
Here is an update to the first article
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist....fter-hearing-on-gestapo-style-baby-snatching/
and a little primer on CA child welfare law
http://www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/CAChildWelfareCouncil/Documents/UnderstandingCWSystemInCA.pdf
I would expect a doctor to be very concerned if a parent was going to remove a child if they thought they needed immediate heart surgery. Inn PA a Dr can take protective custody, a child welfare worker cannot. A police officer can as well, and they really don't like me telling them that they should. If either one of those guys take protective custody they will need to explain in court why they did that. It does look like in CA from reading the primer that a social worker can take protective custody and they have to file with the court in 48hrs that they did, and have a hearing. They did this. My judge isn't going to listen to me about medical evidence, I need the Doctor. He i have have 2 conflicting opionions. They judge asks for a third, seems reasonable. The child can be returned to the parents if the Stanford medical center discharges the child. The judge rule that the parents must follow the recomendations .
So were do you draw the line, should parents have to follow a Dr's advice and how much freedom should parents have when its life threatening. They court is providing oversite and there are appeals processes in place.
Nobody wins in these cases. It would be nice to know the whole story here, I feel sure there is more to it and if there is any back history with the family. We don't get paid to remove kids.
The reporting web site is interesting, I am surprised here everybody is just accepting it a credible.
Here is an update to the first article
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist....fter-hearing-on-gestapo-style-baby-snatching/
and a little primer on CA child welfare law
http://www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/CAChildWelfareCouncil/Documents/UnderstandingCWSystemInCA.pdf
I would expect a doctor to be very concerned if a parent was going to remove a child if they thought they needed immediate heart surgery. Inn PA a Dr can take protective custody, a child welfare worker cannot. A police officer can as well, and they really don't like me telling them that they should. If either one of those guys take protective custody they will need to explain in court why they did that. It does look like in CA from reading the primer that a social worker can take protective custody and they have to file with the court in 48hrs that they did, and have a hearing. They did this. My judge isn't going to listen to me about medical evidence, I need the Doctor. He i have have 2 conflicting opionions. They judge asks for a third, seems reasonable. The child can be returned to the parents if the Stanford medical center discharges the child. The judge rule that the parents must follow the recomendations .
So were do you draw the line, should parents have to follow a Dr's advice and how much freedom should parents have when its life threatening. They court is providing oversite and there are appeals processes in place.
Nobody wins in these cases. It would be nice to know the whole story here, I feel sure there is more to it and if there is any back history with the family. We don't get paid to remove kids.
The reporting web site is interesting, I am surprised here everybody is just accepting it a credible.
They must have had a warrant. If they didn't the cops should be charged with aggravated kidnapping because thats exactly what they did if they had no legal warrant.
I don't believe there is a line at all. It is the parents call. Period. Full stop. End of story.
No doctor, case worker, judge, cop, or god himself should be able to take my child by force because I decide to get a second opinion. Furthermore, if as the article says there are other medical opinions that the child does not need medical treatment I can't fathom how the system is setup to allow the original doctors to perform surgery on a baby against the consent of the parents.
I would resort to extreme violence to prevent my infant child having unnecessary heart surgery, at least I hope I would.
I know this is the least relevant issue but I wonder who is going to get the bill for the medical treatment along with any and all follow up care related to this? I can't for the life of me see how anyone could argue that the parents of the child should be on the hook for it.
AreaCode707
Lifer
- Sep 21, 2001
- 18,447
- 133
- 106
Has anyone ever read "The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down? It's a heart-wrenching story of a poor kid with serious epileptic problems with complications, coming from a culture that both didn't understand the modern medicine, and working with doctors at a time (1980s) when the whole spiritual/holistic thing wasn't yet a thing. Everyone involved wanted the best for the kid but collectively they weren't capable of providing it. CPS got involved, courts, translators, spiritual leaders, doctors, nurses, etc etc. Ultimately it didn't prove possible for this child in this situation to be both with her family and receiving proper medical treatment, and sadly she did eventually die.
That's an extreme case with some great examples of how things can go crosswise but to some extent I can understand even in lesser cases where the line can be fuzzy. It's a bit of a leap to say there's a cultural gap but given the names of the parents this seems feasible. The Russian community in Sac and Seattle can be confrontational, distrustful and abrasive when interacting with Americans, and unwilling to work within proper channels. It wouldn't surprise me that, acting entirely within the best interests of their child, they tipped off some red flags that made it seem like they did not have intent to provide her proper medical treatment and care.
That's an extreme case with some great examples of how things can go crosswise but to some extent I can understand even in lesser cases where the line can be fuzzy. It's a bit of a leap to say there's a cultural gap but given the names of the parents this seems feasible. The Russian community in Sac and Seattle can be confrontational, distrustful and abrasive when interacting with Americans, and unwilling to work within proper channels. It wouldn't surprise me that, acting entirely within the best interests of their child, they tipped off some red flags that made it seem like they did not have intent to provide her proper medical treatment and care.
The irony is that we, as parents, are still legally responsible for our children and their actions until they reach adulthood (barring extreme cases) yet the state evidently has the power to usurp those that are and will be held responsible on what appears to be a whim.
radtechtips
Senior member
- Feb 12, 2013
- 640
- 1
- 76
If this story is complete(sounds like something is missing) this is bullshit and they should sue. And im not even a conservative
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter