• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OT Kind of: Owning Guns and Association to oathkeepers gets newborn baby taken away

ChuckUFarley

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
256
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
At first read I am shocked, I mean utterly shocked, because of his association to the "Oath Keepers" and buying guns the state of New Hampshire steals his newborn baby.

Statement by Jonathon Irish

My name is Johnathon Irish and my fiance’s name is Stephanie Taylor, she uses my grandfathers last name Janvrin on the internet. Our daughter Cheyenne was born at 11:37 on 6 October. She wasn’t even 16 hours old when they came in and stole her from us, the head of security had come in a nurse while Cheyenne was sleeping lied to us telling us that they just wanted to take her to the nursery to see the doctor to be discharged. Even though I said NO to have the doctor come in the room they took her anyway, I followed then out to the nursery because I didn’t want my daughter out of my sight, as we were walking out I saw several gentlemen wearing suits with detective badges and my gut just started wrenching.

They rushed her into the nursery and locked her in, while I was talking to one of the other nurses the head of security comes up behind me, grabs my arm and starts walking me down the hall saying “you need to keep an open mind, you need to just hear them out” and he just kept repeating himself ignoring my questions as to who “they” were. When he got me in Stephanie’s hospital room and sat me down on the couch the police department and DCYF workers showed up. 3 uniformed patrol officers and 3-4 detectives with 2 DCYF social workers walked in the room, one of the patrol man asked if he could pat me down, I said NO not giving consent that I just want to know why the hell everyone is there.

The officer grabbed my wrist, bent it behind my back and stood me up and proceeded to pat me down anyway. They took my pocket knife and BIC lighter, they then asked me if I had any other weapons on me which I told them no. They then gave us a fabricated affidavit with no facts in it what so ever telling us that they were taking custody of our newborn daughter. If anyone has any other questions I am willing to answer any and all questions and clarify anything that someone may not understand. To be honest, I don’t even understand this myself.

(Statment by oathkeepers)

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10...ts-seize-oath-keepers-new-born-from-hospital/

This is pretty scary, i wonder if they are following all of us in some data base as well.

Stealing their newborn!!! For their beliefs? I believe there are other allegations not shown but until your proven guilty
they should have no tight to take some kid.
 

Attachments

  • irishdoc[1].jpg
    irishdoc[1].jpg
    78.1 KB · Views: 150
Last edited:

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
It seems from reading the affidavit that the Oath Keepers was but one of MANY asserted allegations directed at the parent's inability to raise children. Not knowing the other charges we can't fully decide if those are violence related or if they are more Oath Keepers association rhetoric just veiled a little better.

I can say this though. It would APPEAR to me, IANAL, that the authorities "had justification" (heavy quotation marks on that part btw) to take the child merely based on the assumptions listed. For example: Family court case pending regarding Revocation of Parental Rights, Failure to attend court mandated violence management classes, numerous "reports" of domestic violence. Not to mention the fact that, at least in this state, he would be classified as a violent felon for the concealed weapon without a permit charge if convicted.

That however does not mean that I support this decision, nor the wording of the affidavit. I am merely pointing out that the other allegations seem to warrant at least a preliminary removal of the child (according to status quo/law) as far as I see it. Does not mean it is right though.....
 
Last edited:

skiingislife725

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
400
Location
Lake Stevens, WA
Looks like there is likely more to this story...especially the part about the prior custody trial for two other kids. Will have to see how this plays out and if the other allegations are true or not.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
In reading the "Motion" I saw the mention of "Oath Keepers" and recent purchase of firearms as merely notice to anyone coming in contact with this individual that he might be armed and offer resistance.

The rest of the case most likely hinges on facts not known or presented here.
 

ChuckUFarley

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
256
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
It seems from reading the affidavit that the Oath Keepers was but one of MANY asserted allegations directed at the parent's inability to raise children. Not knowing the other charges we can't fully decide if those are violence related or if they are more Oath Keepers association rhetoric just veiled a little better.

I can say this though. It would APPEAR to me, IANAL, that the authorities "had justification" (heavy quotation marks on that part btw) to take the child merely based on the assumptions listed. For example: Family court case pending regarding Revocation of Parental Rights, Failure to attend court mandated violence management classes, numerous "reports" of domestic violence. Not to mention the fact that, at least in this state, he would be classified as a violent felon for the concealed weapon without a permit charge if convicted.

That however does not mean that I support this decision, nor the wording of the affidavit. I am merely pointing out that the other allegations seem to warrant at least a preliminary removal of the child (according to status quo/law) as far as I see it. Does not mean it is right though.....

I see your point, but what intrests me is they didnt arrest him, if he had failed to do a court order wouldnt they have grounds to arrest him? it seems a little premature to just take a child.

I do think there are some whackos out there that really hurt children and should have the kids taken for their safety, however i believe there must be irrifutible proof and agree it shouldnt be liked to purchasing of weapons or being apart of a group or orginization.
 

ChuckUFarley

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
256
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
In reading the "Motion" I saw the mention of "Oath Keepers" and recent purchase of firearms as merely notice to anyone coming in contact with this individual that he might be armed and offer resistance.

The rest of the case most likely hinges on facts not known or presented here.

I am sure you are correct, but what concerns me with this story is, how did they know he was blogging on oathkeepers, and why would they site that as well as the facts that he purchased guns as one of the reasons for child confiscation. I am not defending this couple for all i know they are whacked out crazy people, but to site a membership to an orginization and the purchases of firearms a reason seems improper if not illegal to me.
 

ainie

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
21
Location
West Texas
If you look at the rest of the reasons, they had other children taken away. And by the way it was worded it appears that there was a previous issue with him and guns including concealing without a permit. That seems to be why they were concerned with his recent purchases of guns.

I see your point, but what intrests me is they didnt arrest him, if he had failed to do a court order wouldnt they have grounds to arrest him? it seems a little premature to just take a child.

I do think there are some whackos out there that really hurt children and should have the kids taken for their safety, however i believe there must be irrifutible proof and agree it shouldnt be liked to purchasing of weapons or being apart of a group or orginization.
 

ChuckUFarley

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
256
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
If you look at the rest of the reasons, they had other children taken away. And by the way it was worded it appears that there was a previous issue with him and guns including concealing without a permit. That seems to be why they were concerned with his recent purchases of guns.

But being concerned doesn’t give the Government the right to trample on the rights of its citizens, isn’t that what we tout on this forum? Because someone is concerned about OC doesn’t mean it is causing alarm. In the same fashion, his previous issue of carrying concealed without a license, although it doesn’t give more detail, has no bearing on purchasing new firearms until he becomes guilty of breaking the law. Even then that has no bearing of purchasing firearms. I am sure there are individuals who cannot carry concealed for whatever reason but can still buy and own firearms.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
But being concerned doesn’t give the Government the right to trample on the rights of its citizens, isn’t that what we tout on this forum? Because someone is concerned about OC doesn’t mean it is causing alarm. In the same fashion, his previous issue of carrying concealed without a license, although it doesn’t give more detail, has no bearing on purchasing new firearms until he becomes guilty of breaking the law. Even then that has no bearing of purchasing firearms. I am sure there are individuals who cannot carry concealed for whatever reason but can still buy and own firearms.

Are we SURE his rights are being trampled. Without what Paul Harvey always refers to as "The Rest of the Story" how can we be sure they are, or even for that matter, aren't. Without all the facts we are no better off than the blind man trying to describe an elephant by only feeling his tail.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
I see nothing to implicate the father, nor to take him from his child except a meaningless complaint that the father is an oath keeper and he has bought firearms. The document, however does not appear to be complete at the bottom of this page. Is there another page to this document?

The police officer's agression, grabbing the father, conducting a non-consensual search, and seizing his property appears to be a clear case of battery, and maybe more.

This could get interesting.
 

ChuckUFarley

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
256
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
I see nothing to implicate the father, nor to take him from his child except a meaningless complaint that the father is an oath keeper and he has bought firearms. The document, however does not appear to be complete at the bottom of this page. Is there another page to this document?

The police officer's agression, grabbing the father, conducting a non-consensual search, and seizing his property appears to be a clear case of battery, and maybe more.

This could get interesting.

Unfortunatly that is all i have, i wish i had the whole thing.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Freedom of Information Act time

1) How did the division determine that he is an oathkeeper

2) How did the division determine that oathkeepers is a militia

3)
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Freedom of Information Act time

1) How did the division determine that he is an oathkeeper.

2) How did the division determine that oathkeepers is a militia.

3) How did the division find out that he had purchased firearms?

Taking a daughter from her father based upon what?
 

ChuckUFarley

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
256
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
Freedom of Information Act time

1) How did the division determine that he is an oathkeeper.

2) How did the division determine that oathkeepers is a militia.

3) How did the division find out that he had purchased firearms?

Taking a daughter from her father based upon what?

My biggest concern in all this is the tracking of those who blog on Oath keepers, this isn’t like a radical group that has attacked or target anyone in the past, it is actually allot of law enforcement and military people and others. If they are monitoring and tracking this site, and calling them "a militia movement", what about this or any other site.
Can the fact that we post on OCDO be used in an affidavit to take our children away, or perhaps be used to say we are mentally instable and need to be hospitalized? That’s the scary thing to me about this story.
 
Top