17-year-old CT girl taken from mother, forced to endure unwanted chemotherapy

[Kirk Freeman]

I have no idea what a CHINs is and would like to know now.

horn has it. Child(ren) in Need of Services. When I get the salt down on the walks I'll be back to outline it for ya, doc.

*back from salting*

Think of a CHINS action as a civil action where children come under the jurisdiction of a court because of an alleged neglect or abuse (drugs, starvation, lack of hygiene, untreated dog bites, lack of warm clothing, inter alia).

Defining terms, this is from the DCS manual: http://www.in.gov/dcs/files/6.B_Tool_-_Statutory_Definition_of_CHINS.pdf

Here's the IC, all of Title 31, on CHINS: http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title31/ar34/

In Reader's Digest form: DCS has the initiative. The County Welfare Attorney (DCS) decides if a child is in need of services, he or she then files a petition, a probable cause hearing is set and the court decides if there is a fair probability that the child meets the statutory definition. The court will then appoint a GAL or CASA for the child and may then remove the child, under certain circumstances (parents unable to care for child, etc.). If the parents deny the allegations, then there is then a "fact finding" (trial) as to determine whether the CHINS petition can be proven.

If proven, then a "disposition" (akin to a criminal sentencing) is held. The parents are usually ordered to meet with service providers with the precatory goal of addressing the problem. By statute the court then must have future hearings to determine if the problem is addressed, "review hearings".

If a CHINS fails to correct the problem(s), then a TPR (termination of parental rights) may be sought.

 

[hornadylnl]

It takes a village of lawyers, doctors, and bureaucrats to raise a child.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It takes a village of lawyers, doctors, and bureaucrats to raise a child.

So the people of Indiana have so determined, at least in some cases.

It's not a happy place to be that's for certain.

 

[Destro]

The INGOtatians should be happy to know that, atleast in Indiana and IME, it takes multiple horrific events for DCS to start the process.

Rest assured your still free to let your kids eye infection cause blindness so you can shoot heroin and lock the other kid in the bedroom for 3 weeks

 

[T.Lex]

I would not deny all state intervention.

They should be subject to the same laws that every other criminal is subject to. And the same process.

That's certainly a start toward consensus. So, you agree with KF that state intervention in parental rights can follow due process.

Most importantly, they should be considered innocent until proven guilty. They are currently not.

This is not true - both "technically" and in practice. DCS has the burden of proving the child needs intervention, although it is a lower standard than in criminal cases.

And that is basically the rub. The criminal justice system is really pretty good at sorting out people guilty of crimes. It is much less good at rehabilitating them. And, while we probably agree that the sociological reasons for crime and neglect are the same (or, if not the same, they overlap), the "fix" for them is very different.

Crime "fix" = locked up in a prison for a period of time

Neglect "fix" is much harder, and more invasive.

Unfortunately, it seems that we as a society have relegated this task almost solely to the government. Maybe if that were to change and we took responsibility for each other as a community instead of relying on DCS, that might change.

Totally agree. But, as you note, society has moved away from churches and other community centers - even family and neighbors - who traditionally took those roles. That horse already left the barn.

The real gray area here is the medicine. No medical decision is black and white like this. You can never say "This child will die if we don't intervene", and you can't say "This child will be safe if we give him this medicine".

Some are certainly "sure bets" than others, of course.

Every medicine has side effects and dangers. The only people qualified to weigh these dangers are the people who have a vested interest in the well-being of the child. And that is never the state. It might not always be the parents, either, but I don't believe that is up to us to decide.

At some point, in some situations, it has to be the state - or the child will die. Using your "better 10 guilty" theme, it sounds like your rationale would allow 10 kids to die rather than 1 be saved. I don't know if that's what you intend, but that's how it sounds.

I did have substantial experience in various homeless shelters and in some of the worst neighborhoods in south, south Chicago. I do know how bad parents can be.

I'm sure those people appreciated your help. Thank you for walking the walk.

 

[Destro]

It takes a village of lawyers, doctors, and bureaucrats to raise a child.

due process takes many forms

 

[Bill of Rights]

OK, I've read through this whole thread and have a question:

The child in CT is 17. She is not allowed by the state, her doctors, etc., to refuse care that they determine she needs. I'm sure my argument is far from new, but here goes:

I had a patient once, involved in a very bad trauma. He got two IVs on scene, (Saline in them, or salt water, for volume expansion to treat shock) and quickly transported to the very-close but rural hospital. The two bags of fluid were forced to flow rapidly, maintaining his blood pressure acceptably. The hospital ED ran all the necessary tests and determined this was a very sick person who needed blood and an operating room desperately. The OR he needed was in a much larger city, many miles away. Called for a helicopter, but weather did not permit them to fly. He needed to be driven there expeditiously. One complicating issue: Saline does not carry oxygen in the blood, only red blood cells do.... and this patient was very clear in telling us repeatedly that he was a member of the Jehovah's Witness religion, and absolutely, specifically, and categorically refused any and all blood products. His parents were present at the ED and echoed this decision, and both patient and parents were made fully aware in very explicit language, that without the blood, he would die. They expressed understanding and advised that the decision was to stand. The doctor told me, "His only chance is an OR. Grow wings."

The travel time was your basic land-speed record. My partner made that trip exceedingly quickly and safely. I was in back with the patient. About 10 minutes before we got there, his level of consciousness dropped and did not return. On arrival at the hospital, his pressure was crap, but he still had a pulse. They called a code and began working on him when we got inside. He did not make it to the OR.

The patient in the above scenario was 18. The case is real, with details obscured to comply with privacy laws. I have intentionally left out where it happened (that is, which state/city), the year it happened, and obviously, his name.

My question: The girl in the story, at 17, could not refuse care, knowing it would kill her. The patient in my story, at 18, could. Add to that, mine was recently 18, like in the area of perhaps a month since his birthday. "We have to draw a line somewhere", is the usual refrain, but still, the question is, what difference does that one day, or perhaps even down to one second make? At 17 yrs, 364 days, 23 hrs, 59 min. and 59 seconds, she is legally an "infant" and the decision may be made for her by lawyers and doctors. One second later, she is legally an adult, and off limits to them.

Someone want to explain that situation?

It's not about winter coats, it's not about minutiae. It's about self-determination and a human being's absolute right to control their own life. This girl understood the import of her decision. She made a mature, adult decision, and got her hand smacked and got meds forced into her that made her feel worse, with questionable benefit. My patient would have had a fighting chance with a judge deciding to force him to take blood against his will.

What the f*** makes one life worthy of intervention and the other proof against it?

Oh, and just in case I've not been clear, I absolutely support both of them having the right to make decisions in their own lives, even if it kills them. I don't like their choices, but it ain't my life to decide to live or not.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[steveh_131]

That's certainly a start toward consensus. So, you agree with KF that state intervention in parental rights can follow due process.

What? I don't know... what would Jenny McCarthy say? Whatever she says, that's what I'm going with, ok?

In seriousness, yes I would agree with that.

This is not true - both "technically" and in practice. DCS has the burden of proving the child needs intervention, although it is a lower standard than in criminal cases.

I would submit that the standard is far too low, if families like this are regularly caught in the crossfire.

Neglect "fix" is much harder, and more invasive.

Yes. In fact, it is so hard and so invasive that it needs to be left alone entirely. Assault, manslaughter and homicide are all on the table. Prove harm and intent, if applicable, and let a jury sort it out. Like any other criminal case.

Totally agree. But, as you note, society has moved away from churches and other community centers - even family and neighbors - who traditionally took those roles. That horse already left the barn.

Perhaps if we stopped allowing people to try to use the state to achieve their moral prerogatives, they would man up and handle things themselves. Maybe not, I really don't know.

At some point, in some situations, it has to be the state - or the child will die. Using your "better 10 guilty" theme, it sounds like your rationale would allow 10 kids to die rather than 1 be saved. I don't know if that's what you intend, but that's how it sounds.

That is the legal formulation that much of our justice system is built around, is it not? Do you disagree with it?

I won't support a system that I know will often violate the rights of good families in the most intimate of ways. My support makes me at least somewhat responsible for the evils perpetrated by that system.

I am not responsible for the evils perpetrated by bad parents. I can, however, do my best to influence people to be good parents.

 

[Destro]

I would submit that the standard is far too low, if families like this are regularly caught in the crossfire.

don't sweat it...plenty of stomach churning things are happening to kiddos here in Indiana as I type this. Lucky for you DCS can't save them all.

 

[steveh_131]

don't sweat it...plenty of stomach churning things are happening to kiddos here in Indiana as I type this. Lucky for you DCS can't save them all.

Lucky for you, plenty of citizens still want jackboots to do their bidding for them and I don't think the system is changing any time soon.

 

[Destro]

jackboots

When the maggots take up residence in a childs fecal filled ears (true story), somebody has to hold the tweezers. But as long as her mom can cook meth and prostitute herself for pseudoephedrine and lithium batteries...well that's just the cost of freedom I guess

 

[steveh_131]

When the maggots take up residence in a childs fecal filled ears (true story), somebody has to hold the tweezers. But as long as her mom can cook meth and prostitute herself for pseudoephedrine and lithium batteries...well that's just the cost of freedom I guess

Are you missing the irony? That's all illegal.

But thank you for proving my point about how wildly ineffective the government is. This girl is being forced into chemo while kids with real needs are ignored.

Well done.

 

[Destro]

Are you missing the irony? That's all illegal.

I think the bigger irony is that you want some of that to be legal. It is very tragic that they are messing with this child while other children will die because of this misuse of time and resources. But to abandoned this failed system in favor of nothing is even worse.

 

[HoughMade]

I've learned a lot from this thread. I have chosen to stop feeding my children. My family. I know best. No one else's business, especially not the state.

I'm thinking of getting a Shiloh Sharps (Quigley) in 45-110 with the savings.

 

[rambone]

My question: The girl in the story, at 17, could not refuse care, knowing it would kill her. The patient in my story, at 18, could. Add to that, mine was recently 18, like in the area of perhaps a month since his birthday. "We have to draw a line somewhere", is the usual refrain, but still, the question is, what difference does that one day, or perhaps even down to one second make? At 17 yrs, 364 days, 23 hrs, 59 min. and 59 seconds, she is legally an "infant" and the decision may be made for her by lawyers and doctors. One second later, she is legally an adult, and off limits to them.

I wouldn't look too closely for logic and reason in this system. The conditions and terms are clearly arbitrary and it seems they prefer it that way.

That is the legal formulation that much of our justice system is built around, is it not? Do you disagree with it?

I won't support a system that I know will often violate the rights of good families in the most intimate of ways. My support makes me at least somewhat responsible for the evils perpetrated by that system.

I am not responsible for the evils perpetrated by bad parents. I can, however, do my best to influence people to be good parents.

The current system upholds the inverse of Blackstone's formulation: "It is better that 10 innocent families to be split apart than for one child to be left neglected."

 

[steveh_131]

I think the bigger irony is that you want some of that to be legal. It is very tragic that they are messing with this child while other children will die because of this misuse of time and resources. But to abandoned this failed system in favor of nothing is even worse.

The legality or illegality doesn't seem to help.

At least without this system there might be more room and demand for charities and activist groups to help kids like this. Individuals always act more effectively and efficiently than the government.

I've learned a lot from this thread. I have chosen to stop feeding my children. My family. I know best. No one else's business, especially not the state.

I'm thinking of getting a Shiloh Sharps (Quigley) in 45-110 with the savings.

You're better than this ridiculous straw-man.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm thinking of getting a Shiloh Sharps (Quigley) in 45-110 with the savings.

You are truly a man of taste.

The current system upholds the inverse of Blackstone's formulation: "It is better that 10 innocent families to be split apart than for one child to be left neglected."

If we had to implement one reform (it's like an internet ad--this one simple trick . . .), it would be to move the standard of a CHINS probable cause hearing to preponderance (more likely than not). This one we would eliminate the current borderline cases that people are concerned about.

 

[T.Lex]

The current system upholds the inverse of Blackstone's formulation: "It is better that 10 innocent families to be split apart than for one child to be left neglected."

Spend a day in a court that deals with CHINS cases (or the lobby, since the proceedings may not be open to the public) and you will know that comment to be erroneous.

For every 1 case in Indiana like in the OP (which, I will accept for the purposes of your argument, although I have never seen one), there are hundreds of cases (maybe thousands) where the system worked in a way that we would all agree reached the "right" outcome. Well, I think we would agree. This is INGO, so, maybe not.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Doing my appellate court reading for the day, I note this Court of Appeals decision that INGO will be interested in, CHINS finding reversed for lack of due process:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/01071505pdm.pdf

 

[HoughMade]

...You're better than this ridiculous straw-man.

What is the difference between withholding food from a child who can not obtain it himself and withholding life saving medical care from a child who can not obtain it himself?

Straw man? No. Directly on point. The question for you- does the state have a role in stepping in to prevent parents from starving their own children?

Are you naive enough to think this doesn't happen?