Eat a bagel, the civil magistrate kidnaps your baby...

(Tim, w/thanks to a brother) Over and over, I warn Christian fathers and mothers that each community's child protective services pose a terrible threat to our covenant children. Since twenty-five years ago when we lived in rural Wisconsin and a dear godly pastor and his wife had their son kidnapped by the state, to the past few years when our church and family have had the state threaten four of our families with the loss of their children, it's only becoming more clear each year that the state is not content to have our children in their schools to be indoctrinated from age five through eighteen. They will come after our children at home, also, and kidnap them from their father and mother after getting one anonymous phone call from a malicious neighbor, an officious nurse, a jealous lesbian, or a practicing witch who hates Christ and is delighted to torment his sons and daughters at the place of their greatest vulnerability.

We must do everything possible to oppose this growing threat to our precious children and grandchildren. Remember C. S. Lewis' warning that they'll tell us we can have our religion in private and then make sure we're never alone.

The suffering of children growing up in homes where they are the objects of physical and sexual and spiritual torment is horrible, crying out to God Almighty for His intervention. But to adress these problems in a way that undercuts the authority and love of the children's natural sovereigns given them by God...

to protect one child by stealing tens of thousands of children who have good fathers and mothers, is bad law and evil government. Anonymous accusations that cause children to be kidnapped from good homes by the civil magistrate must be stopped. And I really don't know anything as effective in stopping them as civil actions against those civil magistrates.

For instance, let's commend the Rodriquez family for using the ACLU to file a lawsuit against Lawrence County Children and Youth Services. Here's a summary of their case:

The ACLU of Pennsylvania recently filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of a couple whose newborn baby was kidnapped by Lawrence County Children and Youth Services (LCCYS) because her mother recklessly consumed an "everything" bagel from Dunkin' Donuts the day before the birth. Jameson Hospital, where Isabella Rodriguez was born on April 27, has a policy of testing expectant mothers' urine for illegal drugs and reporting positive results to LCCYS, even without any additional evidence that the baby is in danger of neglect or abuse. LCCYS, in turn, has a policy of seizing such babies from their homes based on nothing more than the test result. Unfortunately for Isabella's parents, Elizabeth Mort and Alex Rodriguez, Jameson sets the cutoff level for its opiate test so low that it can be triggered by poppy seeds, which is why two caseworkers and two Neshannock Township police officers visited their home the day after baby and mother returned from the hospital. LCCYS seized the three-day-old girl and put her in foster care for five days before conceding it had made a mistake.

 

Comments

This story has been all over the news here for the last couple of weeks. I agree with your larger point about this news blurb, but I think that in this case the ACLU is keeping some of the information from the public that would make it more understandable why CYS got involved. It is my understanding (although I have not looked very deep into this case) that the mother has a history of drug abuse so that information combined with the positive drug test would certainly make it more understandable why the infant was taken. Also, no offense to the upstanding Lawrence Co. citizens, but Lawrence Co. in general does not have the greatest reputation regarding drug abuse.

It's worth noting that reputable drug test agencies do NOT set test levels--or methods--to catch the amount of opiates from a poppy seed bagel.

And Lauren, whether or not people from a given county use a lot of drugs doesn't affect what the proper test thresholds might be. They are set, statistically speaking, to have acceptably low alpha and beta errors--false positives and false negatives--for detecting real life use of illicit drugs.

So, Lauren, if a mother abuses pain medication for her bad back and is committing adultery with her gardener, should CPS take her baby from her?

No answer necessary, but we need to realize that the world is filled with drug abuse, and much of the removal of children by CPS agencies is actually the removal of children from the poor, the Hispanic and African American, the Christian, and the double-wides, but never the removal from two lesbians who adopted or rich wicked people.

Love,

If anyone would like to look a little deeper, the complaint filed by the ACLU is on the ACLU-Pennsylvania website. Regarding Lauren's suspicions, it does state that the mother did not abuse drugs during her pregnancy, that she got regular prenatal care, and that she was not informed that her drug test was positive, partly because her own doctor didn't believe that she was abusing drugs.

I'm sure that lawyers and plaintiffs lie to the court all the time, but this doesn't look that way to me.

I had a similar situation occur professionally, in one of my former jobs. I refused to release the results without a court order and made it quite clear to the over-reaching social worker that we had absolutely no chain-of-custody in the collection, processing or storage of the specimen.

I never heard another word.

**much of the removal of children by CPS agencies is actually the removal of children from the poor, the Hispanic and African American, the Christian, and the double-wides, but never the removal from two lesbians who adopted or rich wicked people.**

Many years ago I watched a special that made a good case that it's better to be rich and guilty in the courts of this country than poor and innocent. And now it seems that if you're a member of a perverted group (lesbian, gay, etc, you too have a free pass.

Blessings,
Nancy Wilson

Many, not all child protective workers are hostile to men, indifferent to families, and, quite often, childless themselves. They may have sold themselves a bill of goods, but they are often on power trips. I recently represented a father whose daughter 1st accused him of abusing her, then recanted. The position of the Dept. of Child Services & its tame experts was that recantations of such accusations are NEVER to be believed! We won, incidentally.

Add new comment