Is the state on the hook?

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,058
748
96
Just curious, but it would seem to be a logical conclusion. If the state steals your child, then forces them to undergo treatment against your consent, they should assume responsibility for the million dollar bill.

This position is bolstered, by the fact that the parents LEFT THE STATE, in order to remove jurisdiction.

Anyone know of a legal precedent on this?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/health/4-year-old-leukemia-custody-florida/index.html

A Florida judge denies parents custody of 4-year-old son with leukemia

A Florida judge ruled Monday that the parents of a 4-year-old boy with leukemia lost their bid Monday to regain custody after their struggle with the state over giving him chemotherapy. Noah McAdams was removed from his parents' custody in April when they skipped a chemotherapy session and left the state in pursuit of alternative treatments.

Noah's parents, Taylor Bland and Joshua McAdams, and their fight for natural cancer treatment garnered national attention after a multi-state police search ensued when they skipped the chemotherapy appointment and took Noah for a consultation in Cincinnati, Ohio, with an alternative medicine practitioner.

Hillsborough County Unified Family Court Judge Thomas Palermo in court Monday ordered Noah remain a dependent of the state, ruling that he will stay in the care of his maternal grandmother, according to Brooke Elvington, an attorney for Bland and McAdams. Noah's parents will still be allowed to visit and attend medical appointments under supervision, the attorney said. Bland and McAdams are "obviously devastated," Elvington said.

"Noah is going through an absolutely traumatic medical experience and he is doing so without his parents," Elvington told CNN.
In video from court shot by CNN affiliate WFTS, Judge Palermo referenced previous testimony in which Bland acknowledged she removed an intravenous catheter from her son's arm without medical permission.

Elvington said the judge referenced a domestic violence incident involving McAdams from 2016, in which court records show McAdams threw a plastic bucket at Bland and hit Noah in the face, causing a minor cut. The charges were later dropped after a pre-trial diversion program, court records show. Judge Palermo also cited familial testimony calling McAdams' mental health into question, the lawyer said. Elvington called the domestic violence incident isolated and the familial testimony unfounded.

A lengthy custody battle
Noah, who was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in April, has been in state custody since police removed him from his parents' custody in Kentucky. A dependency court judge then ordered Noah to complete the prescribed chemotherapy treatment against his parents' wishes. According to St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital, about 98% of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia "go into remission within weeks of starting treatment."

Noah's parents had asked the court to allow them to forgo chemotherapy in favor of alternative treatments, including medicinal cannabis, vitamins and a dietary plan. They had previously informed doctors that they wanted to seek a second opinion and pursue alternatives, Bland told CNN.

10584

Now in conjunction with the court-ordered chemotherapy protocol, Noah has been receiving THC and CBD oil for about a month, according to the family's attorney. The family was unhappy with the treatment Noah received at Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital in Tampa, and they are still pursuing oncology options at other hospitals, Elvington told CNN.

The hospital earlier declined to comment on the case, citing laws protecting patient privacy.

The Florida Attorney General's Office did not respond for comment.
The judge ruled that Bland and McAdams undergo psychological evaluations as a part of the process to potentially regain custody, Elvington said. They have 30 days to appeal the judge's decision. A disposition hearing to discuss the Child Protective Services case plan for family reunification is scheduled for October 1, the lawyer said.
 

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,533
150
116
I don't think there is a right answer here. Poor kid is all I can say.

On the otherm hand, should anyone who can't afford treatment just be able to refuse treatment and make the state pay for it? I get that isn't the case here.... but man. Our whole healthcare system if fucked anyways.
 
Last edited:

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,058
748
96
I don't think there is a right answer here. Poor kid is all I can say.

On the otherm hand, should anyone who can't afford treatment just be able to refuse treatment and make the state pay for it? I get that isn't the case here.... but man. Our who healthcare system if fucked anyways.
The key is CONSENT. A few years ago I went to the ER, feeling nauseous and with a fever. They told me they were keeping me. Turned out I had acute pancreatitis. I said "no way" I need to make arrangements. I was able to check myself out AMA (against medical advice) and took care of business. I went back the next morning and I was there for a week.

They took their own child AMA, and the state stole him, then got a judge to seize him, so the state should be held liable for any money spent.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
24,848
4,563
126
The alternative would be charging the parents with negligence if the boy ends up dying when he would have otherwise been cured/saved had he received normal medical treatment.

The issue at the heart of the matter is the Childs well being. At what point does the boys right to live override the parents wishes? Isn't there already laws on the books about this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: whm1974

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,533
150
116
The key is CONSENT. A few years ago I went to the ER, feeling nauseous and with a fever. They told me they were keeping me. Turned out I had acute pancreatitis. I said "no way" I need to make arrangements. I was able to check myself out AMA (against medical advice) and took care of business. I went back the next morning and I was there for a week.

They took their own child AMA, and the state stole him, then got a judge to seize him, so the state should be held liable for any money spent.
Trust me, I don't disagree with you... you make a good point. Medical stuff is a tricky thing... but cancer? But then again, I know they tend to be "over agressive" sometimes /w things because it "could" be cancer just to cover their own ass basically...
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,249
699
126
The state didn't steal the boy, they rescued him from the equivalent of "pray the cancer away" parents. This is exactly what backstop programs like CPS are designed for. Parents in the US are given wide latitude to make their own parenting decisions and when those decisions are found to greatly endanger the health of the child in their care the state steps in for the protection of the child. But that does not absolve the parents of any or all responsibility for their children, including the need to pay for the care they refused to provide.
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
7,696
1,749
136
The fact that their plan to fight their kids cancer with weed and vitamins is close to just letting the kid die. What's the state to do?
What a horror show.
 

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,058
748
96
The alternative would be charging the parents with negligence if the boy ends up dying when he would have otherwise been cured/saved had he received normal medical treatment.

The issue at the heart of the matter is the Childs well being. At what point does the boys right to live override the parents wishes? Isn't there already laws on the books about this?
Sounds like you're trying to say that the doctors guaranteed the kid would live, or rather WILL live.

That would be a neat trick. Doctors guarantee nothing.

The state didn't steal the boy, they rescued him from the equivalent of "pray the cancer away" parents. This is exactly what backstop programs like CPS are designed for. Parents in the US are given wide latitude to make their own parenting decisions and when those decisions are found to greatly endanger the health of the child in their care the state steps in for the protection of the child. But that does not absolve the parents of any or all responsibility for their children, including the need to pay for the care they refused to provide.
See above.

I might also add that, once they left the state, the state lost jurisdiction.

You think the state where you were born, has the right to hunt you down and snatch your kids today?
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,249
699
126
Yawn.

Nothing is guaranteed and the people of Florida owe it to the child to give him a chance to live, a chance that marijuana and vitamins won't give him.

And, yes, the state does still have jurisdiction, them being residents and all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveGrabowski

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
3,506
947
136
The key is CONSENT. A few years ago I went to the ER, feeling nauseous and with a fever. They told me they were keeping me. Turned out I had acute pancreatitis. I said "no way" I need to make arrangements. I was able to check myself out AMA (against medical advice) and took care of business. I went back the next morning and I was there for a week.

They took their own child AMA, and the state stole him, then got a judge to seize him, so the state should be held liable for any money spent.
It's not stealing. You have it completely wrong. Essentially the child is being taken away under the umbrella of child protective services. It's no different than taking a child away because he is being beaten or burned. If you are treating a child for burn injuries the parents are still liable.

Refusal of life saving treatment for a child in this country is considered child abuse and CPS swoops in during these cases, just like they swoop in if you don't feed your kid or bathe your kid or torture your kids in a basement. It's all seen as the same. Adults can refuse whatever they want but they cannot have children die for their beliefs because no one knows what that child would choose were he grown up or were he able to make informed decisions. Whilst parents have a lot of leeway with making decisions for their child, they cannot make fatal decisions. That is the law in this country and has been so for a long time. If your child has a serious broken leg and you refuse to get it treated even for strong rock solid religious reasons, you are going to jail and will lose custody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whm1974

cytg111

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2008
9,896
2,090
136
I would be livid if it was me.. of course I know what I am doing unlike these fools.
No good answer indeed.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
64,712
2,045
126
This issue is not unlike what the nation faces in the hands of a dangerous Republican party that will not treat the disease of climate change or impeach a madman that threatens human extinction. The question always revolves around the fact that the insane are convinced they are not and how can one differentiate objectively.
 

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
22,904
779
136
Not a lawyer here, but I would think that, if a child has been declared a dependent of the state, then the state would be responsible for medical costs.

According to the article in the OP, about 98% of children with that leukemia go into remission with chemo - and it happens really quickly. I would hazard a guess that the cure percent for vitamins and cannabis is about 0%.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
24,848
4,563
126
Sounds like you're trying to say that the doctors guaranteed the kid would live, or rather WILL live.

That would be a neat trick. Doctors guarantee nothing.



See above.

I might also add that, once they left the state, the state lost jurisdiction.

You think the state where you were born, has the right to hunt you down and snatch your kids today?
I agree, which is why I stipulated that. If the state and therefore doctors can't guarantee his life then why should the state get custody?
 

Gardener

Senior member
Nov 22, 1999
355
9
81
Kids aren't the property of their parents, contrary to the OP's contention. The state has an obligation to prevent abuse and neglect of minors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whm1974

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,058
748
96
Kids aren't the property of their parents, contrary to the OP's contention. The state has an obligation to prevent abuse and neglect of minors.
And if "the state" should decide your kids should have "surf and turf" (steak and lobster, shrimp, halibut) every night, you will meekly comply?

It's YOUR kid. You made it. Bet you can make another one that looks just like it.

Nuff' said.:cool:

That kid is way better off without them. Such ridiculously negligent parenting.
Would you say the same thing about New York Hasidic Jews that refuse to get their kids vaxxed against the flu on religious grounds?

Should the State yank all the Jewish kids?
 
Last edited:

SteveGrabowski

Golden Member
Oct 20, 2014
1,974
330
126
Would you say the same thing about New York Hasidic Jews that refuse to get their kids vaxxed against the flu on religious grounds?

Should the State yank all the Jewish kids?
No. I would say they should yank any Hasidic Jewish kid whose parents refused to treat their kid's cancer in the name of some pseudoscience crap.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
8,334
1,373
96
No. I would say they should yank any Hasidic Jewish kid whose parents refused to treat their kid's cancer in the name of some pseudoscience crap.
Aren't most states starting to do away with religious exemptions for vaxanarions? Well at least for deadly diseases anyway.
 

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,058
748
96
No. I would say they should yank any Hasidic Jewish kid whose parents refused to treat their kid's cancer in the name of some pseudoscience crap.
There was a time, not so long ago.. when the idea of man flying was "pseudoscience crap. ", and the thought of man walking on the moon was child's fantasy.

Today's science fiction is tomorrow's science.

Hell, 400 years ago, you would have been burned at the stake as a witch for a having Bic lighter and making fire in your hand.
 

SteveGrabowski

Golden Member
Oct 20, 2014
1,974
330
126
There was a time, not so long ago.. when the idea of man flying was "pseudoscience crap. ", and the thought of man walking on the moon was child's fantasy.

Today's science fiction is tomorrow's science.

Hell, 400 years ago, you would have been burned at the stake as a witch for a having Bic lighter and making fire in your hand.
Supplements are pseudoscience crap because they're not tested and regulated like real medicine. If it worked it wouldn't be alternative medicine, it would just be medicine. Just because you created a kid doesn't mean you get to abuse him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511
Nov 25, 2013
29,291
10,022
136

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
54,878
8,375
126
Not a lawyer here, but I would think that, if a child has been declared a dependent of the state, then the state would be responsible for medical costs.

According to the article in the OP, about 98% of children with that leukemia go into remission with chemo - and it happens really quickly. I would hazard a guess that the cure percent for vitamins and cannabis is about 0%.
Exactly. Of course authorities in one state will enforce child protective orders issued in another. It would be ridiculous for them not to do so. And of course the State will pay for the care of the child.

Given the enormous success rate of chemo for leukemia the parents made a grave error in judgement detrimental to the health of the child. Period. The State rightfully stepped in to protect his rights & his welfare. They really, really, really don't like doing that but sometimes it becomes their duty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveGrabowski

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,058
748
96
Exactly. Of course authorities in one state will enforce child protective orders issued in another. It would be ridiculous for them not to do so. And of course the State will pay for the care of the child.

Given the enormous success rate of chemo for leukemia the parents made a grave error in judgement detrimental to the health of the child. Period. The State rightfully stepped in to protect his rights & his welfare. They really, really, really don't like doing that but sometimes it becomes their duty.
Of course, it's really all an allegory about healthcare systems.

Look at this way, you take your car to a dealership to have something repaired. They say it's going to cost you $3,500.00 to solve your problems.

You then take it to "Pete's Garage", and he says "Yeah, I'll take care of the whole thing for $250.

That's the biggest difference, and the conundrum, between "traditional medicine" and "alternative medicine".

In a perfect world, no one would have to make that choice, but when was the last time you saw a perfect world?

And, should you really have to lose your child for making that choice?
 

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
22,904
779
136
Look at this way, you take your car to a dealership to have something repaired. They say it's going to cost you $3,500.00 to solve your problems.

You then take it to "Pete's Garage", and he says "Yeah, I'll take care of the whole thing for $250.

That's the biggest difference, and the conundrum, between "traditional medicine" and "alternative medicine".

n a perfect world, no one would have to make that choice, but when was the last time you saw a perfect world?

And, should you really have to lose your child for making that choice?
No. The biggest difference here between traditional medicine and alternative medicine is that traditional medicine has a 98% cure rate and alternative medicine has a 0%? cure rate. And, yes, you really should lose your child for making THAT choice.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY