Couple's Baby Taken By Police

[2xx1xy1JD]

Keep in mind the source of this article is The Blaze - founded by Glenn Beck.

The nuggets of actual information in the article, as opposed to unaccredited statements or inflammatory rhetoric, are few and far between. From what I can gather, CPS would have received a call that a baby with a heart condition was removed from hospital against medical advice, and they may have been told that hospital staff had concerns about the parents.

On the basis of information like that, CPS would have had no choice but to react. We don't have any independent source of information to know whether CPS attempted to contact the parents first.

The update on the story also mentions that the baby was apprehended on April 24, and by April 29 there was an initial court hearing, the court ordered that the baby undergo a medical evaluation, and the parents can make medical decisions for the baby and have free access. The parents do need to be monitored to ensure that they are following medical recommendations.

Now, CPS involvement can be terrifying for parents - but the end result here is that after a few days, the court handled the case with some sanity.

Anti-CPS paranoia, however, hurts families and children. I've had a spike of cases in which parents call me in a panic, because CPS wants to speak with them. They've turned to google, found a bunch of horror stories and conspiracy theories, and are terrified of having any contact. Unfortunately, this is about the worst thing that they could do. Most of the reports that are made to CPS are investigated and the case is closed at intake. If there is no cooperation, though, or if the parents become belligerant, then the case escalates because it is not possible for CPS to ensure that there are no child protection concerns without deeper involvement.

[formergothardite]

So at what point is it okay to physically defend yourself? Just curious. If these were regular criminals that couple would have every right to "pop a cap" in the intruders trying to restrain them and kidnap their kid. What makes this different?

For someone who claims to just be here to debate, you really don't seem to understand the concept of debating. When you are debating a people, you address what they said to you. The question is, how would shooting/threatening a CPS worker help to get the baby back? It wouldn't. It would lessen the chances of getting the child back. So since your solution lowers the chance of keeping custody of the child, why do it?

I would say that most parents(even the ones horrible abusing children) are not happy with the idea of CPS taking their children. If this idea of yours was legal, well, pretty much any of the abusive parents could claim that they felt their children were being kidnapped and they were just physically defending themselves and their children. Hey, they beat and starve their kids, but they don't view that as abuse so how dare that CPS worker come and take their child. So when CPS shows up to take a child out of what they say is an abusive home, if the parent feels this isn't true, they go through the legal steps to prove that it isn't. They don't shoot the CPS worker unless they are crazy and want to end up in jail. And then CPS will get their kids anyway.

[kpmom]

The thing that stands out me about this situation is the parents took the child out of the hospital with discharging him. I also noticed that the child had a breathing tube. If they didn't tell anyone they were leaving, they many have removed medical breathing/mointoring equipment from their child and just left. This might be the reason why CPS reacted strongly.

I think you're right. While I don't necessarily agree with CPS in this case, the parents needed to behave differently too.

I would have the head nurse and/or hospital administrator and doctor on the phone or in my child's room fast if I got an answer of "I don't know" when I asked about the medication.

[Mudball]

Let's roleplay this, shall we?

CPS: We are here to take your baby!

Gun nut: FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!! *bang* *bang*

CPS: Oh shit! He killed Kenny! Give him the baby back! QUICK! Back to the office, we'll pretend this never happened!

Yeah, good plan. :roll:

[Cannelle]

You do realize that we're only hearing one side of the story, right? CPS and the hospital can't legally comment, so we're not hearing the reasons why they stepped in and what they saw that raised their alarms. We're hearing the side of the panicked parents who feel they were unjustly targeted. I'm sure the situation was horrible for the parents, but just remember that you're only reading half the story.

I had someone call CPS on me when my son was young, after she heard I was suffering from depression (I'd been seeing a therapist for several years and had just gotten on medication. All that obviously makes me a terrible mother, right?). Social worker showed up, checked out my 9 month old son and his 734892379482 toys, looked at his food supply (several cans of formula and a shitload of homemade baby food, frozen in the freezer), saw where he slept, and said, "This isn't what we usually see in cases like these [i'm assuming he meant when people call in with allegations of neglect]. In about two weeks, you'll get a letter from us stating that your case has been closed." And that's what happened. He didn't wrench my happy, healthy white baby from my loving arms, he didn't make up lies about my son, he just did his job and left. With all the CPS paranoia that's out there, it was nerve wracking at the time, but in retrospect, it wasn't really a big deal. My son was fine and he saw that. I'm guessing the little boy in the article was in way more danger than the parents were stating. There's a difference between calling another doctor to get a second opinion on, say, ear tubes, and taking a medically fragile child out of the hospital against medical advice and possibly yanking out medical equipment in order to do so. If they had contacted the other hospital first, they probably could've set up a transfer, instead of spiriting off with him like bandits.

[Marianne]

I grew up in the equivalent of the CPS.

The first thing is that after this article, we know nothing. We have just the opinion of the parents who prefer to present themselves as victims-of-the-bad-system. We have not the opinion and presentation of the fact of the hospital and CPS.

This case doesn't shock me. Social services MUST intervene when they think there is abuse. That's it. Sometimes they are wrong, and parents are shocked (and call the media that I can't stand.) It is sad, of course, but I prefer that social services do too much than not enough.

All I hope is that this baby is really in good hands with his parents.

[Rosa]

Doctors have a lot of public status & the power that goes with that, just like police officers have. There are cases where parents lose access to kids because they have a lot of strife with medical personnel, and get accused of Munchausen Syndrome. I doubt CPS initiated this, it sure sounds like the beef is between the parents & the hospital. Women get charged with child endangerment sometimes for going against medical advice with their pregnancies or births, too.

It's like the guy who got kicked out of the Missouri hospital for making a ruckus to stay with his husband - the hospital is going to have the police on their side automatically, it's up to the courts to fix it.

[gustava]

Keep in mind the source of this article is The Blaze - founded by Glenn Beck.

The nuggets of actual information in the article, as opposed to unaccredited statements or inflammatory rhetoric, are few and far between. From what I can gather, CPS would have received a call that a baby with a heart condition was removed from hospital against medical advice, and they may have been told that hospital staff had concerns about the parents.

On the basis of information like that, CPS would have had no choice but to react. We don't have any independent source of information to know whether CPS attempted to contact the parents first.

The update on the story also mentions that the baby was apprehended on April 24, and by April 29 there was an initial court hearing, the court ordered that the baby undergo a medical evaluation, and the parents can make medical decisions for the baby and have free access. The parents do need to be monitored to ensure that they are following medical recommendations.

Now, CPS involvement can be terrifying for parents - but the end result here is that after a few days, the court handled the case with some sanity.

Anti-CPS paranoia, however, hurts families and children. I've had a spike of cases in which parents call me in a panic, because CPS wants to speak with them. They've turned to google, found a bunch of horror stories and conspiracy theories, and are terrified of having any contact. Unfortunately, this is about the worst thing that they could do. Most of the reports that are made to CPS are investigated and the case is closed at intake. If there is no cooperation, though, or if the parents become belligerant, then the case escalates because it is not possible for CPS to ensure that there are no child protection concerns without deeper involvement.

Thanks for the Beck info. His backing wasn't immediately apparent to me when I clicked on the article, though I kept thinking it was an odd situation that seemed a bit off. Given the source, I don't see much point in discussing it.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Doctors have a lot of public status & the power that goes with that, just like police officers have. There are cases where parents lose access to kids because they have a lot of strife with medical personnel, and get accused of Munchausen Syndrome. I doubt CPS initiated this, it sure sounds like the beef is between the parents & the hospital. Women get charged with child endangerment sometimes for going against medical advice with their pregnancies or births, too.

It's like the guy who got kicked out of the Missouri hospital for making a ruckus to stay with his husband - the hospital is going to have the police on their side automatically, it's up to the courts to fix it.

When my daughter was a baby, I joked that Hallmark should set up a selection of cards "for the mandatory reporters in your child's life".

Yes, CPS puts a great deal of weight on what 3rd party professionals say. They are usually mandatory reporters, they are often viewed as being somewhat neutral (as opposed to ex-spouses or family members), and their professional expertise is valued. If they make a report, it gets a faster response time. Ex-partners make malicious allegations all the time. Family members and neighbors can also give information that is really vague, and is often not timely. "She's neglecting the kids all the time" isn't really useful if you can't give precise details. Police reporting that they have found a young child wandering alone in an unsafe way is an immediate situation which cannot be ignored. [Yes, a 2 yr old wandering on the highway WOULD spark an immediate investigation. By definition, the parents have failed to keep the child safe, and at the very least someone needs to assess if the parents are clueless or if the home needs better child-proofing.]

When it comes to court, a higher standard of proof is required. You get full sets of all clinical notes, expert reports, etc. In some cases, once you really delve into a case, you can see where mistakes were made: a wrong weight was recorded, a social worker misunderstanding medical notes, old mistaken information being repeated throughout a file, examples of bias or personality clashes, assessments based on partial information, etc. That's why rules of evidence and trials exist.

I'm completely opposed to "fetal protection laws" because of the risks that pregnant women can face if they want to make their own birth choices. In my mind, it should only result in CPS involvement if it's an issue which is likely to indicate a continuing problem after the birth. Prenatal drug use is an example - I've had judges tell me that a newborn testing positive for cocaine would be considered to be in need of protection, because it indicates that the mother has substance abuse issues that took precedence over the well-being of the fetus, and is therefore likely to be addicted.

[Effie]

I don't believe that CPS has too much power. There may be a few fringe cases like this, but for the most part it's actually quite difficult to protect abused and neglected children. I mean, you can allow a child die to do medical neglect and get to keep your 7+ other children until you kill another one in the same fashion. You can spend all day beating your children and brag about it on your blog. You can publicly admit that you put your infant on a blanket and then lure them off with toys just so you can hit them. These are all things that parents have done, that we've discussed on this board. CPS has too little power, IMO.

Exactly! You can also starve your children and threaten to make third-world-starvation real to them. You can also educationally neglect them so they won't be able to escape the life you have set up for them (where they are taught to not follow their own dreams, but to deny themselves everything including happiness). You can brag about how good you are at disciplining them, both on your blog and in your book, where you stress the point that the children must be spanked until they calm down. If they can't calm down, such an "offense" warrants another spanking (and this could go on... and I'm sure it does). :angry-banghead:

[Dru]

They didn't just take the baby out of the hospital AMA. Like a pp said, they took him from ICU and walked without discharging after being told he needed heart surgery ASAP. Further, their "second opinion" was from an ER doctor who is wildly unqualified to diagnose a pediatric cardiology issue.

Clearly the parents don't understand the depth of the problem because they seem to think that the hospital wanted to operate because of a heart murmur, which is not even a diagnosis. A baby in congestive heart failure can go from looking fine to being dead in short order. The good news is the baby is at one of the best cardiac hospitals in the country and he will get whatever treatment is necessary.

[longskirtlotsakids]

I think the reason CPS acts the way they do now is there aren't enough babies in the foster care system. People who seek adoption aren't commonly looking for teenagers or pre-teens. I have read on this.

You've read shite. CPS wants more caseloads like the Humane Society wants more puppies.

CPS social workers have too many cases to deal with, which result in individual vases not being looked at enough. When incormation is not reviewed enough, bad decisions like this happen.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Here's a relatively sane article on Sacramento CPS procedure that The Blaze didn't bother to quote - probably because it don't fit into Glenn Beck's "CPS wants to kidnap babies" paranoia.

http://southsacramento.news10.net/news/ ... is-parents

CPS gets 2 business days to bring the case to court. That's it.

[Jinger Jar]

So at what point is it okay to physically defend yourself? Just curious. If these were regular criminals that couple would have every right to "pop a cap" in the intruders trying to restrain them and kidnap their kid. What makes this different?

If you don't know the different between an criminal and an officer of the court, I can't help you.

[DrWhat]

There are definitely pieces missing to this story. First of all, the kid was in the ICU, so the fact that the doctor said that he thought the child would be safe at home was probably his opinion that these were caring parents, NOT that the kid was medically stable. There is no reason for a kid to need ICU care if he can just go home and be fine. For that reason, at least at the hospital where I work, if a parent tried to remove their child from the ICU they would not make it to the door.

Even thought he parents left AMA, the medical team would be aware that the family was planning on doing this. They made the deliberate decision to not properly discharge the child so that it would be recorded as AMA. If the kid would be safe at home and was medically stable enough to pursue a second opinion in this manner, the team could have just done the paperwork for proper discharge. If not, the team could have arranged safe and legal transfer to Kaiser. So it is clear that the medical team was certainly not acting in the best interest of the child by refusing any of these options. If someone is not happy with their care, one can not force them to stay with a medical team. They have the right to transfer.

Since the family left AMA from the ICU (!!!!!), taking Sammy to the ER with this story would prompt ANY ED physician to immediately call security.

Something is extremely fishy about the way the first hospital handled the situation, which makes me think that the reports of bad care probably have some truth to them. I work at a quaternary care hospital, and we are aware of the local hospitals that send us ridiculous transfers after giving substandard care time and time again. It happens.

Edited for spelling like a fundie

[Effie]

If you don't know the different between an criminal and an officer of the court, I can't help you.

Haha I don't know why, but that just made me laugh out loud.

[DrWhat]

The entire argument that "law abiding" citizens should have guns to protect themselves from the government baffles me. Where do you draw the lines ? Is it at cps involvement, tax collection, laws you just don't like ? If you think the government shouldn't tell you to jay walk, do you shoot the cop who tries to give you a citation ?

And what is the difference between defending yourself from the police for overstepping and trying to take your baby and defending yourself from the police who are trying to threaten your right to free commerce by busting your cocaine deal ? How do you decide who is a "criminal" and who is a "freedom fighter" in those circumstances ?

I actually do think that citizens should be armed to protect themselves from the government (within reason and with proper gun control laws, of course). This doesn't mean that we should shoot every government employee with whom we disagree. We just need to be able to defend ourselves if any sort of oppressive regime should become immediately threatening. I would draw the line as systematic destruction of the property of a certain group of people or forced relocation of any kind.

[Coconut Flan]

I worked at a government agency where a dissatisfied customer did fire a gun multiple times at us. It doesn't turn out well for the gun toter. Life time sentence to a mental institution is what that one got. So if that's what trolly McPherson wants, just don't injure anyone in the pursuit.

[treemom]

I'm not a troll. Of course I know you guys don't agree with my beliefs and that's why I came here because I want to debate. Not trolling at all.

Anyway what do you guys suggest? Just let the government have their way with you? This couple had their rights violated in one of the worst ways. Read the details, it's not like CPS just politely took the baby away. Do you not think they had a right to defend themselves?

Um how exactly does one politely take a baby away? So if they were polite it would have all been good?

[dianapavelovna]

Yeah, removals by nature are not "polite." Come on. Anyway, it sounds like it was the cops in this case who handled the removal poorly, which is...unsurprising, at least based on my experience. I didn't watch the video, though, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I work for CPS. Always a shock to step out of my little bubble at the office and realize (or remember) how many people perceive child protection agencies.

[ShesCrafty]

I actually do think that citizens should be armed to protect themselves from the government (within reason and with proper gun control laws, of course). This doesn't mean that we should shoot every government employee with whom we disagree. We just need to be able to defend ourselves if any sort of oppressive regime should become immediately threatening. I would draw the line as systematic destruction of the property of a certain group of people or forced relocation of any kind.

Oh, good, because for a minute there, I thought you were saying something REALLY whackadoodle. But as long as you just think that arming citizens is safer than the unlikely event of guerilla warfare, and of course we shouldn't shoot every government employee we disagree with, I'll hold off on thinking you're a nut job. And I'm glad to see you draw a line in the sand at property destruction and forced relocation. That makes me feel much better. :?

[Salamander]

I actually do think that citizens should be armed to protect themselves from the government (within reason and with proper gun control laws, of course). This doesn't mean that we should shoot every government employee with whom we disagree. We just need to be able to defend ourselves if any sort of oppressive regime should become immediately threatening. I would draw the line as systematic destruction of the property of a certain group of people or forced relocation of any kind.

...you're aware that the government has machine guns, tanks, missiles, drones, and nuclear weapons at its disposal, right? To which any "oppressive regime" would presumably attempt to gain access.

Maybe I shouldn't be so quick to judge. :shrug: I mean, it's working for this guy: [link=http://www.theonion.com/articles/62yearold-with-gun-only-one-standing-between-natio,30984/]62-Year-Old With Gun Only One Standing Between Nation And Full-Scale Government Takeover[/link].

[Knight of Ni]

I did not realize that the Blaze was founded by Glenn Beck. If so I never would have posted the story. Anything published by a source affiliated with Glenn Beck cannot be taken seriously. I blame my lack of checking where my information is from on it being the last week of my graduate career before finals. My capstone project was due last week, I defend tomorrow, I'm studying for finals, doing graduate assistant work, and looking for jobs. So I didn't really think to take the time to check the source. My apologies. We've been discussing a story posted by a lunatic. Please don't judge me based on this story. I don't take Glenn Beck seriously and have never read Blaze before this.

[Wolfie]

Okay, I finally read the article. I have worked with that particular ethnic group in that area. Some are great, but many still hang on to being corrupt as they learned in Russia and the Ukraine. They also exaggerate a lot, especially believing that all governments are corrupt. When a middle schooler was caught doing anything, it was always denied by them, and they exaggerated their treatment. On the other hand, if you locked your keys in your car there was always a student who could pop your door for you.

[luv2run]

They didn't just take the baby out of the hospital AMA. Like a pp said, they took him from ICU and walked without discharging after being told he needed heart surgery ASAP. Further, their "second opinion" was from an ER doctor who is wildly unqualified to diagnose a pediatric cardiology issue.

Clearly the parents don't understand the depth of the problem because they seem to think that the hospital wanted to operate because of a heart murmur, which is not even a diagnosis. A baby in congestive heart failure can go from looking fine to being dead in short order. The good news is the baby is at one of the best cardiac hospitals in the country and he will get whatever treatment is necessary.

I agree with the baby looking fine but it can be a bigger issue. My friends baby had three different defects that weren't caught in utero. It was only because she was a nurse that she saw certain things that raised a red flag for her a week after his birth. He ended up on an ECMO machine and coded twice. Thank God he got through it and is fine (we call him Rocky :lol: ) at two years old, but I agree with the above. I'm glad the baby is where he needs to be.