The tragedy of Alexandria Hill

[Czernobog]

So why did they put the kid in foster care then???

That's. Kindof. The point. Now, isn't it?!?!?!?!

 

[kaz]

Isn't it early to be smoking pot already?

Typical wingnut, proven wrong fails to save face.

We'll have to wait to find out if that's true until you prove me wrong.

Again, read the title of the article above. How did SOCIAL SERVICES discover the POT USE in the first place? Why were they being investigated? There was already an issue, duh. So it wasn't just the pot. You really are stupid

Okay, first of all, your assumption is incorrect. If you call Social Services claiming that I am beating my kid with a barbwire whip. Guess what? They're going to investigate. Now, while they find that, clearly, the original complaint was false, in the course of their investigation they find that I do, on the other hand, smoke pot. Looky there. They discovered that I smoke pot, and I wasn't even doing anything else wrong...

You just assume that if CPS is investigating, then the person being investigated must be guilty of what they are investigating. You get that isn't how it works, right?

I didn't assume any of that. Asking questions isn't making an assumption, quite the reverse. Why are you so defensive about being asked questions about a vague story.

So who called social services and why? Saying they would investigate any claim does not mean we don't even need to know why they got involved

If it was someone trying to get custody and called in a complaint, then why didn't they get custody? Why was the girl put in foster care?

The question itself was presumptive. "Do you still beat your wife?" Just a question - but a presumptive one.

What is presumptive about asking who called social services in the first place and why? That's just stupid. And how did social services find out they were smoking pot around the kid? Were they doing it in the open in front of them?

 

[Iceweasel]

Whoa, social services discovered them smoking pot? That means they were already being investigated for their care of the child. That means it wasn't just about the pot

I think it's time for you to fuck off and go some place else. You doubted the story, made a big stink about and and now without the remotest notion of humility you want to argue the facts of the story. You were wrong, kind of a dick about too.

Post the facts instead of slinging your dirty diaper around.

I did, I provided credible links that demonstrated this isn't a made up story. I have no idea what facts you presented here, apparently none, hypocrite.

You stupidly and lazily threw some quickie links like we are supposed to spend the time reading them, you posted no content. Then double downed on your stupidity and posted a story on foster care instead.

Links that you insinuated that you read and actually didn't? Those links? I posted the links quickly to demonstrate that credible news sources did have info on this. Job done. Now you want to argue what the facts are while pretending to read the links which you didn't. How is this not your problem?

No, retard. You don't get to change my words. I said to post the content, I didn't say I read your links, you lazy lying asshole. THEN you content proves you are wrong! Her seizures were part of the problem.

LOL

 

[Iceweasel]

The Dallas Morning News

Toddler’s death raises questions about how Texas contractor screens, trains foster parents

Do you know how to post content? Where does it explain the reasons the child was put into foster care?

On Nov. 27, CPS filed an affidavit saying that she and Hill have “limited parenting skills.” Because of allegations of frequent marijuana use and Sweeney’s seizure disorders, Alex needed to be removed, caseworker Trina Fowler wrote.

I know how to post, can you fucking read?

How about you, you puffed up sack of puss? It says her seizures were part of the problem.

Fail.

Yes, part of the problem. If the guys wasn't smoking pot it appears they wouldn't have taken Alexandria away due to her seizures.

Where does it say that?

 

[HappyJoy]

The Dallas Morning News

Toddler’s death raises questions about how Texas contractor screens, trains foster parents

Do you know how to post content? Where does it explain the reasons the child was put into foster care?

On Nov. 27, CPS filed an affidavit saying that she and Hill have “limited parenting skills.” Because of allegations of frequent marijuana use and Sweeney’s seizure disorders, Alex needed to be removed, caseworker Trina Fowler wrote.

I know how to post, can you fucking read?

How about you, you puffed up sack of puss? It says her seizures were part of the problem.

Fail.

Yes, part of the problem. If the guys wasn't smoking pot it appears they wouldn't have taken Alexandria away due to her seizures.

The operative word there being "appears," you are believing insinuation without any corroboration

I haven't stated what I believe. I do believe that the father smoking pot was a part if not central reason to the kid being taken away. CPS in Texas even stated so, derp.

 

[kaz]

So why did they put the kid in foster care then???

That's. Kindof. The point. Now, isn't it?!?!?!?!

Yes, it's the point you aren't grasping.

If the fathers mother wanted custody. Seriously, social services goes and sees pot paraphernalia and/or pot in the open and removes the kid. Then they take the kid and put it in two different foster homes over a period of time without giving the kid to the fathers mother who wants it?

The articles don't address that, so why didn't they give the kid to her? They are focused on the pot.

 

[HappyJoy]

I think it's time for you to fuck off and go some place else. You doubted the story, made a big stink about and and now without the remotest notion of humility you want to argue the facts of the story. You were wrong, kind of a dick about too.

Post the facts instead of slinging your dirty diaper around.

I did, I provided credible links that demonstrated this isn't a made up story. I have no idea what facts you presented here, apparently none, hypocrite.

You stupidly and lazily threw some quickie links like we are supposed to spend the time reading them, you posted no content. Then double downed on your stupidity and posted a story on foster care instead.

Links that you insinuated that you read and actually didn't? Those links? I posted the links quickly to demonstrate that credible news sources did have info on this. Job done. Now you want to argue what the facts are while pretending to read the links which you didn't. How is this not your problem?

No, retard. You don't get to change my words. I said to post the content, I didn't say I read your links, you lazy lying asshole. THEN you content proves you are wrong! Her seizures were part of the problem.

LOL

Silly me, I gave you too much credit for actually reading the link before you chose to comment on it. I hear retards don't read so well so maybe you should be careful when throwing that word around.

 

[Seawytch]

At least one report claims the father's pot use was so bad he almost dropped the girl down a flight of stairs.

Tragic that this girl was never going to have a chance.

Sorry, I call bullshit...and not just because "tipsy" didn't provide a link to this "one report".

 

[kaz]

Do you know how to post content? Where does it explain the reasons the child was put into foster care?

On Nov. 27, CPS filed an affidavit saying that she and Hill have “limited parenting skills.” Because of allegations of frequent marijuana use and Sweeney’s seizure disorders, Alex needed to be removed, caseworker Trina Fowler wrote.

I know how to post, can you fucking read?

How about you, you puffed up sack of puss? It says her seizures were part of the problem.

Fail.

Yes, part of the problem. If the guys wasn't smoking pot it appears they wouldn't have taken Alexandria away due to her seizures.

The operative word there being "appears," you are believing insinuation without any corroboration

I haven't stated what I believe. I do believe that the father smoking pot was a part if not central reason to the kid being taken away. CPS in Texas even stated so, derp.

Exactly, you "believe" and I am asking questions you can't answer while you say I can't read, but you don't know the answer ...

 

[kaz]

Post the facts instead of slinging your dirty diaper around.

I did, I provided credible links that demonstrated this isn't a made up story. I have no idea what facts you presented here, apparently none, hypocrite.

You stupidly and lazily threw some quickie links like we are supposed to spend the time reading them, you posted no content. Then double downed on your stupidity and posted a story on foster care instead.

Links that you insinuated that you read and actually didn't? Those links? I posted the links quickly to demonstrate that credible news sources did have info on this. Job done. Now you want to argue what the facts are while pretending to read the links which you didn't. How is this not your problem?

No, retard. You don't get to change my words. I said to post the content, I didn't say I read your links, you lazy lying asshole. THEN you content proves you are wrong! Her seizures were part of the problem.

LOL

Silly me, I gave you too much credit for actually reading the link before you chose to comment on it. I hear retards don't read so well so maybe you should be careful when throwing that word around.

If we don't know the answer to the questions I'm asking you because we don't read the links, why don't you know the answers either when you did read the links?

 

[Czernobog]

Typical wingnut, proven wrong fails to save face.

We'll have to wait to find out if that's true until you prove me wrong.

Again, read the title of the article above. How did SOCIAL SERVICES discover the POT USE in the first place? Why were they being investigated? There was already an issue, duh. So it wasn't just the pot. You really are stupid

Okay, first of all, your assumption is incorrect. If you call Social Services claiming that I am beating my kid with a barbwire whip. Guess what? They're going to investigate. Now, while they find that, clearly, the original complaint was false, in the course of their investigation they find that I do, on the other hand, smoke pot. Looky there. They discovered that I smoke pot, and I wasn't even doing anything else wrong...

You just assume that if CPS is investigating, then the person being investigated must be guilty of what they are investigating. You get that isn't how it works, right?

I didn't assume any of that. Asking questions isn't making an assumption, quite the reverse. Why are you so defensive about being asked questions about a vague story.

So who called social services and why? Saying they would investigate any claim does not mean we don't even need to know why they got involved

If it was someone trying to get custody and called in a complaint, then why didn't they get custody? Why was the girl put in foster care?

The question itself was presumptive. "Do you still beat your wife?" Just a question - but a presumptive one.

What is presumptive about asking who called social services in the first place and why? That's just stupid. And how did social services find out they were smoking pot around the kid? Were they doing it in the open in front of them?

Except you didn't just ask that. You followed that up with the declarative "There was already an issue, duh.", which presumes that whatever brought CPS there was, in fact, a problem. Again, presumptive. I'm calling CPS to tell them you are ass-raping your three-year-old. Now, are they going to investigate? Of course they are. Does that mean there's "an issue"? Fuck no! It means I'm a cruel fuck who hoped to get CPS over to your house,. so they could find something - I don't care what - that would justify them taking your kids. And, guess what? They discovered you smoke pot. Woohoo! Mission accomplished! And no "issue" was necessary; just me being cruel, and making shit up to get CPS into your house.

 

[Unkotare]

Bullshit, unsubstantiated, empty partisanship, whining pot-head troll thread.

 

[Iceweasel]

We'll have to wait to find out if that's true until you prove me wrong.

Again, read the title of the article above. How did SOCIAL SERVICES discover the POT USE in the first place? Why were they being investigated? There was already an issue, duh. So it wasn't just the pot. You really are stupid

Okay, first of all, your assumption is incorrect. If you call Social Services claiming that I am beating my kid with a barbwire whip. Guess what? They're going to investigate. Now, while they find that, clearly, the original complaint was false, in the course of their investigation they find that I do, on the other hand, smoke pot. Looky there. They discovered that I smoke pot, and I wasn't even doing anything else wrong...

You just assume that if CPS is investigating, then the person being investigated must be guilty of what they are investigating. You get that isn't how it works, right?

I didn't assume any of that. Asking questions isn't making an assumption, quite the reverse. Why are you so defensive about being asked questions about a vague story.

So who called social services and why? Saying they would investigate any claim does not mean we don't even need to know why they got involved

If it was someone trying to get custody and called in a complaint, then why didn't they get custody? Why was the girl put in foster care?

The question itself was presumptive. "Do you still beat your wife?" Just a question - but a presumptive one.

What is presumptive about asking who called social services in the first place and why? That's just stupid. And how did social services find out they were smoking pot around the kid? Were they doing it in the open in front of them?

Except you didn't just ask that. You followed that up with the declarative "There was already an issue, duh.", which presumes that whatever brought CPS there was, in fact, a problem. Again, presumptive. I'm calling CPS to tell them you are ass-raping your three-year-old. Now, are they going to investigate? Of course they are. Does that mean there's "an issue"? Fuck no! It means I'm a cruel fuck who hoped to get CPS over to your house,. so they could find something - I don't care what - that would justify them taking your kids. And, guess what? They discovered you smoke pot. Woohoo! Mission accomplished!

The mother had seizure problems. You left that out.

 

[kaz]

We'll have to wait to find out if that's true until you prove me wrong.

Again, read the title of the article above. How did SOCIAL SERVICES discover the POT USE in the first place? Why were they being investigated? There was already an issue, duh. So it wasn't just the pot. You really are stupid

Okay, first of all, your assumption is incorrect. If you call Social Services claiming that I am beating my kid with a barbwire whip. Guess what? They're going to investigate. Now, while they find that, clearly, the original complaint was false, in the course of their investigation they find that I do, on the other hand, smoke pot. Looky there. They discovered that I smoke pot, and I wasn't even doing anything else wrong...

You just assume that if CPS is investigating, then the person being investigated must be guilty of what they are investigating. You get that isn't how it works, right?

I didn't assume any of that. Asking questions isn't making an assumption, quite the reverse. Why are you so defensive about being asked questions about a vague story.

So who called social services and why? Saying they would investigate any claim does not mean we don't even need to know why they got involved

If it was someone trying to get custody and called in a complaint, then why didn't they get custody? Why was the girl put in foster care?

The question itself was presumptive. "Do you still beat your wife?" Just a question - but a presumptive one.

What is presumptive about asking who called social services in the first place and why? That's just stupid. And how did social services find out they were smoking pot around the kid? Were they doing it in the open in front of them?

Except you didn't just ask that. You followed that up with the declarative "There was already an issue, duh.", which presumes that whatever brought CPS there was, in fact, a problem. Again, presumptive. I'm calling CPS to tell them you are ass-raping your three-year-old. Now, are they going to investigate? Of course they are. Does that mean there's "an issue"? Fuck no! It means I'm a cruel fuck who hoped to get CPS over to your house,. so they could find something - I don't care what - that would justify them taking your kids. And, guess what? They discovered you smoke pot. Woohoo! Mission accomplished!

Yet even for the moment allowing your assumption it was someone calling in a baseless claim over custody dispute, you still can't say who this custody fight was with, how social services found out about the pot or why they didn't give the kid to the ones who apparently scored by sending social services to investigate the parents on a baseless claim. Where were they in the year or so the kid was in two foster homes?

 

[HappyJoy]

I did, I provided credible links that demonstrated this isn't a made up story. I have no idea what facts you presented here, apparently none, hypocrite.

You stupidly and lazily threw some quickie links like we are supposed to spend the time reading them, you posted no content. Then double downed on your stupidity and posted a story on foster care instead.

Links that you insinuated that you read and actually didn't? Those links? I posted the links quickly to demonstrate that credible news sources did have info on this. Job done. Now you want to argue what the facts are while pretending to read the links which you didn't. How is this not your problem?

No, retard. You don't get to change my words. I said to post the content, I didn't say I read your links, you lazy lying asshole. THEN you content proves you are wrong! Her seizures were part of the problem.

LOL

Silly me, I gave you too much credit for actually reading the link before you chose to comment on it. I hear retards don't read so well so maybe you should be careful when throwing that word around.

If we don't know the answer to the questions I'm asking you because we don't read the links, why don't you know the answers either when you did read the links?

I'm really not sure why you are here as you doubted the story to begin with.. So, first step for you is to admit you were wrong.

As for what happened. Pot was absolutely a part of this, CPS even said so in it's report. There are other circumstances as well, nobody has said otherwise.

 

[Czernobog]

So why did they put the kid in foster care then???

That's. Kindof. The point. Now, isn't it?!?!?!?!

Yes, it's the point you aren't grasping.

If the fathers mother wanted custody. Seriously, social services goes and sees pot paraphernalia and/or pot in the open and removes the kid. Then they take the kid and put it in two different foster homes over a period of time without giving the kid to the fathers mother who wants it?

The articles don't address that, so why didn't they give the kid to her? They are focused on the pot.

That's because the articles weren't about the failings of the fostercare system, numbnuts! It was about the injustice of taking the kids out of the home over pot! For fuck's sake!!!!!

 

[kaz]

You stupidly and lazily threw some quickie links like we are supposed to spend the time reading them, you posted no content. Then double downed on your stupidity and posted a story on foster care instead.

Links that you insinuated that you read and actually didn't? Those links? I posted the links quickly to demonstrate that credible news sources did have info on this. Job done. Now you want to argue what the facts are while pretending to read the links which you didn't. How is this not your problem?

No, retard. You don't get to change my words. I said to post the content, I didn't say I read your links, you lazy lying asshole. THEN you content proves you are wrong! Her seizures were part of the problem.

LOL

Silly me, I gave you too much credit for actually reading the link before you chose to comment on it. I hear retards don't read so well so maybe you should be careful when throwing that word around.

If we don't know the answer to the questions I'm asking you because we don't read the links, why don't you know the answers either when you did read the links?

I'm really not sure why you are here as you doubted the story to begin with.. So, first step for you is to admit you were wrong.

As for what happened. Pot was absolutely a part of this, CPS even said so in it's report. There are other circumstances as well, nobody has said otherwise.

You want me to admit I was wrong and that I do believe a story that I'm arguing is wrong ...

 

[kaz]

So why did they put the kid in foster care then???

That's. Kindof. The point. Now, isn't it?!?!?!?!

Yes, it's the point you aren't grasping.

If the fathers mother wanted custody. Seriously, social services goes and sees pot paraphernalia and/or pot in the open and removes the kid. Then they take the kid and put it in two different foster homes over a period of time without giving the kid to the fathers mother who wants it?

The articles don't address that, so why didn't they give the kid to her? They are focused on the pot.

That's because the articles weren't about the failings of the fostercare system, numbnuts! It was about the injustice of taking the kids out of the home over pot! For fuck's sake!!!!!

The evidence so far is that there was no custody dispute. Social services was already investigating them for other reasons

 

[Czernobog]

Okay, first of all, your assumption is incorrect. If you call Social Services claiming that I am beating my kid with a barbwire whip. Guess what? They're going to investigate. Now, while they find that, clearly, the original complaint was false, in the course of their investigation they find that I do, on the other hand, smoke pot. Looky there. They discovered that I smoke pot, and I wasn't even doing anything else wrong...

You just assume that if CPS is investigating, then the person being investigated must be guilty of what they are investigating. You get that isn't how it works, right?

I didn't assume any of that. Asking questions isn't making an assumption, quite the reverse. Why are you so defensive about being asked questions about a vague story.

So who called social services and why? Saying they would investigate any claim does not mean we don't even need to know why they got involved

If it was someone trying to get custody and called in a complaint, then why didn't they get custody? Why was the girl put in foster care?

The question itself was presumptive. "Do you still beat your wife?" Just a question - but a presumptive one.

What is presumptive about asking who called social services in the first place and why? That's just stupid. And how did social services find out they were smoking pot around the kid? Were they doing it in the open in front of them?

Except you didn't just ask that. You followed that up with the declarative "There was already an issue, duh.", which presumes that whatever brought CPS there was, in fact, a problem. Again, presumptive. I'm calling CPS to tell them you are ass-raping your three-year-old. Now, are they going to investigate? Of course they are. Does that mean there's "an issue"? Fuck no! It means I'm a cruel fuck who hoped to get CPS over to your house,. so they could find something - I don't care what - that would justify them taking your kids. And, guess what? They discovered you smoke pot. Woohoo! Mission accomplished!

The mother had seizure problems. You left that out.

So, anyone who has seizures is unfit to be a parent? After all, you're suggesting that was the issue, and the pot smoking had no part. I'm sure Epileptics around the nation will be happy to hear you suggest that...

 

[HappyJoy]

Links that you insinuated that you read and actually didn't? Those links? I posted the links quickly to demonstrate that credible news sources did have info on this. Job done. Now you want to argue what the facts are while pretending to read the links which you didn't. How is this not your problem?

No, retard. You don't get to change my words. I said to post the content, I didn't say I read your links, you lazy lying asshole. THEN you content proves you are wrong! Her seizures were part of the problem.

LOL

Silly me, I gave you too much credit for actually reading the link before you chose to comment on it. I hear retards don't read so well so maybe you should be careful when throwing that word around.

If we don't know the answer to the questions I'm asking you because we don't read the links, why don't you know the answers either when you did read the links?

I'm really not sure why you are here as you doubted the story to begin with.. So, first step for you is to admit you were wrong.

As for what happened. Pot was absolutely a part of this, CPS even said so in it's report. There are other circumstances as well, nobody has said otherwise.

You want me to admit I was wrong and that I do believe a story that I'm arguing is wrong ...

I seriously doubt that's a true story

That was your first reply. It is a true story, the facts can be debated but a 2 year old girl was taken from her home, in part due to the parents use of pot and she was murdered by her foster mother.