? Fundie family loses kids

[Mama Mia]

Considering that I've been a foster parent, I know a little about why parents lose their children. Nothing that these parents are saying gives me any reason to believe that they were unfit; however, the children are gone. I believe that no diligent CPS worker would remove a baby for eczema unless it was clear that skin integrity wasn't compatible with health.

Something else is going on here.

I could of swornn I already posted in this thread, anyway...

Yes that's true if it was a diligent, unbiased, CPS worker. But they are people, and like people in any occupation - some are great, some are awful. Some are just new and over zealous, or burnt out and vindictive.

Most of the time CPS doesn't take kids without a good reason, but sometimes they let their biases take over or just plain screw up. It happens in the other direction as well with kids staying in homes they shouldn't.

The only difference between this particular case and others where CPS may have screwed up is that this one went viral.

[DGayle]

Something in my gut tells me this is going to end up one of those cases where laws let parents make extremely bad, even abusive and neglectful, decisions that are still within the law protected by religion. Like the Pearls' methods for beating kids, the Duggars' educational neglect, and the Rodrigueses cramming so many children into too little space after not feeding them. All of it is legal, though we all know it's wrong, and that, regardless of law, it's abuse.

Some red flags to me are the domestic violence call that was made (if there's 1 call, there's probably more violence that's not being heard), the mother running, and, yes, the extremism of their beliefs that has me worried we'll see some bad situations that get protected. If someone's religion is leading to bad, dangerous situations, it's thin ice to bring it up because religion is supposed to get you a free pass on many things.

Those babies are going to end back up with the parents, and my gut says it's not going to be a good life for them.

[Mama Mia]

If you decide to never have an ultrasound - I think you're nuts. But it's not illegal. .

I'm just curious about this part -- what's crazy about not having an ultrasound?

I know they are ubiquitous now, and can detect some issues that can potentially be treated, but aren't they primarily for determining things that are either optional or can be found out other ways? Like precise dating and sex of the baby?

[DGayle]

I'm just curious about this part -- what's crazy about not having an ultrasound?

I know they are ubiquitous now, and can detect some issues that can potentially be treated, but aren't they primarily for determining things that are either optional or can be found out other ways? Like precise dating and sex of the baby?

They can help determine, before birth, if babies have conditions that need treatment immediately after birth, like heart-defects (did you know the heart can develop outside the ribs?), or omphalocele, which is internal organs that develop outside the abdominal cavity, that would make a hospital birth vital to the baby's chance of survival.

The risks of an ultrasound at 20 weeks is so much less than risks from vaccines that vaccines may as well be a sure-killer in comparison. So there's less than no reason to not get an ultrasound. I know people who go without them because they say they wouldn't abort, no matter what, but they don't think about the potential deadly conditions that a 5-minute scan can discover ahead of time.

I am a crunchy-birther who is into the waterbirthing, doulas, and placenta-encapsulation, and think ultrasound is maybe the most important medical thing you can do during pregnancy.

[DGayle]

One of my friends brought up a really good point. The twins were born 44 weeks after the older baby. So if they were full term, she got pregnant about 6 weeks after the first birth. Since she was breastfeeding, this is extremely fast. Sarah got pregnant very fast but it being 4 months. It's probable that the twins were born premature, like most are. How premature?

CPS doesn't like to take infants away from mothers when breastfeeding.

[Howl]

I googled "Rengo Family" and came up with a Snopes.com article posted today (December 4th)

I'll just go ahead and cut and paste, even though it's a long article:

Claim: Child Protective Services in Washington removed three young children from their parents' care because homebirth is considered dangerous.

Origins: On 26 November 2014, the site Medical Kidnap published a harrowing article entitled "Breastfed, Homebirthed Babies Taken Away From Parents for Not Using Hospital." In that article, Bellingham, Washington, parents Erica May and Cleave Rengo claimed their state's division of Child Protective Services (CPS) took custody of their three young children (newborn twins and a 10-month-old boy named Levi) due to the couple's decision to forgo a hospital birth. The article immediately prompted widespread outrage and was shared more than 100,000 times on Facebook in its first day alone.

According to the article, Erica gave birth to twins Morna Kai Grace and Daniel Clemente on 2 October 2014. Under pressure from relatives and friends who did not fully agree with their home birth plan, the Rengos "notified" EMTs of the babies' arrival "sometime" after they were born. (It is not clear whether EMTs were summoned to the home, what the reason given for the notification was, or what transpired during the EMTs' visit.) According to the couple, they declined advice given by the paramedics suggesting they visit a hospital to follow up after the twins' arrival, and their refusal to go to the hospital prompted the EMTs to report them to CPS.

At this juncture it's virtually impossible for any media outlets to verify (and subsequently report upon) the claims of parents and families involved with child welfare agencies in any state because unlike criminal cases, family court proceedings are not public. CPS and related agencies cannot confirm or deny claims about their actions because their cases generally involve minors and abuse allegations.

The article states that homebirth alone prompted EMTs to file a report with CPS. While the decision to give birth at home is often considered risky, and the birth of twins is generally deemed "high risk" by obstetricians, there is no indication that a woman's simply choosing a homebirth is a factor in CPS involvement. Given that home births are not uncommon, allegations such as those made by the Rengos should be rife if delivering a baby at home was by itself considered an automatic red flag for abuse.

While the claims made by Erica May and Cleave Rengo sparked widespread outrage and discussion on social media sites, an initial revelation in the account given by the parents is telling:

[tab=30]On November 6, CPS showed up at the front door while Erica was softly singing and playing her guitar to her resting babies. When she checked the door, they told her that they were there to take her children, citing neglect for not giving Levi steroids for his eczema, and the home-birth without medical prenatal care with the twins, as well as the allegations of abuse, accusations which Erica had already assured them were completely unfounded. She also had prenatal care, just not with a doctor.

With one baby on her back, the frightened mother fled out the back door with her children to a neighbor's house, but police and CPS "hunted her down," and took all three breastfed babies from their mothers' arms. The twins were 5 weeks old.

According to Erica in the quoted portion above, she ran away from CPS during that agency's 6 November 2014 visit. While many parents would react unfavorably to a visit from CPS workers, evading them in such a manner could justly trigger questions as to whether a parent's state of mind was stable. It's not uncommon for parents facing custodial disruption to harm themselves or their children under the threat of separation, and it's reasonable that the agency might have considered her actions worrisome.

Even by the parents' own account, "allegations of abuse, accusations which Erica had already assured them were completely unfounded" were at issue during the 6 November 2014 CPS visit. Rengo also objected to an allegation she did not receive prenatal care but added it was "just not with a doctor." Ultimately, the family's situation has moved a number of Facebook users. However, a number of claims made in the upsetting account either are impossible to verify or conflict with one another. In one statement, Rengo said the children were taken from her because she refused to treat eczema with steroids and opted for natural remedies; in other portions of the article, home birth was blamed for the children's removal (despite the number of babies born this way each day without CPS involvement).

The Rengos told the site other unspecified abuse allegations were cited by CPS, and Erica herself admitted to evading CPS workers on 6 November 2014. On 3 December 2014, a local news outlet provided additional details about the Rengo case, including a statement from CPS addressing fears that home birth caused the children to be removed:

[tab=30]"Due to confidentiality, we cannot discuss details, except to say that a court determined a child's safety required removal from the home.

No policy of Children's Administration would allow a child to be taken due to a home birth. A home birth is not in any way a child safety risk factor in the view of Children's Administration."

It is obvious from reading the article from the local TV station referenced above that the couple are serious fundamentalists.

"They (CPS) wanted the authority in my household. I told them, 'I'm a Christian and God gave me the authority in my household'," Rengo said.

[Mama Mia]

They can help determine, before birth, if babies have conditions that need treatment immediately after birth, like heart-defects (did you know the heart can develop outside the ribs?), or omphalocele, which is internal organs that develop outside the abdominal cavity, that would make a hospital birth vital to the baby's chance of survival.

The risks of an ultrasound at 20 weeks is so much less than risks from vaccines that vaccines may as well be a sure-killer in comparison. So there's less than no reason to not get an ultrasound. I know people who go without them because they say they wouldn't abort, no matter what, but they don't think about the potential deadly conditions that a 5-minute scan can discover ahead of time.

I am a crunchy-birther who is into the waterbirthing, doulas, and placenta-encapsulation, and think ultrasound is maybe the most important medical thing you can do during pregnancy.

I was just curious. My kids are grown and I only had 1 ultrasound, with the youngest for dating purposes at 12 weeks, she is in her mid twenties now. And a couple to determine if a baby I lost was still alive. I know lots of people in that time period were starting to have them to find out the sex, but they weren't routine otherwise ( at least my Doctors didn't routinely do them). So I was wondering how they went from optional to " if you don't have one you're crazy" in such a relatively short time.

[GeoBQn]

I've also been wanting to know something. With the first ultrasound done during a pregnancy, is it internal or abdominal?

[Mama Mia]

I've also been wanting to know something. With the first ultrasound done during a pregnancy, is it internal or abdominal?

It depends how early you do it, is the experience my daughters have had. One had to have an ultrasound very, very early - at around 6 or 7 weeks. That was internal. Ones done at around 12 weeks were external. I think somewhere around 8-10 weeks is the diving line.

[flubber]

I've also been wanting to know something. With the first ultrasound done during a pregnancy, is it internal or abdominal?

2 kids here- 3 ultrasounds - all abdominal. I've never heard of anyone having internal one as routine for pregnancy.

12 weeks with No1 as I was super excited - and they use it for dating. Then 20 week - for sex, and to check for issues

20 week with No2 as I was slightly more crunchy and realised any date is just a ETA anyway.

In Australia you can opt to have more or less. The 20 week one is the one they would like you to have though as it will pick up major defects etc.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

2 kids here- 3 ultrasounds - all abdominal. I've never heard of anyone having internal one as routine for pregnancy.

12 weeks with No1 as I was super excited - and they use it for dating. Then 20 week - for sex, and to check for issues

20 week with No2 as I was slightly more crunchy and realised any date is just a ETA anyway.

In Australia you can opt to have more or less. The 20 week one is the one they would like you to have though as it will pick up major defects etc.

Internal isn't routine for everyone, but in cases of elevated hormones, they do strongly suggest getting an ultrasound before 8 weeks to determine if there's an issue with the fetus or if there are multiples.

[FJismyheadship]

I had a free one at 8 weeks. My doctor likes to do that with all of her patients at their first appointment. Anyway, it was internal. The next one at twenty weeks was abdominal. So were the next three I had to determine what was wrong.

[busdrivingmom]

I know with my first child, my OB gave me the option to opt out of any test I did not want. She would ask me if I wanted it, whether it was ultrasound, blood test, triple screen or having the child in the hospital. Even when I was in the hospital, she wanted to release me a day early. I refused, because I was having a lot of problems with breastfeeding.

With my second, she did not give me the choice. I had problems early on and she and I argued quite a bit over how she felt treatment should go. We had a huge argument when it was discovered my son was breech and I refused to schedule a c-section on the spot. I wasn't given the option that time to leave early and that was fine by me.

There has to be more to this family's story. It just does not add up to me.

[SquirrelySquirrel]

My son had a patch of eczema on his cheek for a long time. The doctor knows I am a little crunchy about medicine, so he recommended that we get a little more sunlight without using sunscreen. It worked!

My son and I both have wicked dry, sensitive skin. We both have eye allergies, too. No Tide detergent or Ivory soap for either if us. Jergens lotion by the gallon (lol), white Dove soap, cheap laundry detergent. Plain Vaseline works well for me on my face and hands. No daily baths for him.

He's even allergic to lavender. It burns like his skin is on fire.

Noxema, Cover Girl products, and Ivory soap do that to me.

We have a cat and a dog. Even though I have allergies. Not a biggie. THey can't sleep with me, though.

Dove sensitive body wash is even better than the bars, if your skin is dry/rashy. It's the only thing I can use. You may give Aveeno lotion a try sometime, if you feel like changing it up. A little bit goes a long way. A lot of people rave about coconut oil, but it made my rashes worse. Have you ever tried it?

Corticosteroid ointments and prednisone are all that work for me when I get bad, though. And I freaking hate it. I let myself suffer for awhile before I cave.

[DarkAnts]

Dove sensitive body wash is even better than the bars, if your skin is dry/rashy. It's the only thing I can use. You may give Aveeno lotion a try sometime, if you feel like changing it up. A little bit goes a long way. A lot of people rave about coconut oil, but it made my rashes worse. Have you ever tried it?

Corticosteroid ointments and prednisone are all that work for me when I get bad, though. And I freaking hate it. I let myself suffer for awhile before I cave.

I have had success with glycerin occlusion therapy. Its a common treatment for psoriasis.

[dianapavelovna]

This little aside in the article made me perk up my ears a bit.

Mine too. I'm guessing that's also what's referred to a few times in the Snopes article. Seems like DV or a history of it could be playing a big role here. I'm also curious about the older baby's medical history. They say he has pneumonia but the parents counter it developed after he was removed. I've no doubt all those kids got exams post-haste after removal, so I wonder what the truth is there.

I know the judge keeps continuing the hearing, so it's not officially concluded, but they've met so many times I find it hard to believe he wouldn't have acted if an egregious error by CPS was obvious. Ugh, these cases are so frustrating because you don't get to hear both sides.

[GeoBQn]

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

Thanks for the answers. I needed to have a few internal ultrasounds over the summer to investigate why I was having pelvic pain. They went so badly--even while I was under sedation--that the medical team recommended that any future internal ultrasounds I get should be done under general anesthesia. I was concerned that they would be required if I ever got pregnant in the future.

[JHeathen]

I've also been wanting to know something. With the first ultrasound done during a pregnancy, is it internal or abdominal?

Have 2 kids.

Had internal ultrasounds at 8 wks. External regularly throughout the pregnancies after that...I was 38-40 at the time, so they were "geriatric pregnancies."

One pregnancy in-between was a miscarriage...external 12 week ultrasound showed the fetus had no heartbeat, and they confirmed it with an internal.

[GiGi_41]

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

Thanks for the answers. I needed to have a few internal ultrasounds over the summer to investigate why I was having pelvic pain. They went so badly--even while I was under sedation--that the medical team recommended that any future internal ultrasounds I get should be done under general anesthesia. I was concerned that they would be required if I ever got pregnant in the future.

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

Just wondering if these were more than just internal ultrasounds? I've had several and to me they were no more invasive than a Pap smear. My funny story is I've had them in different countries and even one after my hysterectomy..

I'm sure that if you explained the issue with your doctor you wouldn't have to do an internal. The external just requires you to drink a TON of water and hold it!

[NotALoserLikeYou]

The Governor has weighed in and the plot thickens:

Over the past several days, hundreds of you have made your voices heard about a current case with our Child Protective Services in Washington regarding the Rengo family. I want to thank you for your concern and willingness to be vocal.

I’d like to be clear: every child’s safety is our top priority in situations like these. Rumors have circulated that the removal of the Rengo children was due to breastfeeding or their home births. Those rumors are false. Breastfeeding and home birthing are not factors that would cause CPS to take children from a home. Their removal from the home was based on factors unrelated to a home birth or breastfeeding.

That said, these cases hit home for many of us. We are fathers and mothers and aunts and uncles and we care about our families. And as mothers and fathers, I hope you’ll agree that safety is of utmost importance. Right now, we’ve determined (for reasons unrelated to a home birth) that the Rengo children’s safety is at risk and an independent court initially found that the children should not remain in the home. A court hearing is now underway with testimony being provided by all parties. At the end of the hearing, the court will decide if the children should remain out of their parents’ care or can safely return home.

[crazyforkate]

They can help determine, before birth, if babies have conditions that need treatment immediately after birth, like heart-defects (did you know the heart can develop outside the ribs?), or omphalocele, which is internal organs that develop outside the abdominal cavity, that would make a hospital birth vital to the baby's chance of survival.

The risks of an ultrasound at 20 weeks is so much less than risks from vaccines that vaccines may as well be a sure-killer in comparison. So there's less than no reason to not get an ultrasound. I know people who go without them because they say they wouldn't abort, no matter what, but they don't think about the potential deadly conditions that a 5-minute scan can discover ahead of time.

I am a crunchy-birther who is into the waterbirthing, doulas, and placenta-encapsulation, and think ultrasound is maybe the most important medical thing you can do during pregnancy.

My own heart defect was discovered by ultrasound. Without this diagnosis, and my mother's subsequent arrangements to move to a better-equipped hospital in a larger city, I would have died within days. There was no indication that there was a problem until the ultrasound picked it up. I'm sorry, but if you intend to bring a child into the world, and you don't have even the most basic of tests done to check for its safety, you ARE neglectful - and damned lucky if nothing turns out to be wrong!

[JMarie]

Aha!

www.bellinghamherald.com/2014/12/04/401 ... 100/&ihp=1

Quote: In a hearing before Whatcom County Superior Court Commissioner Thomas Verge this week, the state attempted to show an unstable household marked by numerous contacts with law enforcement — 14 in Whatcom County and seven in Vancouver, Wash., when the couple lived there — within the past two years and refusal to provide medical treatment to the children.

Quote: “There was no abuse, no neglect,†Rengo said in an interview in the one-bedroom apartment the family shared with his father. “This is a misunderstanding. We just miss them dearly and want them back.â€

Quote: "Under questioning from Assistant Attorney General Rob Olson, she summarized the police reports involving the couple and the concerns that those contacts with law enforcement indicated a pattern of domestic problems and mental health issues in the home. She also said that in the course of working with the couple, social workers worried that they weren’t following recommended medical care for their children — specifically not treating Levi’s eczema, which had become infected, with a steroid cream as recommended by medical providers — and that the twins were underweight to the extent that they were below 1 percentile for their age.

So Grandpop, Dad, Mom, and three infants were living in a one bedroom apartment? That's worse than Emily and Dna! And if there were 44 weeks between the birth of the older baby and the twins, the parents probably have no idea when the twins were conceived. If she'd allowed an ultrasound to infiltrate her Special Snowflake Maker, they could have monitored the progress of the fetus, as well as that of the bonus fetus.

So, there's two very tiny (probably premature) babies, an older baby with some kind of parent-diagnosed rash, no prenatal care, the refusal of post-natal care, and police involvement about once a month for their entire relationship (called 21 times, and they've been together about 21 months).

I wonder if she's pregnant again?

[Eternalbluepearl]

Guy seemed like a nutjob to me. I saw some video where he described telling emts that God gave him biblical authority over his family and his kids were not to leave the house. That turned me right off. Made me remember Mary Maxwell explaining the biblical authority her parents had over her to her dentist when the dentist asked her opinion on braces. Do the religious nutcases actually hear themselves talk? I am glad this family is being investigated. Domestic violence calls? Yikes!

[NoneandDoneinCali]

I'm just curious about this part -- what's crazy about not having an ultrasound?

I know they are ubiquitous now, and can detect some issues that can potentially be treated, but aren't they primarily for determining things that are either optional or can be found out other ways? Like precise dating and sex of the baby?

I am not an ultrasound technician, so I am not going to debate the finer points of ultrasound technology. I know it is standard operating procedure to have between 1 and 3 ultrasounds as part of basic, pre-natal care. I'm in my thirties - every single pregnant woman in my age range that I've known has had between one and 3 (more often three these days). This includes homebirthers, birthing center-ers (?), and regular ol' hospital birthers. I don't mean women should be strapped down and given forcible ultrasound, but, to me, it IS madness not to take advantage of extremely low-risk, widely-available technology to know if your baby is a twin. Or has a heartbeat. or a functioning brain (regardless of whether anyone would choose to abort). Or will likely need immediate, emergency medical care to save its life. Yes, to me that is terrible decision-making. If there's another way to get the same information, with the same low risk (I don't think there is, but I'm not a doctor), then by all means, choose that.

[NoneandDoneinCali]

The Governor has weighed in and the plot thickens:

Wow, that's a really well-written statement. Very fair, IMO.