New Hampshire CPS takes baby from family because father is "Oath Keeper"

[vaskidmark]

Taking as fact the allegation that two children were previously removed from the couple and residual parental rights of the mother were terminated (Mr. Irish is the alleged abuser but not biologically related to the child) there would have been an adversarial hearing before such termination order was issued. Merely refusing to attend some sort of anger control class, and/or refusing to admit guilt of abuse, are not sufficient grounds for termination of residual parental rights. All these matters have been up in front of SCOTUS a few times (no, I'm not going to give case cites - do your own starting here http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwi...dterminall.pdf ) so the ground rules are fairly well established.

One of the ground rules is that absent overwhelming evidence that clearly abusive/neglectful parents have continued a course of action which could do nothing but cause abuse/neglect of any new child born into the family, past issues are not prima facie evidence of ongoing current abuse/neglect. There is a lot wrong with the state's action in this case.

That, plus this   which shows the last paragraph out of alignment with the others, plus the typeface is different.

stay safe.

[BridgeRunner]

Pretty sure most states allow removal of a new infant if the parents'rights to other kids have been termnated. Iagree there'smore going on that falng to attend anger management, but it looks like the drafter was trying to find/list new grounds that apply to the new kid, not rely mreely on siblings removal.  Being very active in firearms activities and possessing firearms seems like a
big red flag in this situation, given the history of violent abuse and poor judgment, possibly poor judgment involving fireamrs.

I'll allow it could have/should have worded better. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i wonder how hes not a prohibited person   seems like lautenburg would fit him

[vaskidmark]

Pretty sure most states allow removal of a new infant if the parents'rights to other kids have been termnated.

Actually, absolutely not!

It is sufficient reason to intervene in the family situation, impose mandates/restrictions, insist on family members attending this or that class, and the like.

But the mere fact that a child was previously removed, is not.  At least not per New Hampshire law.

The removal of a child from the parents in New Hampshire are governed by

Section 169-C:6
    169-C:6 Protective Custody. –
    I. A police or juvenile probation and parole officer may take a child into protective custody without the consent of the parents or other person legally responsible for the child's care if the child is in such circumstances or surroundings as would present an imminent danger to the child's health or life unless immediate action is taken and there is not enough time to petition for a court order.
    II. If a police or juvenile probation and parole officer removes a child under paragraph I above, the officer:
       (a) Shall inform the court forthwith whereupon continued protective custody pending a hearing may be ordered by the court;
       (b) May take the child to a child protection services worker of the department; or
       (c) May place the child in a foster home; if a child is placed directly in a foster home, the department shall be notified of the incident and where the child is placed within 24 hours, unless there is a physician involved and treating the child and the child is or will be taken to and admitted to a hospital; and
       (d) Shall, when the child is removed from an individual other than a parent or a person legally responsible for the child, make every reasonable effort to inform both parents or other persons legally responsible for the child's care where the child has been taken.
    III. Any police or juvenile probation and parole officer or other individual acting in good faith pursuant to this section, shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred or imposed as a result of such removal or placement.
    IV. The court shall hold a hearing on the matter within 24 hours of taking the child into protective custody, Sundays and holidays excluded. Notice shall be given to both parents and all parties designated by the petitioner or the court.
    V. If a child is found by a child protection services worker of the department to be in imminent danger in such circumstances or surroundings and where immediate removal appears necessary to protect the child from such imminent danger, the department's child protection services worker shall contact a judge or clerk immediately for an order to remove the child. Prior to any order authorizing foster placement, the child protective service worker shall inform the judge of efforts to locate any non-custodial parent or other relatives for temporary placement.
    VI. The court having jurisdiction over a child who appears to be abused or neglected, and in imminent danger may issue ex parte orders pursuant to RSA 169-C:6-a, permitting the child or the alleged perpetrator to be removed from the home at the request of the department or a law enforcement officer.
    VII. No child taken into protective custody pursuant to this section shall be securely detained.
    VIII. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the refusal of a parent or other person having control of a child to administer or consent to the administration of any psychotropic drug to such child shall not, in and of itself, constitute grounds for the police or a juvenile probation and parole officer to take the child into custody, or for the court to order that such child be taken into custody. However, if the administration of a decreasing dose of the drug is required during withdrawal from the medication, the refusal may constitute grounds for taking the child into protective custody.
Source. 1979, 361:2. 1987, 402:12. 1988, 197:6. 1994, 411:3, 16, 17. 1995, 310:175. 2000, 294:9, eff. July 1, 2000. 2003, 199:1, eff. Aug. 29, 2003. 2004, 237:7, eff. June 15, 2004.

Section 169-C:6-a
    169-C:6-a Emergency Interim Relief. –
    I. The department or law enforcement officer requesting the court for an ex parte order shall, to the extent known, present the following evidence in writing with sworn signature or orally under oath:
       (a) A statement of the specific danger requiring either immediate placement of the child or removal of the alleged perpetrator.
       (b) The time, place, and manner in which the child was removed from danger, if relevant.
       (c) If the child was removed prior to the court order, a brief statement why it was not possible to obtain the order prior to removal.
       (d) Why there is not sufficient time to notify the parent, guardian, or custodian prior to the order.
       (e) The names and addresses of custodial parents, non-custodial parents, legal custodians, other legal guardians of the child, and any other person responsible for the welfare of the child at the time of removal.
       (f) When removal of the child is requested, those alternatives to foster care which were considered, such as removal of the alleged perpetrator, or placement of the child with relatives or others with whom the child is familiar.
    II. Whenever a petition is filed for abuse or neglect with or prior to the request for ex parte relief, the request need not repeat information included in the petition.
    III. If the court finds reasonable cause to believe that the child is in such circumstances or surroundings as would present an imminent danger to the child's health or life, the court shall issue such ex parte orders as are necessary to protect the child and shall set the matter for hearing no later than 5 days from the date of the ex parte orders, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.
    IV. If the court issues ex parte orders, the department or law enforcement officer shall file a petition meeting the requirements of RSA 169-C:7 within 72 hours of the issuance of the orders, excluding Sundays and holidays.
Source. 1994, 411:4. 1995, 310:175, eff. Nov. 1, 1995. 2002, 180:1, eff. July 14, 2002.

Having been a professional baby-snatcher for over a decade, I kept up with the laws to avoid getting sued.  I still follow the field because of a perverse fascination with how the laws are changing and evolving.  More and more the courts are putting pressure on the welfare agencies to do everything possible, and quite a lot that is neither possible not practicable IMHO, to keep the child in the family home regardless of what has taken place.  I just don't see the imminent danger the newborn was in, nor do I see that there were no lesser alternatives than taking the child into protective custody.  Among other options a doctor could have ordered a medical hold on the child until the home situation was assessed - and then if the parents did not cooperate there could have been a scheduled adversarial hearing.

stay safe.

[vaskidmark]

i wonder how hes not a prohibited person   seems like lautenburg would fit him

The reason Lautenburg does not apply is because the charges were never prosecuted, and he is under no indictment.

You can be accused of anything.  Seems your history involves that happening to you a few times.  Last I checked it only counts if you are convicted.

stay safe.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

so its your position this was an emergency seizure of the child? as opposed to one court ordered?

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/169-C/169-C-6-a.htm
169-C:6-a Emergency Interim Relief. –
    I. The department or law enforcement officer requesting the court for an ex parte order shall, to the extent known, present the following evidence in writing with sworn signature or orally under oath:
       (a) A statement of the specific danger requiring either immediate placement of the child or removal of the alleged perpetrator.
       (b) The time, place, and manner in which the child was removed from danger, if relevant.
       (c) If the child was removed prior to the court order, a brief statement why it was not possible to obtain the order prior to removal.
       (d) Why there is not sufficient time to notify the parent, guardian, or custodian prior to the order.
       (e) The names and addresses of custodial parents, non-custodial parents, legal custodians, other legal guardians of the child, and any other person responsible for the welfare of the child at the time of removal.
       (f) When removal of the child is requested, those alternatives to foster care which were considered, such as removal of the alleged perpetrator, or placement of the child with relatives or others with whom the child is familiar.
    II. Whenever a petition is filed for abuse or neglect with or prior to the request for ex parte relief, the request need not repeat information included in the petition.
    III. If the court finds reasonable cause to believe that the child is in such circumstances or surroundings as would present an imminent danger to the child's health or life, the court shall issue such ex parte orders as are necessary to protect the child and shall set the matter for hearing no later than 5 days from the date of the ex parte orders, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.
    IV. If the court issues ex parte orders, the department or law enforcement officer shall file a petition meeting the requirements of RSA 169-C:7 within 72 hours of the issuance of the orders, excluding Sundays and holidays.

Source. 1994, 411:4. 1995, 310:175, eff. Nov. 1, 1995. 2002, 180:1, eff. July 14, 2002.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

The reason Lautenburg does not apply is because the charges were never prosecuted, and he is under no indictment.

You can be accused of anything.  Seems your history involves that happening to you a few times.  Last I checked it only counts if you are convicted.

stay safe.

indeed i have had that happen
i was quite unique though in that out of 50 plus times in cuffs with one exception i was always guilty. unlike poor folk like mr irish who were persecuted for no reason at all

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/169-C/169-C-6.htm

169-C:6 Protective Custody. –
    I. A police or juvenile probation and parole officer may take a child into protective custody without the consent of the parents or other person legally responsible for the child's care if the child is in such circumstances or surroundings as would present an imminent danger to the child's health or life unless immediate action is taken and there is not enough time to petition for a court order.
    II. If a police or juvenile probation and parole officer removes a child under paragraph I above, the officer:
       (a) Shall inform the court forthwith whereupon continued protective custody pending a hearing may be ordered by the court;
       (b) May take the child to a child protection services worker of the department; or
       (c) May place the child in a foster home; if a child is placed directly in a foster home, the department shall be notified of the incident and where the child is placed within 24 hours, unless there is a physician involved and treating the child and the child is or will be taken to and admitted to a hospital; and
       (d) Shall, when the child is removed from an individual other than a parent or a person legally responsible for the child, make every reasonable effort to inform both parents or other persons legally responsible for the child's care where the child has been taken.
    III. Any police or juvenile probation and parole officer or other individual acting in good faith pursuant to this section, shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred or imposed as a result of such removal or placement.
    IV. The court shall hold a hearing on the matter within 24 hours of taking the child into protective custody, Sundays and holidays excluded. Notice shall be given to both parents and all parties designated by the petitioner or the court.
    V. If a child is found by a child protection services worker of the department to be in imminent danger in such circumstances or surroundings and where immediate removal appears necessary to protect the child from such imminent danger, the department's child protection services worker shall contact a judge or clerk immediately for an order to remove the child. Prior to any order authorizing foster placement, the child protective service worker shall inform the judge of efforts to locate any non-custodial parent or other relatives for temporary placement.
    VI. The court having jurisdiction over a child who appears to be abused or neglected, and in imminent danger may issue ex parte orders pursuant to RSA 169-C:6-a, permitting the child or the alleged perpetrator to be removed from the home at the request of the department or a law enforcement officer.
    VII. No child taken into protective custody pursuant to this section shall be securely detained.
    VIII. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the refusal of a parent or other person having control of a child to administer or consent to the administration of any psychotropic drug to such child shall not, in and of itself, constitute grounds for the police or a juvenile probation and parole officer to take the child into custody, or for the court to order that such child be taken into custody. However, if the administration of a decreasing dose of the drug is required during withdrawal from the medication, the refusal may constitute grounds for taking the child into protective custody.

Source. 1979, 361:2. 1987, 402:12. 1988, 197:6. 1994, 411:3, 16, 17. 1995, 310:175. 2000, 294:9, eff. July 1, 2000. 2003, 199:1, eff. Aug. 29, 2003. 2004, 237:7, eff. June 15, 2004.

so its been 24 hours  even in the worst case action of the cps a judge has looked at this, presuming that the removal wasn't prearranged, which i suspect it was

and then there is this

http://nhdcyf.info/rsa/169-c.html#169-C-18

[Declaration Day]

this guy makes the hutaree look very very good by comparison
what happened with them anyway?

Five are still in custody, 4 are out on bond.  Trials are scheduled for November. 

[Declaration Day]

Keep in mind there are some of us on this board a hell of a lot deeper in the militia movement than this guy ever was and this situation has ALL of us a little jumpy.

Pretty sure I've been in this movement much longer than you.
 
The most important thing we can do as members of a citizens' militia is to keep calm and get our facts straight, not run for our rifles at the dubious suggestions of news "reports".

[Jocassee]

Pretty sure I've been in this movement much longer than you.
 
The most important thing we can do as members of a citizens' militia is to keep calm and get our facts straight, not run for our rifles at the dubious suggestions of news "reports".

"Jumpy" was a little overstated. Let's go with "concerned." No more so than than when any official document that condemns/conflates militias by name appears.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Quote    
507.Do you people really think that the state just jumps in randomly on this kind of thing?

Really?

Have any of you had your kids taken for being involved in Oath Keepers? No?

I didn’t think so.

Irish beats Stephanie. They might appear in this video like a cute couple, but that’s because they’re a couple of social degenerates who act that way.

By the way, they also live off of welfare. Good, upstanding Founding Fathers types, eh?

Last year, they lost custody of Stephanie’s other two kids because Irish beat them. Not spanking, mind you. I’m talking about a slap that I heard from across the street, and a red mark on a 2-year-old’s face that had the plain outline of his hand.

She claimed that the 1-year-old did it. Then she claimed that he slipped and hit a doorknob. Any fool could line it up to Irish’s hand.

The state took the boys away, and I doubt they’re ever coming back. I pray that they don’t.

You want to know why the state took the baby?

The baby’s life was in danger. Not because her parents have anything to do with OK. Not for politics. Not because of his Second Amendment rights. Because John Irish is a mean, violent, abusive, criminal son of a bitch.

Defend him if you want. When more of this story comes out, you’ll look like fools who leap to conclusions.

Maybe OK shouldn’t have been listed in the affidavit. Fine. But while your panties are in a knot over that, there’s a real baby whose life is in real danger because her bio-father is a real lunatic.

I hope never to see her in this neighborhood.

Comment by Irish's Neighbor — October 9, 2010

And more from the neighbor

Quote    
527.The other two children were taken away last year, right after the beating that I heard. And reported.

To my knowledge, the state wasn’t involved with them, despite his criminal record, before that. I can’t swear to it, since I don’t know all the details of his life, but I sure didn’t see cops patrolling all the time, and they had the kids until last year. No one was interfering with their rights.

But when he beat the boys, the state stepped in.

This one couldn’t be taken until she was born. I’m glad that they didn’t wait until Irish had a bad trip and killed her to act.

Not sure how that’s fishy … I mean, did you want them to take the baby BEFORE she was born?


allegedly from the neighbor on why the two year old got taken


http://rc.runryder.com/helicopter/t611919p1/

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

ouch
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby

But according to an affidavit provided to Irish by the state Division for Children, Youth and Families, state officials took the child because of Irish's long record of violence and abuse. According to the affidavit, a judge determined that Irish abused Taylor's two other children. She is still married to the father of those children, though Taylor said yesterday that her husband has refused to accept her divorce petition for the past two years

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

ridley report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2XaKma4KwE&feature=related

3 min in  is he scamming disability?

7:30 in hes dodges poorly  8;15 he claims he doesn't have anything to hide after hiding whatever happened at his folks house

ridley plays real hardball journalist 

i saw a four five page document    whys irish only showing 2 pages?  and why are the "journalists" playing along?

[Jocassee]

Quote    
507.Do you people really think that the state just jumps in randomly on this kind of thing?


Quote    
527.The other two children were taken away last year, right after the beating that I heard. And reported.




http://rc.runryder.com/helicopter/t611919p1/

I'm only going to say this one more time because I'm tired of discussing this.

It was wrong and unconstitutional for the state to list "Oathkeepers/militia" as a justification for taking the baby. Bottom line. Not sure why that is hard to grasp on APS of all places.

I don't care if the guy was a degenerate. I don't care if there were other, perfectly good reasons for removing the children. That Irish is affiliated with Oathkeepers is not one of those reasons, and allowing that rationale to stand is a danger to first and second amendment rights.

Agree or disagree?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

It was wrong and unconstitutional for the state to list "Oathkeepers/militia" as a justification for taking the baby.

i think you are a might sensitive about mention of oath keepers. his name and address are also listed  were they reasons?  i think his trying to be an oath keeper camp follower is relevant in the total context of why the child might need to be taken. he affiliates with a group that is perceived as not recognizing certain rights the gov takes for granted , as such i would see him as a flight risk.

oath keepers bonding to him is doing more harm to their image than that affidavit for change of venue ever did. to me it smacks of rhodes milking it for press.  so folks might not go huh? when they hear the term "oath keepers".  other than the splc, another publicity seeking group, oath keepers scares no one

[Jocassee]

I'm gonna dissect and then summarize. I'm not so interested in disagreeing with your points as elucidating my take on the same data.

i think you are a might sensitive about mention of oath keepers. 

I am sensitive. Not so much because I like Rhodes but I too run with a "hatriot" group that is socially unacceptable in the liberal NE.

i think his trying to be an oath keeper camp follower is relevant in the total context of why the child might need to be taken.

In your mind or in the collective consciousness of the state bureaucracy?

he affiliates with a group that is perceived as not recognizing certain rights the gov takes for granted , as such i would see him as a flight risk.

Please explain this a little more... What certain rights are OK perceived as not recognizing that the govt takes for granted? And even given those perceptions...is this reasoning constitutional

oath keepers bonding to him is doing more harm to their image than that affidavit for change of venue ever did.

I agree that this is a not a good hill for Rhodes to die on.

to me it smacks of rhodes milking it for press.

Rhodes has, in the past, been a little too sensitive to perceived public opinion. At the RTC rally in Arlington last April, he canceled plans to speak at the last minute because of bullscat rumours that there was going to be an "incident." 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

and i forgot to say that i like what the basic premise behind what oath keepers stand for.  thats why i'm annoyed by them holding hands with this poster couple for zero population growth.
  in much the same way the minute men were weakened so will this hurt oathkeepers and to a degree all similar groups.  they already battle to keep from being over run with the lunatic fringe from prison planet and stormfront

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Quote
i think his trying to be an oath keeper camp follower is relevant in the total context of why the child might need to be taken.
In your mind or in the collective consciousness of the state bureaucracy?

Quote
he affiliates with a group that is perceived as not recognizing certain rights the gov takes for granted , as such i would see him as a flight risk.
Please explain this a little more... What certain rights are OK perceived as not recognizing that the govt takes for granted? And even given those perceptions...is this reasoning constitutional


i'm not sure we can give the state credit for being bright enough for a collective conciousness.


one of the big risks with a flake hero like irish is they grab the kid and vanish.  no ties to the area, how hard is it to pack a bong and a cooler of beer.
his affiliation with a larger group facilitates his ability to flee sucessfully, since his fellow "free thinkers will aid and abet in the name of "LIBERTY!". then at the kids funeral, assuming a bodies found , it'll be all hung heads and "gosh i didn't know!"

the way the lunatics flocked to him already demonstrates the power of stupid people in large numbers. heck i think irish is slick.  he ditches anger management, which he didn't want to go to, and the state helps him get rid of her 2 kids, which he can't afford to take care of, and he comes off a victim and folks send cash.  its flawless. not sure yet whether dodging taking care of this kid was part of his plan or not. but it frees up a lot of money for beer and smoke not having to take care of the kid.  especially since he may have fubared his disability now

[Hawkmoon]

It was wrong and unconstitutional for the state to list "Oathkeepers/militia" as a justification for taking the baby. Bottom line. Not sure why that is hard to grasp on APS of all places.

It was equally wrong to label Oath Keepers as a "militia." Unless my understanding of what Oath Keepers is all about is completely flawed, it is in no way a militia. It is a bunch of police officers, firefighters, first responders and such who, in an apparent fit of collective insanity, decided that there might be some merit in actually abiding by the oath of office they swore when they took their jobs.

How that in any way equates to "militia" escapes me.

[Tallpine]

Obviously you don't get on CPS radar for being a nice person.

No, all you have to do is refuse to join a vendetta against a certain family, and then the stone throwers turn on your family and start making up all kinds of ridiculous nonsense.   

[Declaration Day]

It was equally wrong to label Oath Keepers as a "militia." Unless my understanding of what Oath Keepers is all about is completely flawed, it is in no way a militia. It is a bunch of police officers, firefighters, first responders and such who, in an apparent fit of collective insanity, decided that there might be some merit in actually abiding by the oath of office they swore when they took their jobs.

How that in any way equates to "militia" escapes me.

I agree with you, sir.  Possibly for the first time ever.  I admit I have not done much homework on the Oath Keepers, but I do know they go out of their way to state that they are not a militia.  

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

It was equally wrong to label Oath Keepers as a "militia." Unless my understanding of what Oath Keepers is all about is completely flawed, it is in no way a militia. It is a bunch of police officers, firefighters, first responders and such who, in an apparent fit of collective insanity, decided that there might be some merit in actually abiding by the oath of office they swore when they took their jobs.

How that in any way equates to "militia" escapes me.

explain the constitutional issue to me please

[vaskidmark]

One more time for me, then I am going to shut up until and unless court records start appearing.

The reasons allowed by law for snatching the kid out of the hospital were not present when the kid was snatched out of the hospital.  There does not need to be a whole lot of conversation about this, as the law is rather specific and the case law from SCOTUS is quite clear on just how bad things have to be and how much you have to allege in the petition.  No matter how badly Irish hit the older kid a year ago, there was no imminent danger to the newborn and no attempts were made to find alternatives to protective custody.  Is that clear?

Whether or not the termination of parental rights last year was valid or the two young lovers just looked at it as an easy way to get out from under a couple of rugrats, that action had no connection or correlation to the circumstances of the newborn.  And as clearly stated in New Hampshire law, only a very limited number of gounds for termination can be used for snatching the newborn or seeking to terminate parental rights regarding the newborn.  None of those circumstances existed.  Is that clear?

Whether Urish and Taylor are saints or the Devil incarnate, New Hapmpshire has an obligation to carry out its actions according to the law as she is wrote.  They did not.  Is that clear?

As a former professional babysnatcher I am hurt right down to the quick to see the State of New Hampshire screw this up so blatently and so badly.  There are probably several dozen reasons why these two individuals ought to be physically prevented from ever even carrying out the act that might create human life, let alone actually have a possibility of conceiving a child ever again.  But most of those reasons did not, do not, will never meet the legal standards that allow for snatching the newborn out of the hospital.  Is that clear?

By screwing this up so badly, there is a good chance that not only will the baby be returned to Irish and Taylor, but that Child Protective Services could be ordered to stay away from them until/unless a formal complaint of abuse/neglect is made.  Back when I was a professional babysnatcher in Prince William County, Virginia there was a case much like this one.  Because of technical violations of the parents' rights CPS was in fact ordered to stay away from the family unless a formal complaint was received.  I was the duty worker the night Rodney Williams was beaten to death by his father, who dragged him from room to room while beating him and throwing him up aganst walls and doorframes.  I had to go to the house to take custody of his younger sister who had witnessed the five hours it took for Rodney to be beaten to death.  No kid should go through either experience.  (I also had to collect evidence/take pictures for the protective custody case.  That meant following the trail from room to room.)  But screwing up a CPS baby-snatch so badly that the parents get a free pass shouldn't happen either.  And if Irish is as mean-bad as was alleged, and Taylor (like Rodney's mother) is so weak/fearful/I-don't-know-what as to allow that to happen and not protect her kid or turn him in, then screwing this up has some serious consequences.  And that's what they have done in New Hampshire.  Is that clear?

stay safe.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

unless court records start appearing.

which can only happen if the parents choose to do that  the gov can't.  there were 5 pages of documents and for some reason we get to see 2

The reasons allowed by law for snatching the kid out of the hospital were not present when the kid was snatched out of the hospital.

we don't really know that yet   without those documents the keen investigative journalists only read 2 pages of