As I See It

The Texas FDLS child snatching scenario is not a new thing in America.  Two years ago, authorities snatched a 3 month old child from the home of her parents, Nancy Hey and Christopher Slitor, because of an anonymous, unproven allegation of child abuse by starvation, even though the child was at her proper weight when she was removed from the home.  The Texas case is because of an anonymous unproven accusation of sex abuse.  In Arlington County, they took just one child.  In Texas, the police dressed in full body armor, took 416 children.   The Arlington County parents still do not have the child back and it’s two years after numerous hearings and legal battles costing the parents $350,000.   Two years of lawyerism and now the judge determines it would be more harmful to the child to remove her from the temporary foster parents home.

“Judge Almand later used the baby’s inappropriate removal to justify making the separation permanent, saying it would be too “traumatic” to return Sabrina to her natural parents. So, when Sabrina turned 3 April 3rd, she didn’t blow out her birthday candles in the kitchen where her heart-broken parents still keep her empty highchair.”

Consider the logical extremes.

It shows that if County social workers seize your baby, based on false allegations of neglect, and put your baby in foster care long enough, you might never get your child back, even if you prove yourself innocent, because the courts will say it’s in “the best interests of the child” that your baby stay with the foster parents he’s gotten used to living with.  (Taking that logic to its ultimate conclusion, a kidnapper who kidnapped a newborn from a hospital and then escaped prosecution on a technicality could keep the child, because the child would have bonded with the kidnapper by the time the kidnapper was apprehended).   Read more of the details . . .

These are not isolated cases.

“Over the past twenty years, parents all over the country have discovered the nightmare that the child welfare system can needlessly inflict on families.”   More.

A runaway child protective services system is not high on the list of concerns of most civil libertarians these days. But when an infant is seized by state protective services in order to administer a spinal tap — which even the child’s doctor concedes is optional — it’s time to pay attention. 

A mother in Vermont called CIR a couple of years ago because she was being threatened with jail because she wanted to home school her son. School officials got a judge to declare the mother guilty of neglect to force him back into a special education program.

But how about this as a motive for child protection services to seize children. “In England, as in the United States, local governments receive cash incentives from the national government for adopting out children. In England, this has led to the seizure of thousands of children from their natural parents by social workers hoping to receive bonuses.”

I prefer to dismiss that as the motivation behind these child seizers and just believe that these social workers have been bitten with the Nanny State concept prevalent in liberal ideology “It takes a Village.”

As I see It.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS