Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again, because you are looking for a different story. The point of the story, the articles, and my post were not the failings of the fostercare/Social Services systems - which might make for an excellent topic; you should consider starting one. It was about the injustice of taking a perfectly healthy kid out of a loving environment over fucking pot!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 question itself was presumptive. "Do you still beat your wife?" Just a question - but a presumptive one.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?
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?
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?
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...The mother had seizure problems. You left that out.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 question itself was presumptive. "Do you still beat your wife?" Just a question - but a presumptive one.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?
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?
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!!!!!That's. Kindof. The point. Now, isn't it?!?!?!?!So why did they put the kid in foster care then???
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.
The evidence so far is that there was no custody dispute. Social services was already investigating them for other reasons
It isn't about me. I don't set the Texas policy, I challenged the story that the kid was taken due to pot use. Turns out there was more to the story so don't try to pin your failure on me.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...The mother had seizure problems. You left that out.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 question itself was presumptive. "Do you still beat your wife?" Just a question - but a presumptive one.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?
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?
Who cares? Different story. By all means, go investigate that, and start your own thread.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...The mother had seizure problems. You left that out.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 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?
It goes to the question of whether the father is capable of caring for the kid if he can't leave it alone with the mother. And it doesn't answer at all why if someone called social services in a custody dispute whey they didn't get custody since they removed the child
Again, because you are looking folr a different story. The point of the story, the articles, and my post were not the failings of the fostercare/Social Sevices systems - which might make for an excellent topic; you should consider starting one. It was about the injustice of taking a perfectly healthy kid out of a loving environment over fucking pot!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 question itself was presumptive. "Do you still beat your wife?" Just a question - but a presumptive one.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?
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?
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?
The "more to the story" is irrelevant. I promise you no state takes a kid out of a home because a parent "has seizures". They would be taken to court so fast, they wouldn't know what to do.re
It isn't about me. I don't set the Texas policy, I challenged the story that the kid was taken due to pot use. Turns out there was more to the story so don't try to pin your failure on me.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...The mother had seizure problems. You left that out.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 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?
The seizures were part of the reasoning stated so you lied.The "more to the story" is irrelevant. I promise you no state takes a kid out of a home because a parent "has seizures". They would be taken to court so fast, they wouldn't know what to do.re
It isn't about me. I don't set the Texas policy, I challenged the story that the kid was taken due to pot use. Turns out there was more to the story so don't try to pin your failure on me.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...The mother had seizure problems. You left that out.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!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?
Who cares? Different story. By all means, go investigate that, and start your own thread.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...The mother had seizure problems. You left that out.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!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?
It goes to the question of whether the father is capable of caring for the kid if he can't leave it alone with the mother. And it doesn't answer at all why if someone called social services in a custody dispute whey they didn't get custody since they removed the child
What was the story about?Again, because you are looking folr a different story. The point of the story, the articles, and my post were not the failings of the fostercare/Social Sevices systems - which might make for an excellent topic; you should consider starting one. It was about the injustice of taking a perfectly healthy kid out of a loving environment over fucking pot!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 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?
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?
No, I'm pointing out it directly undercuts the credibility of the story. If social services went into it because of a custody dispute, what happened to whoever wanted custody? Where were they in the rest of the story?
Really? people who smoke pot are incapable of holding a job? Just because CPS says the child couldn't be left in the mother's care, doesn't make it so. Not solely because of seizures anyway. As I said, I think epileptics everywhere would dispute that claim. So, the seizures are irrelevant.There appears to be no custody dispute. They seem to have a big pot problem since social services found out about it. The father likely couldn't care for the child without leaving it with the mother. how does he work?
Why? What was the topic of the story?The story is full of large, gaping holes.
The "more to the story" is irrelevant. I promise you no state takes a kid out of a home because a parent "has seizures". They would be taken to court so fast, they wouldn't know what to do.re
It isn't about me. I don't set the Texas policy, I challenged the story that the kid was taken due to pot use. Turns out there was more to the story so don't try to pin your failure on me.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...The mother had seizure problems. You left that out.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!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?
You are so full of shit. You're the one who dishonestly wants to focus on Part. Of the issue, as if it were the sole reason for the removal of the kid. Keep trying.The seizures were part of the reasoning stated so you lied.The "more to the story" is irrelevant. I promise you no state takes a kid out of a home because a parent "has seizures". They would be taken to court so fast, they wouldn't know what to do.re
It isn't about me. I don't set the Texas policy, I challenged the story that the kid was taken due to pot use. Turns out there was more to the story so don't try to pin your failure on me.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...The mother had seizure problems. You left that out.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!
What was the story about?Again, because you are looking folr a different story. The point of the story, the articles, and my post were not the failings of the fostercare/Social Sevices systems - which might make for an excellent topic; you should consider starting one. It was about the injustice of taking a perfectly healthy kid out of a loving environment over fucking pot!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!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?
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?
No, I'm pointing out it directly undercuts the credibility of the story. If social services went into it because of a custody dispute, what happened to whoever wanted custody? Where were they in the rest of the story?
Really? people who smoke pot are incapable of holding a job? Just because CPS says the child couldn't be left in the mother's care, doesn't make it so. Not because of seizures anyway. As I said, I think epileptics everyone would dispute that claim. So, the seizures are irrelevant.There appears to be no custody dispute. They seem to have a big pot problem since social services found out about it. The father likely couldn't care for the child without leaving it with the mother. how does he work?
The story is full of large, gaping holes.Why? What was the topic of the story?
You are so full of shit. You're the one who dishonestly wants to focus on Part. Of the issue, as if it were the sole reason for the removal of the kid. Keep trying.The seizures were part of the reasoning stated so you lied.The "more to the story" is irrelevant. I promise you no state takes a kid out of a home because a parent "has seizures". They would be taken to court so fast, they wouldn't know what to do.re
It isn't about me. I don't set the Texas policy, I challenged the story that the kid was taken due to pot use. Turns out there was more to the story so don't try to pin your failure on me.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...The mother had seizure problems. You left that out.
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!!!!!That's. Kindof. The point. Now, isn't it?!?!?!?!So why did they put the kid in foster care then???
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.
The evidence so far is that there was no custody dispute. Social services was already investigating them for other reasons
Who cares?
Except you're "disputing the credibility" of the story by demanding that the story investigate shit that had nothing to do with the story. It's absurd. It's rather like expecting a story about the decline of oranges in the last quarter, to explain why banana sales went up. Who cares?!?! It's not part of the story!Who cares? Different story. By all means, go investigate that, and start your own thread.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...The mother had seizure problems. You left that out.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!
It goes to the question of whether the father is capable of caring for the kid if he can't leave it alone with the mother. And it doesn't answer at all why if someone called social services in a custody dispute whey they didn't get custody since they removed the child
Why? There is no rule against disputing the credibility of your OP. You may want to do some investigation on how message boards work.
Why? That statement assumes that the reason they were there was valid. I have already demonbstrated that this is not necessarily true. So, other than your own morbid curiosity, what bearing does the reason for their investigation have on the topic at hand?Why social services was there in the first place and how they found out about the pot are big questions crucial to the claim the kid was removed for pot and only pot
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.
Nothing indicates that. The best you can say is that there were other possible mitigating circumstances. However, there is nothing to refute the claim that the pot smoking was, at least, a part of the problem.That's hilarious. Not only are you not willing to consider why the article doesn't explain basic information about the case, but you are starting to reject whatever is inconvenient to your argument that they do say. Classic.
And the OP is about how the child was removed for pot use by the parents which I am challenging, that seems to be completely not so. There is more to the story. We don't know what, they don't tell us
Except you're "disputing the credibility" of the story by demanding that the story investigate shit that had nothing to do with the story. It's absurd. It's rather like expecting a story about the decline of oranges in the last quarter, to explain why banana sales went up. Who cares?!?! It's not part of the story!Who cares? Different story. By all means, go investigate that, and start your own thread.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...The mother had seizure problems. You left that out.
It goes to the question of whether the father is capable of caring for the kid if he can't leave it alone with the mother. And it doesn't answer at all why if someone called social services in a custody dispute whey they didn't get custody since they removed the child
Why? There is no rule against disputing the credibility of your OP. You may want to do some investigation on how message boards work.
Why? That statement assumes that the reason they were there was valid. I have already demonbstrated that this is not necessarily true. So, other than your own morbid curiosity, what bearing does the reason for their investigation have on the topic at hand?Why social services was there in the first place and how they found out about the pot are big questions crucial to the claim the kid was removed for pot and only pot
Nothing indicates that. The best you can say is that there were other possible mitigating circumstances. However, there is nothing to refute the claim that the pot smoking was, at least, a part of the problem.That's hilarious. Not only are you not willing to consider why the article doesn't explain basic information about the case, but you are starting to reject whatever is inconvenient to your argument that they do say. Classic.
And the OP is about how the child was removed for pot use by the parents which I am challenging, that seems to be completely not so. There is more to the story. We don't know what, they don't tell us
