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

[rambone]

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.

The formulation is not supposed to be reflective of the total caseload ratio. It isn't saying that 10% of CHINs cases are baseless. It is an expression of the value of innocence; the burden of proof.

The current system will quickly break apart an innocent family. I've seen it myself. This is the preferred outcome, rather than developing a preponderance of evidence before snatching children.

 

[rambone]

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

So the kid was taken on February 11, 2014, and the case was finally resolved in the parents' favor on January 7, 2015. The family was put through 11 months of separation and torment, and extensive legal bills, before this was "fixed."

This may seem like a "success" story but it is an appalling abuse of the innocent. It is unacceptable that the busybody bureaucrats can get away with this.

 

[steveh_131]

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?

The difference is irrelevant. Your implication is that I support such activities. I do not. I do not participate in them and I do not condone them.

I also don't condone letting your children play video games all day. I can be opposed to such things without favoring government intervention in them.

That is your straw-man.

The question for you- does the state have a role in stepping in to prevent parents from starving their own children?

Demonstrate harm, demonstrate intent if applicable, and take them to criminal court.

Do you think the government should be in the business of controlling childrens' diets?

I submit that it is permanently detrimental to a child to feed him sugar and garbage all day, every day. It may not kill him instantly, but it will likely kill him eventually in the form of obesity, heart disease and diabetes. This is harming far more kids on a daily basis than starvation, at least in America.

Should the government step in and take kids away from parents who feed them pop tarts for breakfast, Lucky Charms for lunch and corn dogs for dinner?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So the kid was taken on February 11, 2014, and the case was finally resolved in the parents' favor on January 7, 2015. The family was put through 11 months of separation and torment, and extensive legal bills, before this was "fixed."

1. The child was placed back with the father in April 2014.

2. The mother of the child admitted to the CHINS petition.

 

[HoughMade]

...Demonstrate harm, demonstrate intent if applicable, and take them to criminal court...

Where are the kids while this year-long process is going on?

 

[Destro]

Where are the kids while this year-long process is going on?

getting a home school chemistry education because the "government" schools aren't teaching the kids the vocational skills they need to know.

best let the kids stay here...due process and all

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Where are the kids while this year-long process is going on?

Not at John Huntsman's house!

 

[rambone]

Do you think the government should be in the business of controlling childrens' diets?

I submit that it is permanently detrimental to a child to feed him sugar and garbage all day, every day. It may not kill him instantly, but it will likely kill him eventually in the form of obesity, heart disease and diabetes. This is harming far more kids on a daily basis than starvation, at least in America.

Should the government step in and take kids away from parents who feed them pop tarts for breakfast, Lucky Charms for lunch and corn dogs for dinner?

There have already been cases of fat kids getting put into foster care:

Obese Ohio Child Placed in Foster Care For Being Overweight


The medical experts are building a consensus to make this the norm in the future:

Should child obesity be an issue for child protective services? A call for more research on this critical public health issue - PubMed


The child snatchers love the vagueness of the law so that anything can be turned into a reason to intervene.

 

[Bill of Rights]

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.



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."

Thanks, Ram. Five hours and you're the only one to even acknowledge my post existed, and then only to tell me that the system doesn't make sense and just to reconcile myself to that. Overall, I think the system does work. Overall, I think that, as Destro said, the kids with maggot-and-poop filled ears watching "mom" cook meth and worse do get taken from bad situations. I'd like to make sure that they don't go to worse situations, but I don't know how to do that. The problem isn't with those removals, with which I think we all agree. The problem is with the cases where an unsubstantiated report is enough to get the full weight and power of the government, which is supposed to serve the people, not master them, to fall on a family where parent(s) are legitimately trying to do their best, and some mope gets his panties in a twist because, say, he saw one of them swat a child on the bottom and the child cried. To be clear, I mean that exactly as written, re: swat on the bottom, with open hand, such as while in a grocery store, not a case of beating the child with a belt or a broken cutting board until his/her bottom looks like raw hamburger.

There was a case in Lafayette about 10 years ago, was all over the papers, wherein a 4 year old girl was horribly abused and died from the injuries. The child had been removed from her mother's care and placed with her father because mom had some pot charges, IIRC. There may be more to that part of the story, I don't know, but dad's new wife was well-known to deputies, and not in a good way. There was a situation where a deputy came to the house to check on the child, didn't do so, but only talked to stepmom at the door... he later confessed that he'd falsified his report, which was truly a stand-up action, since had he not admitted it, no one would ever have known but him and the Lord, and he lost everything material as a result... his job, his career, his home, his freedom, and he is now a felon, though he did maintain his honor, IMHO...
The point is that the system fell down in many places, and some of what we see today is a result of the backswing from those days. Personally, I'm of the opinion that she should have been left with mom, based on what little I know of that part of the case. I also admit that that's 20/20 hindsight as well.

I'd honestly like to see some answers to the question of why that one second makes such a difference. How can a decision be reached that totally ignores a person's right of self-determination, when it would be made wholly differently based only on the date on which it was made? How can anyone call that "justice"?
From the other side, I'd like to see the way those who disagree that the state should have any role at all would preserve the individual rights of the innocent victims in these cases. The children do have a right to expect that they'll at least be cared for with food, water, shelter, and clothing appropriate; that is, you can't just buy the child underwear and T shirts and say you're clothing them when it's 20 degrees outside... and you can't only feed them beans and bread and call it a healthy diet. Where do YOU draw the line and say someone needs to step in, and who should that someone be?


Blessings,
Bill

 

[hornadylnl]

Thanks, Ram. Five hours and you're the only one to even acknowledge my post existed, and then only to tell me that the system doesn't make sense and just to reconcile myself to that. Overall, I think the system does work. Overall, I think that, as Destro said, the kids with maggot-and-poop filled ears watching "mom" cook meth and worse do get taken from bad situations. I'd like to make sure that they don't go to worse situations, but I don't know how to do that. The problem isn't with those removals, with which I think we all agree. The problem is with the cases where an unsubstantiated report is enough to get the full weight and power of the government, which is supposed to serve the people, not master them, to fall on a family where parent(s) are legitimately trying to do their best, and some mope gets his panties in a twist because, say, he saw one of them swat a child on the bottom and the child cried. To be clear, I mean that exactly as written, re: swat on the bottom, with open hand, such as while in a grocery store, not a case of beating the child with a belt or a broken cutting board until his/her bottom looks like raw hamburger.

There was a case in Lafayette about 10 years ago, was all over the papers, wherein a 4 year old girl was horribly abused and died from the injuries. The child had been removed from her mother's care and placed with her father because mom had some pot charges, IIRC. There may be more to that part of the story, I don't know, but dad's new wife was well-known to deputies, and not in a good way. There was a situation where a deputy came to the house to check on the child, didn't do so, but only talked to stepmom at the door... he later confessed that he'd falsified his report, which was truly a stand-up action, since had he not admitted it, no one would ever have known but him and the Lord, and he lost everything material as a result... his job, his career, his home, his freedom, and he is now a felon, though he did maintain his honor, IMHO...
The point is that the system fell down in many places, and some of what we see today is a result of the backswing from those days. Personally, I'm of the opinion that she should have been left with mom, based on what little I know of that part of the case. I also admit that that's 20/20 hindsight as well.

I'd honestly like to see some answers to the question of why that one second makes such a difference. How can a decision be reached that totally ignores a person's right of self-determination, when it would be made wholly differently based only on the date on which it was made? How can anyone call that "justice"?
From the other side, I'd like to see the way those who disagree that the state should have any role at all would preserve the individual rights of the innocent victims in these cases. The children do have a right to expect that they'll at least be cared for with food, water, shelter, and clothing appropriate; that is, you can't just buy the child underwear and T shirts and say you're clothing them when it's 20 degrees outside... and you can't only feed them beans and bread and call it a healthy diet. Where do YOU draw the line and say someone needs to step in, and who should that someone be?


Blessings,
Bill

Because it isn't about justice, it's a war on people. It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on people we associate with drugs. It's not a war on unsafe scooter usage, it's a war on those we associate with scooters. It's not a war on mistreatment of children, it's a war on those we associate with mistreating them.

 

[T.Lex]

Thanks, Ram. Five hours and you're the only one to even acknowledge my post existed, and then only to tell me that the system doesn't make sense and just to reconcile myself to that.

I tried to rep you. You kinda answered your own question, though.

 

[rambone]

The problem is with the cases where an unsubstantiated report is enough to get the full weight and power of the government, which is supposed to serve the people, not master them, to fall on a family where parent(s) are legitimately trying to do their best, and some mope gets his panties in a twist because, say, he saw one of them swat a child on the bottom and the child cried. To be clear, I mean that exactly as written, re: swat on the bottom, with open hand, such as while in a grocery store, not a case of beating the child with a belt or a broken cutting board until his/her bottom looks like raw hamburger.

This. A system that allows the innocent to be persecuted right along with the guilty is not sufficient, even if it helps some people. We know that injustice is inherent to the system because the "fact-finding" is allowed to happen after the child is taken away by strangers. Parents are then forced to prove their innocence in order to reunite their family. The order of operations is all wrong.

From the other side, I'd like to see the way those who disagree that the state should have any role at all would preserve the individual rights of the innocent victims in these cases. The children do have a right to expect that they'll at least be cared for with food, water, shelter, and clothing appropriate; that is, you can't just buy the child underwear and T shirts and say you're clothing them when it's 20 degrees outside... and you can't only feed them beans and bread and call it a healthy diet. Where do YOU draw the line and say someone needs to step in, and who should that someone be?

One of the troubles here is that everybody has their own ideas of what is "appropriate" when it comes to diet, exercise, education, religion, medicine, and so on. I have strong opinions on each of these. I will defer discussion of the details to some other thread.

Whatever the lines are, they should be clearly defined by the legislature. They should absolutely not be up to some unelected bureaucrat to decide one morning. That's the ultimate point which I wish to make.

 

[rambone]

Stopping abuse or enforcing cultural norms?

I can think of multiple things that would have been normal in my parents' generation that are now considered "neglect" -- without any changes in the law. Whether its related to discipline, medical decisions, or letting kids play outside, things have changed. Without fanfare, normal and loving parents became "unfit." How??

What is a "fit" parent, anyway? Is being a fit parent different on every continent? Why should it be? What if a parent wants to live humbly, as their relatives did in the old country? Is that wrong?

What if a parent wants to raise their family as they were raised, or as their ancestors before them? Why shouldn't a parent be allowed to live as people did in 1850, or 1950? What if a person wants to live the Indian or Amish life? Is that wrong?

This lifestyle might imply living without the latest drugs, gadgets, and conveniences. This might imply rejecting certain cultural and technological fads. This might imply living outside the mainstream. Is that wrong?

You see, in many cases, stopping instances of vaguely-defined "neglect" is really just a cover for enforcing cultural norms, rather than stopping physical abuse. Today in the USA, injecting poisonous chemo is the norm, so bureaucrats make it mandatory. If you explained this to someone from another country or another generation, they would think it sounded crazy. And it is, but that's the "norm" in our country. In the future, chemotherapy will be looked at as abusive and some new fad will be mandatory.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Whatever the lines are, they should be clearly defined by the legislature.

Everyday courts hear arguments as to CHINs, and intoxication and recklessness. How is CHINS case any different?

How would rambone the lawgiver re-write the definition of a CHINS?

What is a "fit" parent, anyway?

That's not the standard in CHINS but I understand the argument you are making.

You see, in many cases, stopping instances of vaguely-defined "neglect" is really just a cover for enforcing cultural norms, rather than stopping physical abuse.

Do you have an example in Indiana that you are referencing?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I tried to rep you. You kinda answered your own question, though.

So the answer I gave myself is that the system doesn't make sense, and I should just be OK with that? That's a problem, T. That's a big da*n problem.

In the offices of some of your fellow attorneys, I've seen the following poster:

While it is Biblical, the idea is central to the practice of law, and by extension, the making of law. Incidentally, the word that is translated above as "Justice" is "Tzedakah", which is often mistranslated as "charity", but is properly translated, "Righteousness".

If we are to pursue righteousness and justice, how can any of us be OK with a system that is admittedly not even close to that basic standard?

How can we begin to fix what is broken? What changes should be made to make the system just, righteous, and dare I suggest, fair?

Justice is supposed to be blind, but neither deaf, mute, nor bloody stupid. I want to see justice done, and with the years in the practice that you and Kirk and others have, I can't imagine I am anywhere close to alone. What steps need to be taken to ensure that people are not viewed as cattle (or chattel) to be managed, but as sentient individuals who deserve to be able to determine the course of their own lives and those of their children, for whom they are responsible?

Is it as simple as Rambone alluded? Is it only that the order of actions needs adjusted? Accusation, investigation, presentation of accusations, defense against them, and only then, acting? Is it that a family split apart should have all their expenses of defense paid when the charges against them are proven baseless? Is it that the person making the accusation is held personally responsible for the harm that those accusations cause, when "abuse" is not determined? Is it that government officials are stripped of their "limited immunity" when they are shown to be acting capriciously?

I don't want to see children beaten. I don't want to see anyone with maggots in various body parts. I don't want "parents" using their children as punching bags or as sources of cheap income. Conversely, I don't want to see people who are doing the right thing and raising kids correctly be demonized because they dare to spank, or see people who make a conscious, well-reasoned decision to disregard a doctor's advice for whatever reason they see fit, be disregarded or marginalized because they don't have as big a piece of sheepskin on the wall.

There has to be an answer that is not, "Suck it up, buttercup, that's the way it is, and it ain't changing."

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." -AuH2O

Blessings,
Bill

 

[T.Lex]

Whatever the lines are, they should be clearly defined by the legislature.

I'm surprised to hear you say that. The Indiana legislature defined marriage yet - and I may be misremembering - but you rejected that. I am even more surprised for the call for MORE legislation in this area. The CHINs process is pretty clear as it is.

Is it perfect? No, of course not. But, as with most of our system, it gets the answer "right" far more often than wrong. Even in the appellate case KF referenced, the goal of the CHINs proceeding was reunification, after taking appropriate steps to make sure it would be safe for the child.

So the answer I gave myself is that the system doesn't make sense, and I should just be OK with that?

Not all questions have good answers.

Each life is worth trying to save. But each living person gets a vote in whether the "save" is successful.

To twist the situation a bit, it comes back to my own thoughts on assisted suicide - but maybe that's better left to a different thread.

If we are to pursue righteousness and justice, how can any of us be OK with a system that is admittedly not even close to that basic standard?

I don't recall admitting that. Our system - in Indiana, as I have seen it both personally and professionally - is a basically fair system.

How can we begin to fix what is broken? What changes should be made to make the system just, righteous, and dare I suggest, fair?

It does not need to be broken to be improved. I don't hear anyone claiming that the system is sufficiently "good" to resist any improvements. We should always look to improve the System.

Is it as simple as Rambone alluded? Is it only that the order of actions needs adjusted? Accusation, investigation, presentation of accusations, defense against them, and only then, acting?

That is basically the way it works, in terms of any long-term gov't action. The problem is time. What to do with the children while you wait for the system? Leave them in neglect and squalor until the parent receives due process? In that time, the "problem" may fix itself with a brief stop at a child's funeral.

Setting aside the extreme example, the system DOES allow for placement of the children in the home of the other parent or family members or literally ANY place else that the court believes is safe.

Is it that a family split apart should have all their expenses of defense paid when the charges against them are proven baseless?

This might be hard to hear - but again, from my experience - none of the claims are "baseless."

Is it that the person making the accusation is held personally responsible for the harm that those accusations cause, when "abuse" is not determined? Is it that government officials are stripped of their "limited immunity" when they are shown to be acting capriciously?

Neglect can be dangerous without rising to "abuse" and perhaps we need to have clarity about what you consider enough neglect for gov't intervention. On the second part, while it is a difficult case to make, the immunity can be challenged.

 

[rambone]

Everyday courts hear arguments as to CHINs, and intoxication and recklessness. How is CHINS case any different?

How would rambone the lawgiver re-write the definition of a CHINS?

My objection is that law is too open ended in certain areas. And it contains premises I don't accept.

Indiana Code 31-34-1

A child is a child in need of services if before the child becomes eighteen (18) years of age:

-- "the child's physical or mental condition is seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the inability, refusal, or neglect of the child's parent, guardian, or custodian to supply the child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision" (IC 31-34-1-1)

-- "is deprived of medical or surgical intervention that is necessary to remedy or ameliorate a life threatening medical condition" (IC 31-34-1-9)
​

Pretty much all of the egregious medical interventions that I have highlighted over the years are legally possible in Indiana.

The language is broad enough to permit Cassandra C to be confiscated, along with Justina Pelletier, Isaiah Rider, Sarah Hershberger, and others when they objected to various medical treatments.

The language is broad enough that it would enable the SWAT standoff between Maryanne Godboldo when she refused to drug her daughter with anti-psychotropic meds.

The language is broad enough to permit families to be harassed if they let their kids play at the park for "too long."

The language is broad enough to permit mothers like Alorah Gellerson to be harassed for choosing goat's milk for her baby instead of doctor-recommended Corn Syrup formula.

The flawed premise is that the government's concept of what the child "needs" supersedes what the parent (and even the child) think about it. "Necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision" -- these are concepts that are open to interpretation allow bureaucrats' imaginations to run wild.

And besides the open ended law, there are not enough checks and balances. A jury should be involved before the family gets traumatized by state intervention.

Then there's the accountability deficiency. Overzealous bureaucrats are just as dangerous and problematic as overzealous cops when it comes to violating the rights of the innocent.

I'm surprised to hear you say that. The Indiana legislature defined marriage yet - and I may be misremembering - but you rejected that. I am even more surprised for the call for MORE legislation in this area. The CHINs process is pretty clear as it is.

That's a difficult analogy to make.

I have made the point that licensing is a racket and that people should not need paid permission from the government to get married. Marriage is a victimless, adult institution; child abuse isn't.

Certainly if the state is going to play any role in ANY area, I would want it clearly and narrowly defined.

 

[T.Lex]

Then there's accountability. Overzealous bureaucrats are just as dangerous and problematic as overzealous cops when it comes to violating the rights of the innocent.

So are overzealous juries. Taking your idea of (basically) a CHINS grand jury, a DCS attorney would present the evidence of neglect to a group of people to decide if the state needs to intervene. Let's assume the kids are temporarily placed in a safe environment (other family/foster care) for the couple weeks. Let's say the GJ needs to decide whether probable cause exists that:
-- the child's physical or mental condition is seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the inability, refusal, or neglect of the child's parent, guardian, or custodian to supply the child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision

-- the child is deprived of medical or surgical intervention that is necessary to remedy or ameliorate a life threatening medical condition

Piece. Of. Cake.

In fact, there would probably be more cases, IMHO, if the DCS attorney is forced to take every possible case to the GJ.

Plus, even if the family is later vindicated, it will still take a great deal of time.

 

[rambone]

So are overzealous juries. Taking your idea of (basically) a CHINS grand jury, a DCS attorney would present the evidence of neglect to a group of people to decide if the state needs to intervene. Let's assume the kids are temporarily placed in a safe environment (other family/foster care) for the couple weeks. Let's say the GJ needs to decide whether probable cause exists that:
-- the child's physical or mental condition is seriously impaired or seriously endangered as a result of the inability, refusal, or neglect of the child's parent, guardian, or custodian to supply the child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision

-- the child is deprived of medical or surgical intervention that is necessary to remedy or ameliorate a life threatening medical condition

Piece. Of. Cake.

Well, I did spend the majority of the post explaining why the law is too broad. So I think we agree that it is (currently) a piece of cake to intervene.

In fact, there would probably be more cases, IMHO, if the DCS attorney is forced to take every possible case to the GJ.

I don't think it should be mandatory for the case to move forward at all. The first prerogative and responsibility of the DCS attorney should be deciding if he should drop the case himself.

Moving forward to intervention, however, should be harder and require the consent of even more people.

Plus, even if the family is later vindicated, it will still take a great deal of time.

It seems that is already the case, no?

 

[T.Lex]

Well, I did spend the majority of the post explaining why the law is too broad. So I think we agree that it is (currently) a piece of cake to intervene.

It can be - when the situation deserves it. (Again, I'm limiting my comments at this point to my experience in Indiana.)

I don't think it should be mandatory for the case to move forward at all. The first prerogative and responsibility of the DCS attorney should be deciding if he should drop the case himself.

So, there is room for prosecutorial discretion. Ok.

Moving forward to intervention, however, should be harder and require the consent of even more people.

But - and maybe this is the hangup - temporary "intervention" happens immediately, out of need. Once the system is alerted to a problem and the case worker believes the child is in need, SOMETHING has to happen to change this situation for the child's benefit.

If we're talking about the longer term intervention, or the requirements for the state to un-intervene, then that's addressed by the CHINS judge.

It seems that is already the case, no?

I'm generally not opposed to more jury involvement. I just don't see it as a panacea. It creates different issues - maybe better, maybe worse.

One thing that should be mentioned is that the professionals who do this - the judges, the attorneys, the social workers, etc. - know what resources are available for people in need, both parents and children. My concern with getting too much "civilian" involvement is that the normal people involved will react emotionally, without truly understanding what resources are out there.