Rage is not a big enough word to encompass...
So now we have a two year-old victim of the war on some drugs.
Killed for no reason it looks like ... CPS says not responsibility ... who authorized the killers to take acre of the child?
Not saying that CPS is 100% to blame ... but some blame right?
In the non-gov't world, CPS would be crapping bricks right now...
I would say its 100% CPS. What kind of sick, power-drunk, self-important bastards would separate a little girl from her parents because they smoked some weed after she went to bed?
Really!? Taking a child from his parents is so monumental, to both child and parents, it should only be done in the most extreme circumstances.
Just let the CPS rationale go a little further and parents will be backround checked and licensed to have children--so as to prevent the abuses for which CPS removes children. Think about it for a moment. If removing a child from a home is justifiable, then preventing the problem in the first place is justifiable.
"Question 5. List all arrests and convictions, for any type violence. Include separately discipline received for fighting in grades K-12."
"Question 6. List all uses of recreational drugs."
I would say its 100% CPS. What kind of sick, power-drunk, self-important bastards would separate a little girl from her parents because they smoked some weed after she went to bed?
Really!? Taking a child from his parents is so monumental, to both child and parents, it should only be done in the most extreme circumstances.
Just let the CPS rationale go a little further and parents will be backround checked and licensed to have children--so as to prevent the abuses for which CPS removes children. Think about it for a moment. If removing a child from a home is justifiable, then preventing the problem in the first place is justifiable.
"Question 5. List all arrests and convictions, for any type violence. Include separately discipline received for fighting in grades K-12."
"Question 6. List all uses of recreational drugs."
True. And that circumstance is abandonment. Relevant to government, there is NO other circumstance.
Agreed, which is why government can never be allowed to interfere with the family.
Not just abandonment. What about severe physical abuse? What about sexual abuse?
Not just abandonment. What about severe physical abuse? What about sexual abuse?
Who gets to define these abuses? Government? No thanks. Regardless, even if some sick individual abuses their children, that is still NO excuse to give the government authority over my family. The family is too sacred to entrust to the government.
That is total rubbish.
WEED?
Heck, weed is totally legal in my state. It fills my heart with warmth when I respond to a call, and as I enter the living room, a couple of people are sharing bong hits. They got this total "oh #$(#$(" look on their face, then they're "Hey, it's legal now right?" and I said "hell ya. Don't let me interfere with what you are doing!" and they got back to their bong hits!
Long live citizen initiatives! Long live WA state!
Anyway, I have had to accompany CPS a couple of times when they have had court orders to remove kids from a home and let me tell you ... it is the most heart rending unpleasant task ever. The last one Mom was a hardcore heroin addict, had failed her last couple of UA's bla bla bla and it may have been justifief, but with the understanding an opioid addict can maintain just fine and be plenty productive as long as they get their periodic fix to maintain homeostasis. Sure, if they are getting gorked out and passing out in the middle of the day and the kid is starving and cruising around in dirty diapers it can be problematic, of course.
Either way, that was about the most unpleasant duty I have ever had to do.
I could go along with it if the parents are indicted and convicted. Severe physical abuse is just spin for aggravated assault. Sexual abuse is just spin for rape, sodomy, and so forth.
Or, lets say there is PC from plenty of evidence, then arrest the parent(s). At which point the child needs to be cared for since his parent(s) are in jail. If there are no willing relatives--grandparents, etc.--then he can become a temporary ward of the state. But, this theory is far different from removing the child to protect the child. We all know how well government "protects" society.
Why do I feel slimed? This is about the twentieth post from WOTPALO where he goes on unnecessarily about something that just happens to include information that would tend to cast him in a good light.
Its like he's working overtime to get in commentary to make himself look good. Its like listening to a salesman who too often uses phrases like, "just for you", and "for you we can make a special deal", or, "for you, I'll make sure to put the order in today," etc.
Why do I feel slimed? This is about the twentieth post from WOTPALO where he goes on unnecessarily about something that just happens to include information that would tend to cast him in a good light.
Its like he's working overtime to get in commentary to make himself look good. Its like listening to a salesman who too often uses phrases like, "just for you", and "for you we can make a special deal", or, "for you, I'll make sure to put the order in today," etc.
SNIP Sorry, but I don't have the privilege of living in your ivory tower where you don't see the horrendous physical abuse some kids suffer. I am talking horrendous bvurns, broken limbs, etc. not to mention forcible anal and vaginal rape of preteens etc.
True. And that circumstance is abandonment. Relevant to government, there is NO other circumstance.
Agreed, which is why government can never be allowed to interfere with the family.
SNIP Take your fragile self elsewhere if the real world is too hard for you to deal with
Evasion.
You know darned good and well we're talking about CPS removing children for specious reasons.
OK, so the parent(s) make bail, there was still PC of felonies against the child, not merely smoking weed or other inappropriately intrusive nanny-state reason.