child abuse scandal - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 59 Old 09-08-2007, 03:05 PM - Thread Starter
 
cranberry99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Alexandria, Virginia
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
cranberry99 is offline  
#2 of 59 Old 09-08-2007, 03:09 PM
 
alegna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 44,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
??
alegna is offline  
#3 of 59 Old 09-08-2007, 04:23 PM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 3,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
#4 of 59 Old 09-08-2007, 11:31 PM
 
Juvysen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 7,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
wait... was this because the baby didn't survive, or because the baby's been taken away?

Jenna ~ mommy to Sophia Elise idea.gif  (1/06), Oliver Matthew  blahblah.gif (7/07) and Avery Michael fly-by-nursing1.gif(3/10)

 

dizzy.gif Wading slowly and nervously into this homeschooling thing.

Juvysen is offline  
#5 of 59 Old 09-09-2007, 12:14 AM
 
kaylee18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
kaylee18 is offline  
#6 of 59 Old 09-09-2007, 03:13 AM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 3,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
#7 of 59 Old 09-09-2007, 09:35 AM
 
Breathless Wonder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe is as good as dead; his eyes are closed.  ~Albert Einstein
Breathless Wonder is offline  
#8 of 59 Old 09-09-2007, 02:20 PM
 
vesper0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post
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.
vesper0 is offline  
#9 of 59 Old 09-09-2007, 04:30 PM
 
mrskennedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,694
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post
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 is offline  
#10 of 59 Old 09-09-2007, 04:32 PM
 
mrskennedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,694
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by vesper0 View Post
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.
mrskennedy is offline  
#11 of 59 Old 09-09-2007, 05:10 PM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 3,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
#12 of 59 Old 09-09-2007, 05:11 PM
 
vesper0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrskennedy View Post
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.
vesper0 is offline  
#13 of 59 Old 09-09-2007, 05:38 PM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 3,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
#14 of 59 Old 09-09-2007, 05:48 PM
 
lovingmommyhood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post
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.

Mommy to THREE sweet boys & ONE sweet girl + a newb due in February!  I need a nap. 
lovingmommyhood is offline  
#15 of 59 Old 09-09-2007, 07:40 PM
 
vesper0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
.
vesper0 is offline  
#16 of 59 Old 09-09-2007, 07:59 PM
 
vesper0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post
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.
vesper0 is offline  
#17 of 59 Old 09-10-2007, 12:20 AM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 3,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
#18 of 59 Old 09-10-2007, 01:42 AM
 
feebeeglee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 2,851
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!
feebeeglee is offline  
#19 of 59 Old 09-10-2007, 02:01 AM
 
vesper0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cranberry99 View Post
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.
vesper0 is offline  
#20 of 59 Old 09-10-2007, 08:55 AM
 
Usually Curious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
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.
Usually Curious is offline  
#21 of 59 Old 09-10-2007, 09:42 AM
 
mama in the forest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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
cranberry - is there anything we can do? Let us know how we can help.

Greenlee's Forest *intentional jewelry* a secret Journal locket!
Me My Blog Mama to 7 babes & four spirit babies
mama in the forest is offline  
#22 of 59 Old 09-10-2007, 04:03 PM
 
vesper0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama in the forest View Post
cranberry - is there anything we can do? Let us know how we can help.
I second that. Your situation is tough.
vesper0 is offline  
#23 of 59 Old 09-10-2007, 07:24 PM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 3,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
feebeeglee-Yes that's what I meant!

Quote:
Because this thread doesn't ask for advice on how to proceed or consolation. It is rather an open ended, bare facts statement.
Maybe she wanted to start a discussion about women's rights as related to birth choices--feasible, even though she hasn't joined in on that discussion at all. Maybe she wanted to fuel a discussion about CPS reform or give us all a place to bash CPS, despite the fact that there's at least one thread a week in TAO dedicated to that subject. Maybe she was warning us to be careful of CPS, especially if we are UCing--even though we ALL already know that. Maybe she wanted sympathy, pity, hugs, and a lot of "Oh you poor violated woman!" responses. *Shrugs* Who knows? It seems to me that the most likely reason for posting is to seek advice, considering that's the ONLY thing that will really help or benefit the OP.

But of course, it's a free forum, so please, by all means, continue discussing how evil CPS is, how women's reproductive rights are being violated, how this is a gross misuse of power, how CPS needs to be reformed, etc. I don't disagree with you there. CPS makes mistakes and does abuse power at times. Our reproductive rights are indeed violated when they interfere over UC. CPS does need to be reformed. I just don't see how going on about that is at all constructive or is going to make a difference, particularly for the OP. It won't help her get her daughter back. It won't make CPS change their ways. I feel like a far better use of my time is to help people understand how CPS works and to give people information that can help them fight back. But you're right, the OP didn't say exactly why she started this thread, so you go on. I'm out, though.

:

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
#24 of 59 Old 09-11-2007, 08:21 PM
 
LionTigerBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Northern California
Posts: 6,690
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Usually Curious View Post
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.

Where did this happen???

♥ blogger astrologer mom to three cool kiddos, and trying to figure out this divorce thing-- Blossom and Glow ♥

LionTigerBear is offline  
#25 of 59 Old 09-11-2007, 10:15 PM
 
josephine_e's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
It seems to me that the most likely reason for posting is to seek advice, considering that's the ONLY thing that will really help or benefit the OP.
actually, i don't necessarily agree that advice is the only thing that would help the OP. i don't know if it is or not -- like you all have said, she didn't say. she could very well have already gotten a truck load of advice, have already researched, and made a decision about what to do next. we don't know how informed she is, and since she didn't ask for advice, we can't assume that she needs it.

i do believe that a lot of times support in the form of understanding, hugs, and just the acknowledgment that she's there and we're here if she needs us can also be very helpful in this kind of situation. "support" doesn't mean necessarily saying "oh, you poor violated woman," but it can include acknowledging that violation and validating her many layers of feelings. these things can help give strength to a mama in a very devastating and isolating situation. having support from a community isn't just about having a pity party -- it's about overcoming the isolation and fear that accompanies tragedy.

of course, like i said, none of us know if that's what the OP wanted because she didn't say. we can all only offer what we have to offer. if that's advice, that's fine, and if it's just "how can i help?" or "" that's fine, too. personally, i have no experience so : is all i've got.
josephine_e is offline  
#26 of 59 Old 09-12-2007, 05:03 AM
 
moonfirefaery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 3,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I agree that support and acknowledgement of the wrong-doing is helpful as well. I just found the responses to my posts specifically very frustrating, considering they were made in the spirit of giving advice and informing. I didn't need anyone to explain to me that CPS does abuse power, that UC is perceived as reckless, etc. The discussion about that was mainly revolving my posts, as if in an effort to make me understand, and as those are things I'm already aware of, I didn't appreciate that. I apologize.

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
#27 of 59 Old 09-12-2007, 08:13 PM
 
AngelaB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Des Moines Iowa
Posts: 1,924
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Im not really sure what this thread is about but Im in Iowa too and am curious to know what the whole story is about. I would like to help if possible.
Angela
AngelaB is offline  
#28 of 59 Old 10-26-2007, 12:37 PM - Thread Starter
 
cranberry99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Alexandria, Virginia
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hi. My case (for custody) will be reviewed in 2 weeks. This means I'll probably get a trial home placement. Which means I'll be scrutinized for months to come. These days the "issue" is "feeding". First I was required to purchase a 'larger bottle' because the size I had wasn't big enough. The foster parents alleged I wasn't feeding her so I was then requried to keep a list of everything she eats in my care. Now she is on solid foods so they question my mostly vegetarian diet. My latest assignment is to "list protein sources" since lunchmeat is not on my menu. Their limited understanding of nutrition means I consulted a nutritionist today as backup. (I feed my child whole foods, fruits and veggies, cottage cheese/protein, etc. They suggest I purchase lunch meats for a 10-month old child. The social worker on my case asked, "name a protein source you have given her" and I said, "cottage cheese". The woman looked at her WIC information handout and stated, "Cottage cheese is a dairy product!" Obviously her crude understanding of protein was preventing her brain from functioning.)
The battle is neverending. This particular worker leaves threatening messages on my machine since the new supervisors are giving her the information she's looking for. My first supervisor was sympathetic to my home birth and is my neighbor, as well as a trained therapist and social worker. The new supervisors do not have degrees but are power-trippy and scrutinize my instincts and how and when I feed her. I was instructed to give her mac & cheese to eat by herself, long after she was hungry. I did so and she threw the bowl on the floor. I decided she was done but was told later I had 'misread her cues" and she was still hungry even though she refused her bottle 5 times in front of the supervisor. I was supposed to have cooked her an entirely new meal because she "didn't like what I had given her" (even though she had eaten it) maybe because it "tasted funny" because I had used the slightest touch of soymilk.
I am now listed on a registry with child molesters, people who physically or sexually abuse their kids, all because a social worker determined that "something could have happened" to my daughter had she been born with something the matter and I didn't contact anyone. I cannot teach, work in the public schools, with elderly or children unless this is removed. Apparently Iowa is cracking down on births outside of a hospital setting. There is a midwife in Iowa City who is being prosecuted. I was told it was "not illegal" to give birth in Iowa outside of a hospital but it seems as though my refusal to move during parts of my labor included in the amount of time before a physician saw my daughter was used to determine the 'abuse' charge. So I guess if your child is born safely at home without medical assistance, and you don't call 911, you are abusing your child according to this Iowa abuse statute. I think it is absurd and ridiculous to say that a perfectly healthy child (one I spent months making sure was healthy inside of my womb by taking care of myself appropriately) is the victim of abuse. Giving birth is a natural act. If I hadn't read all about homebirth perhaps i would've freaked out and called 911 like they were asking me to. But my daughter was lively, eyes open, making squeaks. I tried to breastfeed her, cleansed her face and skin with a warm washcloth, wrapped her in warm blankets, tried to clean up the area. You can scrutinize me and tell me that a mental health condition may have prevented me from contacting anyone, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a mental health condition that helped me deliver my baby alone, clean her up and rest from being in labor for 12 hours, no sleep in over 24 hours. I gave birth alone because my mother left me telling me she was returning soon. We were hoping it was pre-labor. I should have hired a doula. I wanted to stay at home where it was more comfortable. I was in . the moment. I wasn't looking at the clock. I had read the Hypnobirthing book. I was trying to breathe and visualize and get through the pain. I spent 3 hours in the warm shower and then the pains left. I called my mother. She came and stayed with me for 6 hours until she left in the morning as I lay waiting, hoping it had ended. There was a still as I hoped to sleep. Then the eye of the storm passed and it was time to push. I have no idea how long it lasted but she came out fast in 3 pushes, my water broke and exploded all over the room in a huge gush. I stood up and delivered the placenta, it fell right out. It was warm and sticky. She was covered with warm gooeyness. My guinea pigs squeaked and she squeaked back. She had brown eyes. She opened her little mouth like she was hungry and I tried to feed her but it seemed like they weren't ready to feed. She opened her eyes when I talked to her but eventually she was sleepy and I tucked her in for a little nap. I wanted to nest with her. Her heart was beating, she was breathing, she could see me and hear me when I spoke to her. Later in the report they said she "hadn't been fed" like I'd personally denied her food, that she was "hyperthermic ie "cold" when she had a completely normal temperature for her, and questioned my sanity for not immediately calling for an ambulance even though my mother said she would come back and she did, though later than she said. In my world people call 911 when someone is dying or near death, not for a perfectly natural and beautiful birth. I recognize that there are people in this world who do not understand that a woman could be competant enough to recognize when a person is healthy, and not in need of medical assistance, and I should hope that anyone who does so does not have their name and reputation as mine have been through the heartless beast of this government agency. Beyond destroying my sanity and myself esteem as well as future employment opportunities, my excitement about my birth is now gone and has been replaced by a fearful renunciation of the certainty I felt when she was born: that I was empowered and that I had created something magical, transcendent, amazing, perfect. That my body had performed exactly as it was created, in its own natural rhythm, according to its own sweet time. That I had channeled this new being through the vehicle of my own body, this new being a mystery revealed.
Just as they took Georgia O'Keefe's flowers and twisted them into something sexual, they have taken my beautiful and empowering birth and twisted it into something unnatural, something gruesome, morbid, demeaning and out of touch with the natural world, when the intuition of birth is something only a transcendent spirit can unite with (but never control).
cranberry99 is offline  
#29 of 59 Old 10-26-2007, 01:43 PM
 
yvonnemlv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 1,482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
*hugs* I wish I could offer more.

Mum to DS (8yrs), DD (6yrs), and DS(3.5yrs). kid.gif

yvonnemlv is offline  
#30 of 59 Old 10-26-2007, 02:53 PM
 
Lizzie9984's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: In The Tropical US South
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ugh, so vile, so very very vile. One of the many reasons I hate how this country is run---seizing kids for asinine, unfounded reasons like that garbage....
Lizzie9984 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off