Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Balog on March 25, 2014, 06:55:36 PM
-
And make her a "permanent" ward of the state. I have nothing to say about this case that won't get me banned. Absolutely horrifying, and the fact that the .gov employees responsible will never be held accountable just makes it worse.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/25/judge-gives-permanent-custody-of-justina-pelletier-to-state-agency/
-
And make her a "permanent" ward of the state. I have nothing to say about this case that won't get me banned. Absolutely horrifying, and the fact that the .gov employees responsible will never be held accountable just makes it worse.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/25/judge-gives-permanent-custody-of-justina-pelletier-to-state-agency/
lightening strikes twice i agree
its not like they were using a witchdoctor. tufts is a real medical facility
-
Yeah, I'm pretty iffy on the state getting involved in parental medical decisions for just this reason. Sure, kid is bleeding out from a compound fracture and the parents just want to pray over it then I can see some form of intervention. But I honestly think fewer kids would suffer and die as a result of letting the handful of whackjobs refuse them medical treatment than will die or get raped in foster homes as a result of letting the state tell you what medical care your kid should have.
-
and this is no toddler and she has made clear her wishes. and is old enough for those wishes to have real merit
-
Too bad she can't get declared emancipated from the state.
-
in a case like this i would support hitting the road. and i do not often say that
-
in a case like this i would support hitting the road. and i do not often say that
Only problem with that is the kid needs fairly specialized medical care. You'd get snatched when you got her help, then you'd be back in the same spot but with the parents in jail as felons.
=(
-
in a case like this i would support hitting the road. and i do not often say that
Pull out your old .45 and hijack a hearse ;)
-
Yeah, I'm pretty iffy on the state getting involved in parental medical decisions for just this reason. Sure, kid is bleeding out from a compound fracture and the parents just want to pray over it then I can see some form of intervention. But I honestly think fewer kids would suffer and die as a result of letting the handful of whackjobs refuse them medical treatment than will die or get raped in foster homes as a result of letting the state tell you what medical care your kid should have.
I agree. Govt control is a greater evil in the long run. Too many of those laws are based on emotion and worst case scenarios.
-
Only problem with that is the kid needs fairly specialized medical care. You'd get snatched when you got her help, then you'd be back in the same spot but with the parents in jail as felons.
=(
they need big money lawyers then
in their shoes i think i'd head to another country
-
they need big money lawyers then
in their shoes i think i'd head to another country
Yep. Actually, what they need is a big PR campaign that gets the governor/Senators from there to intervene. Even with the best lawyers the girl will probably die before the case is litigated.
-
Yep. Actually, what they need is a big PR campaign that gets the governor/Senators from there to intervene. Even with the best lawyers the girl will probably die before the case is litigated.
this one made me think "what if it was me?"
i think i would have my kid adopted by my japanese kin and get her over there. good luck getting her back then
-
This case has been around for awhile and I've read a bit about it before. It's another example of the medical God complex. The doctors at Childrens are convinced that they are right, so no other opinions are to be considered.
The fact that the parents took the kid to Childrens specifically so she could continue to be cared for by the same doctor, and that the hospital then refused to allow that doctor to be involved, is outrageous. The fact that the state took custody without consulting the doctor the kid was taken there to be treated by is even more outrageous.
-
Were I the medical malpractice insurance company for Drs. Peters and Bujoreanu, I'd be Obamacaring their insurance rates.
Amazing how they quickly diagnosed her with something that at least one had written a paper on, in only a couple of hours, without doing any tests, and ignoring/discarding the work/diagnosis of a doctor who had referred her to another doctor, who was not allowed to exam the patient referred to him.
If there isn't a landshark taking this on contingency, I'll eat my hat.
-
In reading that article, keeping in my mind that I by default view such articles as slanted to one party, the number of WTFs is insane.
1. The denial of second opinions and preferred doctors. Now, sometimes a doctor can be incorrect, even a long time doctor. That's part of why second opinions are good. However any doctor should be able to express why he thinks the other doctor is wrong, even consult with each other.
2. Installing the daughter in what's essentially an insane asylum.
3. The state denying a lawyer to the parents?
4. Going against the teen's wishes
4. Blocking parents from having daughter treated by existing, fully certified doctors that they have a previous relationship with.
It does indeed sound like Child's has a god complex when it comes to anybody disagreeing with them, and they have the state on speed-dial.
Lastly, I certainly hope the state is picking up every dime of the daughter's medical care right now. And support for that matter. The parents need the money for the lawyer's bills. :(
-
the bizarre part is that they are from out of state. i would think it would need to be connecticut cps involved.
-
Start out by saying that I am in no way, shape, or form defending CPS of Boston Children's here...
I have been involved in these kinds of cases for 16 of my 20 years as a lawyer. Some cases I will never forget, because of the horrors of what I saw and heard, including a few "medical child abuse" cases, which used to be callled Munchausin by proxy. Horrible things some kids go through. Having seen these things, I know why CPS exists, and should continue to exist.
I don't understand how the parents here could be denied counsel. I thought that was universally accepted as a Constitutional right, though I have never researched that issue, as it is a guaranteed right here in Ohio.
Just thankful nothing like this has ever come my way..,
-
It appears to me that initial doc at Children's made a bad decision and the they have now doubled and tripled down on the stupid.
-
Kinda curious what happens if a court at some point finds in favor of the parents
That is my big issue with CPS (at least here in Wisconsin): LOADS of power, no accountability
-
In my own experiences, if CPS fails to prove their case, kids go home. Now. (Burden.., at least in Ohio...is on state to prove case hy clear and convincing evidence. Like in criminal cases, defense has nothing to prove.)
-
What's worse, CPS cannot rely on the "good faith reliance" onf the medicos statements once the parents register a disagreement. They can act to maintain the status quo while the differences are worked out, but they cannot just sit on the diffeernce of opinion. But that seems to be what they are doing.
The "service plan" reads like a dictate from on high, with nothing spelled out about resolving medical disagreements. In other words, CPS has on its own authority made a definitive medical determination. Nice if you can do that without a medical license.
At some point this kid needs to come before a judge on a habus corpus petition. IMHO it will probably end up being the US District Court of Appeals judge. And wihout expediting that process it seems there is a real danger the kid could suffer some pretty nasty permanent damages. Getting a few million dollars 10 years from now is really not going to compensate her for that.
stay safe.
-
I've had a little 2nd hand (sister and her kid) experience wth DHS(Dept. of Human Services) in Oklahoma.
They pretty well do whatever the *expletive deleted* they want to do. If you resist they double down on screwing you over.
It even gets difficult to find a lawyer to take the case because in the past DHS has demonstrated a willingness to go after lawyers working against them by alleging child abuse/neglect against the lawyers.
There are numerous cases where DHS has removed children from homes on dubious gronds and placed them in foster care and then the foster parents managed to abuse/rape/kill the child. The next week we'll here a case of DHS not responding to repeated documented reports of child abuse and the end result is dead children.
I have nothing but contempt for the organization in Oklahoma. I doubt is much better elsewhere.
-
We have sort of a love/hate relationship with DHS here in WI
on the one hand, they're needed, and DO help. On the other, there are so many caseworkers who are burnt out/power tripping/incompetant, that it boggles the mind
Some accountability would be helpful, as would better funding (properly channeled)
-
We had one unfortunate experience and only got clear of it because the lies lodged against us were so ludicrous.
However, from then on until the girls turned 18 we had a "bugout plan" ;)
-
Funny, as I read through this again, I find myself chuckling. You all see CPS as a powerful force to be reckoned with, overreaching and ruthless. After what I observed yesterday, CPS was a bumbling fool of a lawyer representing an incompetent flower child who didn't want to say anything bad about the mother (who while under the influence of pot, meth, coke, benzodiazapine, and bath salts, tried to cut the bugs out of her children's arms). Can't go into more detail, but the lawyer barely proved the woman even had children, much less the rest. And the social worker really was obviously trying to avoid hurting the woman's feelings.
-
I've seen that too, Chris
My favorite was an independant therapist, who went into a home check with a case worker and a video camera. He would focus in on any "issue" the case worker pointed out: quite often, what the camera showed didn't match what the worker was describing
As they were leaving, he stopped the woman, and pointed out that everything she had accused the family of doing wrong, had been something that was present in HER household while she was growing up. ANd he had been her case worker at the time, so he would know...
-
Who he? Which she?
Who's on first ?? No. Hu !!
What???
-
It seems to me that part of the issue is the Judges that are supposed to be riding herd on CPS.
-
Funny, as I read through this again, I find myself chuckling. You all see CPS as a powerful force to be reckoned with, overreaching and ruthless. After what I observed yesterday, CPS was a bumbling fool of a lawyer representing an incompetent flower child who didn't want to say anything bad about the mother (who while under the influence of pot, meth, coke, benzodiazapine, and bath salts, tried to cut the bugs out of her children's arms). Can't go into more detail, but the lawyer barely proved the woman even had children, much less the rest. And the social worker really was obviously trying to avoid hurting the woman's feelings.
Yeah, but it's the innocent parents that CPS really goes after .... ;/
-
Yeah... sometimes seems the only way for a mother to loose custody of their child is to be a good parent...
-
Yeah, but it's the innocent parents that CPS really goes after ....
Even the good caseworkers still follow a pattern with the same end result: if it's something minor that should be at most a warning and followup, they'll build a huge, elaborate and airtight case to go after a parent that has no money to fight them. If it's major, they assume it will be so horribly obvious what has happened and what must be done that they don't really have to try to prove anything. It's like watching a brand new lawyer, except that CPS never seems to grow out of it.
When I worked for a mental health office, we would get "parents" referred by the court for their fifth or sixth "second chance" to get off meth so they wouldn't have to lose their kids.
-
When I worked for a mental health office, we would get "parents" referred by the court for their fifth or sixth "second chance" to get off meth so they wouldn't have to lose their kids.
funny you should mention that
i was just talking to someone about a female who lost her kid when he ate some rock cocaine and was in a coma for a couple days. the social worker was gonna give her her kid back 90 days later after a bunch of well intentioned 12 step enablers paid off her bills got her a new place to live furnished it and propped her up to look like a decent mom. thankfully judge was smarter told congrats on 90 days clean see him in a year. the good news is she went back to prison and son got adopted. bad news is she got knocked up by prison guard and got settlement from state plus child support from former guard. and spawned once more after that.the prison baby was a deliberate ploy that worked.
oh and if you wonder how she conned the social worker? got her to sign off on return of son? they both fly the rainbow flag
-
When I worked for a mental health office, we would get "parents" referred by the court for their fifth or sixth "second chance" to get off meth so they wouldn't have to lose their kids.
Can't blame that one on the courts or the social workers. That's a law problem. The way the law is written in most places, you cannot use what happened with a previous child's situation against the parents if they have another child later. Each child's circumstances are to be judged individually. The past only becomes relevant and admissible if the parents have failed again. So, you see parents like your situation, being sent to treatment for the fourth, fifth, sixth time because the law says they have to be given a chance. Again. And again. And again.
-
Anyone know if/where you can find the judge's decision on the permanent custody? I've seen a few articles referring to the decision, but only paraphrasing what someone read. I'd like to read it myself, if it is available...
-
Yeah, but it's the innocent parents that CPS really goes after .... ;/
Perhaps I'm jaded, but the innocent "or not that bad " parents are an order of magnitude less likely to show up at a social workers house and kill them for taking the kids then the real life version of Daryl Crowe Jr.
Why risk your life for a kid that's already FUBAR and will hate you when that other one over there has a suspicious bruise and non-scary parents?
-
Can't blame that one on the courts or the social workers. That's a law problem. The way the law is written in most places, you cannot use what happened with a previous child's situation against the parents if they have another child later. Each child's circumstances are to be judged individually. The past only becomes relevant and admissible if the parents have failed again. So, you see parents like your situation, being sent to treatment for the fourth, fifth, sixth time because the law says they have to be given a chance. Again. And again. And again.
this! ^^^^^
and as a foster parent i couldn't take the kids to church or get em a freaking haircut unless we could locate parents and get permission. i have gone to visit in jails to get permission
-
Can't blame that one on the courts or the social workers. That's a law problem. The way the law is written in most places, you cannot use what happened with a previous child's situation against the parents if they have another child later.
Most of the cases I'm referring to were multiple incidents with the same kid, or intending to use the new kid to show that mommy's fifth time is the charm and this time she won't get high and leave the kid in her boyfriend's garage overnight so she can get the other kids (and the associated welfare money) back.
-
Perhaps I'm jaded, but the innocent "or not that bad " parents are an order of magnitude less likely to show up at a social workers house and kill them for taking the kids then the real life version of Daryl Crowe Jr.
You never can tell about that for sure, though ... :angel:
-
Perhaps I'm jaded, but the innocent "or not that bad " parents are an order of magnitude less likely to show up at a social workers house and kill them for taking the kids then the real life version of Daryl Crowe Jr.
Why risk your life for a kid that's already FUBAR and will hate you when that other one over there has a suspicious bruise and non-scary parents?
When I was prosecuting these kinds of cases, I had an incident where a parent pulled up next to me in a gas station. He jumped out, grabbed a pipe from the back of his truck, and said "you took my kids from me, I'm gonna take your son from you"(my toddler son was in the car.) One of two times in my life I pointed a revolver at a man with full intention of firing...
-
You never can tell about that for sure, though ... :angel:
Just toss the bodies in Tokugawa's ditch.