Cranberry, I just read your story and both my dh and I are just enraged and deeply saddened for you and your babe; what an evil has been committed against you and your sweet child!
And LUNCH MEAT for an infant????!!!! Unbelievable.
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.
Why do you think this? It is sensible, but I can say for sure that where we live, the legislation regarding childcare workers in this field of employ is clear that the worker need only state with intent that s/he 'acted in good faith' in determining the course of action taken, even if that is removal; then it is up to the parents
that there wasn't any reason for the removal. If it was shown to be unnecessary or even of ill-intent or incompetence on the part of the social worker, there is no legal recourse whatsoever for the parents in investigating the worker or removing the parental records as reported by that worker. They may regain custody though, and that is the only possible bright light in the situation.
I have been wondering how a UC can be used as reason for investigation in places where a reason is required (not here, obviously) since as far as I am aware, an unborn child is not under the jurisdiction of the state. Here, a child is considered 'born' once s/he has emerged past the umbilicus. What that would mean to me is that if the child is born, and has no health issues, seeing a dr doesn't make sense and the immediate situation surrounding the child's birth is completely outside the jurisdiction of any court or social service agency, no? I'm just curious; it would seem that even mentioning the UC as initial cause for investigation would void the whole process (if a reason is required by legislation, that is- again, not here).
Are childcare workers given authority to make declarations and investigate pregnancy now? I know this has come up in other cases before (court-ordered c/s, for instance), but has been subsequently overthrown for the obvious legal and social implications.
Even though we have no legal recourse here, I would certainly be fighting the jurisdiction issue, one that falls outside the social workers' clauses. They cannot come and confiscate my pets or my vehicle or my husband, and they cannot make decrees regarding a child that hasn't yet been born, but again, once the child is
born, they can do and say as they please...