child abuse scandal

[cranberry99]

Iowa- November 2006. Baby born at home, unassisted, taken to hospital 5-6 hours later. Denial of critical care charges. Founded abuse report. Appealing report, no trial until Sep 2008

[alegna]

??

[moonfirefaery]

You mean it's been two years and no trial?! Has your baby been in foster care all this time?

Was UC the ONLY factor involved in this case? UC is not illegal. Usually when CPS intervenes in cases of homebirth or UC, the child may be taken but is quickly returned--unless other factors come into play.

I see you've posted about BPD a few times. CPS often takes issue with BP parents. There are a few social workers that are outright biased against BP parents. It is hard to prove that someone is mentally incompetent to raise a child, so often when a case worker feels that a parent's mental state could be negatively affecting the child, they have to find some other basis for removing the child. UC could be a red herring here, with the real issue being that they take issue with your mental state.

They must pick one thing to go in and take the child on, something that implies true child endangerment--like medical neglect, which lets them take the child quickly. Then afterwards, once they have the child, they can slowly build their case about mental state and any other factors they feel are relevant. Have they made any references to your mental state whatsoever or to any other factors?

I think it's likely that there are other reasons for the removal of the babe and for the babe not being returned even after 2 years. UC is probably the red herring, something they could prove right away and use to take the child quickly on medical neglect. Someone probably felt like your child was in danger for some reason, or for various reasons, and felt like it was in her best interest to be removed...and the path to get her removed the most quickly was to call medical neglect on your choice to UC. Or perhaps, UC raised red flags and made someone feel you were endangering your child, and that led them to dig up more things to use against you.

I don't know why CPS made this call. It could be another CPS mess-up, and it could be someone honestly felt your child was in danger. I'm not biased either way against CPS. They can be right or wrong; they can interfere out of, well, jerkiness or out of genuine concern. I don't know what the case is here. I don't know what other factors, if any, are involved or if CPS' concerns are legitimate about any other things.

You were vague, but that's good. This is a public forum. It does make it hard for me to form an opinion about this, give you any advice, respond the way you want...etc. But basically, I think other factors must be involved that either you're holding back or are in the dark about. Maybe they are legitimate concerns, maybe lies, I don't know. If they are calling anything else into question you need to address those issues, not just proclaim "They took my baby because I UC'd, and it's unfair!" By now they've built a case against you, and while UC may be at the center, I really doubt it's their SOLE complaint about you. Either there's something you're not telling us (probably wise), or they've kept you in the dark about their other concerns (in which case you need to start digging). Regardless you've got to address these other factors in court.

[Juvysen]

wait... was this because the baby didn't survive, or because the baby's been taken away?

[kaylee18]

The baby was fine. It was an abuse of power on the part of CPS. They were able to use the UC as "justification" to remove the baby, who would not have been taken at that point had the birth not been UC. However, unsupportive and manipulative family members played a large part, and their actions might have resulted in a later CPS removal anyway.

cranberry99, if you are sure you want to keep fighting for your daughter (I say this since in earlier posts you were somewhat conflicted on this), then make sure every possible legal paper to that effect has been filed, since at 1 year there is going to be a judicial determination on whether to terminate parental rights (TPR) or continue towards reunification. It's because of federal legislation that was intended to reduce the number of children who spend years in 'limbo' in foster care, ineligible for adoption because parental rights were not terminated.

One year, for your case, is coming up 11/2007.

I sincerely doubt that they expect you to make it to the Sept. 2008 court date with any legal chance of getting custody. Once TPR happens, the biological parents have the same legal standing as completely unrelated people: that is, a snowball's chance in a very hot place.

Hoping you and your daughter are headed for happier times.

[moonfirefaery]

There have to be other factors involved, because I find it hard to believe they could keep the baby in custody for a year over a successful UC. Whether it's lies and allegations from family members or legitimate concerns, none of us knows that, but whatever other issues came up need to be addressed. I just don't buy CPS taking a healthy baby solely because of UC.

[Breathless Wonder]

There are always "other factors".

There are plenty of things that are legal, and yet still red flags individually, or in combination, according to CPS- particularly NFL issues.

So whiile UC is legal, a UC with mental health history, and who the heck knows what else is going to be a probelm.

[vesper0]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery

There have to be other factors involved, because I find it hard to believe they could keep the baby in custody for a year over a successful UC. Whether it's lies and allegations from family members or legitimate concerns, none of us knows that, but whatever other issues came up need to be addressed. I just don't buy CPS taking a healthy baby solely because of UC.

It can and does happen, in fact, this very thing happened in Colorado Springs to a UCer. And the family was supportive of the UC, in that case. The baby and mom were healthy. Sometimes, mom's can run into resistance from medical and social work professionals who feel UC is negligent behavior. If the CPS has the recommendation of a physican that is all it takes to remove the child from a parents custody in that kind of situation. As most UCers well know the majority of Dr.'s aren't going to view UC as a "responsible" approach to childbirth.

[mrskennedy]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery

There have to be other factors involved, because I find it hard to believe they could keep the baby in custody for a year over a successful UC. Whether it's lies and allegations from family members or legitimate concerns, none of us knows that, but whatever other issues came up need to be addressed. I just don't buy CPS taking a healthy baby solely because of UC.

You're absolutely right! CPS was involved after my UC. However, I found out later that it was mainly b/c some family member/s of mine have been charged as sexual predators (and are now where they belong) than b/c 1. I had a UC and 2. b/c I'm blind. They were only involved with us for 2 months, and then left us be, b/c we'd moved by then and had no contact with the detrimental family. We've been fine and always had our baby. They never took him.

[mrskennedy]

Originally Posted by vesper0

It can and does happen, in fact, this very thing happened in Colorado Springs to a UCer. And the family was supportive of the UC, in that case. The baby and mom were healthy. Sometimes, mom's can run into resistance from medical and social work professionals who feel UC is negligent behavior. If the CPS has the recommendation of a physican that is all it takes to remove the child from a parents custody in that kind of situation. As most UCers well know the majority of Dr.'s aren't going to view UC as a "responsible" approach to childbirth.

While this too is true, they still can't remove the child unless neglect/abuse are PROVEN. Which they wouldn't be in most UC cases.

[moonfirefaery]

Once again, the UC may have been the reason the child was REMOVED, because it gave them a case for medical neglect. However, in and of itself, there is no WAY it is the one and only reason the child has been kept for over a year.

[vesper0]

Originally Posted by mrskennedy

While this too is true, they still can't remove the child unless neglect/abuse are PROVEN. Which they wouldn't be in most UC cases.

They did in that case order the removal of the child from the parents custody. The PROOF was the UC itself. The mother and child were fine. However, define neglect? When a physican(who has no tests or medical proof other than the birth occuring at home unattended) recommends the removal based on UC being neglegent behavior, a judge can and did issue the removal of the child on the advise of the physican. The burden then becomes the parents to defend themselves against a licensed physican saying otherwise. This was not the only case in which this happened in CO around that time. In the other instance, the parents did not get the child back for over a year. There are plenty of people out their who react in shock and horror at the mention of UC(while of course others react with awe and interest), there are just as many people in the medical community who find UC unsafe and irresponsible. While not all physicans or individuals feel that way, it only takes the poor luck of coming across the one who wants to make an example of UC parents. Unfortunately, that was the case.

[moonfirefaery]

I think we're all very aware of the way the rest of the world, particularly medical professionals, view UC, vesper0.

People don't get their kids removed solely because of UC. UC may be the red flag that gets eyes fixed upon the UCing parents, but it's not the one and only reason for children to be taken or kept for over a year. They may use it as the excuse to take the child, while still having other reasons they just can't prove yet, but to keep the child, they need a stronger case overall.

CPS isn't stupid. They don't build their case around just one thing, because they know their case will fall apart if that one thing is successfully refuted. CPS goes in with one reason, one flaming torch, that they use to take the child and proclaim immediate danger. Then they investigate and come up with many more reasons for continuing to keep the child in their custody. They build a strong case, sometimes based on lies and false allegations, sometimes facts, sometimes a combination.

For example, as Laura Shanley wrote in her book, her baby was taken after a UC...but was UC the sole reason? No. CPS made nurses get involved, and they observed her nursing. They didn't feel she was doing it right, and they didn't think she'd listen if they tried to help her. They therefore took her baby away. Obviously, UC raised the red flags, but the nursing issue was a factor. Laura got her baby back.Why? Because UC is not illegal, because an assumption is proof of nothing and they didn't even try to counsel Laura but just assumed she wouldn't listen, and because all that was really needed for this baby was for her mama to get some advice from LLL or a lactation consultant.

CPS has been called on UC mamas MANY times. If it were possible to remove a child SOLELY for UC and KEEP a child solely for UC for over a year, then don't you think we'd see it happen a lot more? No, obviously what's happening is the UC is causing raised eyebrows, then they are going in to see what's going on and finding other things they don't like. Whether those concerns are legitimate or not CPS usually doesn't take a child for just ONE reason, unless it's severe abuse or neglect that has had an obvious negative impact; they usually have several issues, lots of spices with which to fry their fish. Something else is going on, be it they don't think the house is clean enough, or the parents don't vax which they see as medical neglect, or the mother has a mental disorder that they feel makes her incompetent. They don't just take a child for no-vax or for UC and keep the child for a year; they use ONE thing to get the court order, then they build a case around a LOT of different things.

[lovingmommyhood]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery

I think we're all very aware of the way the rest of the world, particularly medical professionals, view UC, vesper0.

People don't get their kids removed solely because of UC. UC may be the red flag that gets eyes fixed upon the UCing parents, but it's not the one and only reason for children to be taken or kept for over a year. They may use it as the excuse to take the child, while still having other reasons they just can't prove yet, but to keep the child, they need a stronger case overall.

CPS isn't stupid. They don't build their case around just one thing, because they know their case will fall apart if that one thing is successfully refuted. CPS goes in with one reason, one flaming torch, that they use to take the child and proclaim immediate danger. Then they investigate and come up with many more reasons for continuing to keep the child in their custody. They build a strong case, sometimes based on lies and false allegations, sometimes facts, sometimes a combination.

For example, as Laura Shanley wrote in her book, her baby was taken after a UC...but was UC the sole reason? No. CPS made nurses get involved, and they observed her nursing. They didn't feel she was doing it right, and they didn't think she'd listen if they tried to help her. They therefore took her baby away. Obviously, UC raised the red flags, but the nursing issue was a factor. Laura got her baby back.Why? Because UC is not illegal, because an assumption is proof of nothing and they didn't even try to counsel Laura but just assumed she wouldn't listen, and because all that was really needed for this baby was for her mama to get some advice from LLL or a lactation consultant.

CPS has been called on UC mamas MANY times. If it were possible to remove a child SOLELY for UC and KEEP a child solely for UC for over a year, then don't you think we'd see it happen a lot more? No, obviously what's happening is the UC is causing raised eyebrows, then they are going in to see what's going on and finding other things they don't like. Whether those concerns are legitimate or not CPS usually doesn't take a child for just ONE reason, unless it's severe abuse or neglect that has had an obvious negative impact; they usually have several issues, lots of spices with which to fry their fish. Something else is going on, be it they don't think the house is clean enough, or the parents don't vax which they see as medical neglect, or the mother has a mental disorder that they feel makes her incompetent. They don't just take a child for no-vax or for UC and keep the child for a year; they use ONE thing to get the court order, then they build a case around a LOT of different things.

[vesper0]

.

[vesper0]

Originally Posted by moonfirefaery

CPS isn't stupid. They don't build their case around just one thing, because they know their case will fall apart if that one thing is successfully refuted. CPS goes in with one reason, one flaming torch, that they use to take the child and proclaim immediate danger. Then they investigate and come up with many more reasons for continuing to keep the child in their custody. They build a strong case, sometimes based on lies and false allegations, sometimes facts, sometimes a combination.

For example, as Laura Shanley wrote in her book, her baby was taken after a UC...but was UC the sole reason? No. CPS made nurses get involved, and they observed her nursing. They didn't feel she was doing it right, and they didn't think she'd listen if they tried to help her. They therefore took her baby away. Obviously, UC raised the red flags, but the nursing issue was a factor. Laura got her baby back.Why? Because UC is not illegal, because an assumption is proof of nothing and they didn't even try to counsel Laura but just assumed she wouldn't listen, and because all that was really needed for this baby was for her mama to get some advice from LLL or a lactation consultant.

CPS has been called on UC mamas MANY times. If it were possible to remove a child SOLELY for UC and KEEP a child solely for UC for over a year, then don't you think we'd see it happen a lot more? No, obviously what's happening is the UC is causing raised eyebrows, then they are going in to see what's going on and finding other things they don't like. Whether those concerns are legitimate or not CPS usually doesn't take a child for just ONE reason, unless it's severe abuse or neglect that has had an obvious negative impact; they usually have several issues, lots of spices with which to fry their fish. Something else is going on, be it they don't think the house is clean enough, or the parents don't vax which they see as medical neglect, or the mother has a mental disorder that they feel makes her incompetent. They don't just take a child for no-vax or for UC and keep the child for a year; they use ONE thing to get the court order, then they build a case around a LOT of different things.

The fact that they take kids using UC as a reason to remove a child initially is what is so concerning, as UC is not illegal. Whether they find other reasons during the course of the investigations, that may or may not be valid(as was the case in the latter situation I mentioned), is of little comfort to those parents who have gone through the process or are going through the process. What needs to be acknowledged is that UC is, sometimes, used as an excuse for the initial removal. In the former case I mentioned, it was the only reason!(BTW this was not the same baby gone for over a year.) CPS was unable to find any other problems and the family heavily lawyered up. But, that doesn't undo the trauma the system caused the family. This couple should not have had their lives scrutinized to no avail and at great cost and emotional trauma to them. It was not right for the child to be removed for UCing!!! The fact that they got custody back is of little comfort to a parent(s) who did not warrant the removal in the first place. Whether a child is removed for days, weeks, or over a year using UC as the initial, or sole, reason for removal is irrelevant, when in the end the parents were not found to be at fault after CPS sorted out the details. What about the families who don't have the financial means to hire several attorneys to deal with their case? And the means to pay other physicians out of pocket to offer their expert advise? UC is not illegal, but they sure treat moms like it is when it suits them. Undoubtedly, CPS serves an important role in the well being of children. However, they should not be allowed to remove children for UCing, alone or in conjunction with other factors. A parent(s) who UC should not potentially be subjected to a review of their lives/lifestyles just because of how they chose to birth. If the same mothers I mentioned birthed in a hospital they would have escaped the scrutiny of our legal system. When UC is used as a means of removal, while CPS finds other potential or apparent problems, demonstrates that infringement on a woman's right to chose where/how she gives birth.

[moonfirefaery]

The fact that they take kids using UC as a reason to remove a child initially is what is so concerning, as UC is not illegal.

I agree; it is concerning. They will use UC as the reason, when really they feel the child is in danger for other reasons they can't yet prove. They think it's the right thing to do, because it gets the child out of a home they perceive as dangerous sooner than if they went about it the right way. I don't agree with that. They need to take the child out of the home for the REAL reason and with adequate evidence, not use something else as a sort of scapegoat. That doesn't mean, though, that they don't have legitimate concerns, that their other yet-unproven reasons are invalid, etc., just that they haven't built a good case yet and want a way to get the child out of the home in the meantime. It is kind of shady? Yeah. But, too bad, that is the way it is.

Whether they find other reasons during the course of the investigations, that may or may not be valid(as was the case in the latter situation I mentioned), is of little comfort to those parents who have gone through the process or are going through the process

I didn't mention it as a comfort. I'm not here to comfort the OP. I want to give her the tools she needs to fight CPS. I'm here to give her information about CPS--not to comfort her but so she can better understand how to fight them. She needs to find out what factors besides UC are involved and deal with them, prove that those things don't make her an inadequate mum, whatever those things are. And I guarantee you, they've got SOMETHING.

In the former case I mentioned, it was the only reason!

For the removal. They looked around, found nothing else, and they returned the baby, because UC isn't illegal. In this case though, they have kept the baby for over a year. That means there is more to their case than UC. I'm sure the family you're talking about was traumatized, and that's sad and wrong. But this thread isn't about that family. This thread is about the OP's situation. She doesn't need to hear "Oh you poor thing, I feel so sorry for you, CPS is so evil and horrible and mean, and this is all so sad." That isn't going to help her get her daughter back.

Whether a child is removed for days, weeks, or over a year using UC as the initial, or sole, reason for removal is irrelevant, when in the end the parents were not found to be at fault after CPS sorted out the details.

The reasons for removal may be irrelevant as to how much damage is done to the family and how long it takes to heal, but they are ABSOLUTELY relevant to their parents proving their innocense and getting their children back.

What about the families who don't have the financial means to hire several attorneys to deal with their case? And the means to pay other physicians out of pocket to offer their expert advise?

You don't have to pay for several attorneys to deal with your case, particularly not when UC is the only thing CPS has on you. CPS had several concerns, some legitimate and some fabricated, about my mother, who is not very financially well-off. She paid ONE attorney and had her son back within a few months. Her insurance paid for physicians, psycologists, etc. to do evaluations and whatnot, and when her son was in state custody, the state had to pay for his healthcare. Those doctors were subpoenaed and didn't charge a penny to testify. In any case, people that are underpriveleged and don't have the means to defend themselves is really a completely different subject that belongs in a different discussion about CPS. It's really not fair to the OP that we turn her thread into a "CPS is evil!" or "How can we improve CPS?" debate...because that isn't going to help her in the least.

When UC is used as a means of removal, while CPS finds other potential or apparent problems, demonstrates that infringement on a woman's right to chose where/how she gives birth.

Totally agree. I'm with you that CPS oversteps it's bounds sometimes. I'm with you that UC is illegal, and people shouldn't be hasseled for it. I know that when CPS intervenes, there is sorrow and trauma--and that when the parents are innocent, it's completely unnecessary. We can talk about all that until we're blue in the face, but it isn't going to help the OP. What will help the OP is knowing how CPS works, so she can be prepared to fight for her child. When UC is the only factor, the kid is returned pretty quickly compared to cases where there are other factors. As it's been a year, they have something on this woman other than UC. Yeah, it's wrong they used UC as the reason for removal. But to get her daughter back this woman needs to figure out what CPS is so concerned about and address that.

[feebeeglee]

Heather, in your last paragraph, you mean "I'm with you that UC is legal, and people shouldn't be hasseled for it. "

Right?

Carry on!

[vesper0]

Originally Posted by cranberry99

Iowa- November 2006. Baby born at home, unassisted, taken to hospital 5-6 hours later. Denial of critical care charges. Founded abuse report. Appealing report, no trial until Sep 2008

Is there more to this somewhere else? Because this thread doesn't ask for advice on how to proceed or consolation. It is rather an open ended, bare facts statement.

[Usually Curious]

I don't have a very high opinion of CPS AT ALL. They will do anything, ANYTHING, to get young, adoptable babies out of a home.

My SIL is a court advocate for parents who've had their children removed and she also runs a non-profit for the education classes that these parents are required to take (the court requires them but does not require anyone to provide them so hundreds of parents in her county had no way to get their kids back). She uncovered an illegal adoption ring run by the county judge and police and CPS. She has had her life, her staff's lives and the lives of her children threatened by these people. Her offices were bugged and she finally closed up shop. They are serious, they killed one of her clients only hours after a court appearance where he spoke up and quoted the law to the judge w/their support.

I have ZERO respect or confidence in CPS.