The tragedy of Alexandria Hill

[Czernobog]

re

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...

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.

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.

The seizures were part of the reasoning stated so you lied.

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.

Um ... that's what you are doing with pot. You're saying it was pot, period, and you reject anything that doesn't support that assumption when it clearly seems to be wrong

Okay. Let's grant your version. Why should the pot smoking even be considered? That was rather the point of my OP. As evidenced by epileptic parents everywhere, it is a relatively safe assumption that the seizures, alone, would not have been sufficient to remove the child from the parental care. Thus, removing the pot usage from the equation would have, likely, resulted in an entirely different conclusion.

So, we're back to my OP: why should pot use even be a consideration?

 

[kaz]

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

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.

OK, then we're done. I was not refuting that pot was "part" of the problem, I was disputing your claim it was the sole reason they took the kid. I want drugs to be legal, but pot is illegal and the parents were committing a crime, that is certainly a factor

 

[kaz]

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.

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.

The seizures were part of the reasoning stated so you lied.

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.

Um ... that's what you are doing with pot. You're saying it was pot, period, and you reject anything that doesn't support that assumption when it clearly seems to be wrong

Okay. Let's grant your version. Why should the pot smoking even be considered? That was rather the point of my OP. As evidenced by epileptic parents everywhere, it is a relatively safe assumption that the seizures, alone, would not have been sufficient to remove the child from the parental care. Thus, removing the pot usage from the equation would have, likely, resulted in an entirely different conclusion.

So, we're back to my OP: why should pot use even be a consideration?

Because pot is illegal and if parents are committing a crime that is certainly a factor. You need to change the law, not demand social services ignore them. And I'm with you on changing the law

 

[Czernobog]

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

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.

OK, then we're done. I was not refuting that pot was "part" of the problem, I was disputing your claim it was the sole reason they took the kid. I want drugs to be legal, but it is illegal and it's not social services job to decide what laws to enforce and what to ignore

Bullshit. Social Services does not take kids out of a home because the parents are breaking the law. I never wear my seat belt. Ergo, I'm breaking the law. Are you seriously suggesting that Social Services could, and would, reasonably remove my children from my care over my refusal to wear a seat belt?!?! If not, then the legality of pot smoking is irrelevant.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

The seizures were part of the reasoning stated so you lied.

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.

Um ... that's what you are doing with pot. You're saying it was pot, period, and you reject anything that doesn't support that assumption when it clearly seems to be wrong

Okay. Let's grant your version. Why should the pot smoking even be considered? That was rather the point of my OP. As evidenced by epileptic parents everywhere, it is a relatively safe assumption that the seizures, alone, would not have been sufficient to remove the child from the parental care. Thus, removing the pot usage from the equation would have, likely, resulted in an entirely different conclusion.

So, we're back to my OP: why should pot use even be a consideration?

Because pot is illegal and if parents are committing a crime that is certainly a factor. You need to change the law, not demand social services ignore them. And I'm with you on changing the law

Bullshit. Refer to my previous post.

 

[kaz]

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

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.

OK, then we're done. I was not refuting that pot was "part" of the problem, I was disputing your claim it was the sole reason they took the kid. I want drugs to be legal, but it is illegal and it's not social services job to decide what laws to enforce and what to ignore

Bullshit. Social Services does not take kids out of a home because the parents are breaking the law. I never wear my seat belt. Ergo, I'm breaking the law. Are you seriously suggesting that Social Services could, and would, reasonably remove my children from my care over my refusal to wear a seat belt?!?! If not, then the legality of pot smoking is irrelevant.

What part of "factor" do you not understand? Another stupid liberal who has to take every point to a ridiculous extreme. Hyperbole is such a terrible argument. But sure, not wearing your seat belt is a "factor."

 

[kaz]

The seizures were part of the reasoning stated so you lied.

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.

Um ... that's what you are doing with pot. You're saying it was pot, period, and you reject anything that doesn't support that assumption when it clearly seems to be wrong

Okay. Let's grant your version. Why should the pot smoking even be considered? That was rather the point of my OP. As evidenced by epileptic parents everywhere, it is a relatively safe assumption that the seizures, alone, would not have been sufficient to remove the child from the parental care. Thus, removing the pot usage from the equation would have, likely, resulted in an entirely different conclusion.

So, we're back to my OP: why should pot use even be a consideration?

Because pot is illegal and if parents are committing a crime that is certainly a factor. You need to change the law, not demand social services ignore them. And I'm with you on changing the law

Bullshit. Refer to my previous post.

Your hyperbole was a terrible argument. Committing a crime and smoking pot is a factor! That means you demand a camera be put in every parent's car and they take kids away for not wearing a seat belt!

 

[Czernobog]

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

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.

OK, then we're done. I was not refuting that pot was "part" of the problem, I was disputing your claim it was the sole reason they took the kid. I want drugs to be legal, but it is illegal and it's not social services job to decide what laws to enforce and what to ignore

Bullshit. Social Services does not take kids out of a home because the parents are breaking the law. I never wear my seat belt. Ergo, I'm breaking the law. Are you seriously suggesting that Social Services could, and would, reasonably remove my children from my care over my refusal to wear a seat belt?!?! If not, then the legality of pot smoking is irrelevant.

What part of "factor" do you not understand? Another stupid liberal who has to take every point to a ridiculous extreme. Hyperbole is such a terrible argument. But sure, not wearing your seat belt is a "factor."

Oh, bullshit. No Social Services agent anywhere, would ever consider my wearing a seat belt, or not, when considering removing my kids from my custody, and you know it!

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Unkotare]

Irrational pot-head troll thread.

 

[kaz]

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

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.

OK, then we're done. I was not refuting that pot was "part" of the problem, I was disputing your claim it was the sole reason they took the kid. I want drugs to be legal, but it is illegal and it's not social services job to decide what laws to enforce and what to ignore

Bullshit. Social Services does not take kids out of a home because the parents are breaking the law. I never wear my seat belt. Ergo, I'm breaking the law. Are you seriously suggesting that Social Services could, and would, reasonably remove my children from my care over my refusal to wear a seat belt?!?! If not, then the legality of pot smoking is irrelevant.

What part of "factor" do you not understand? Another stupid liberal who has to take every point to a ridiculous extreme. Hyperbole is such a terrible argument. But sure, not wearing your seat belt is a "factor."

Oh, bullshit. No Social Services agent anywhere, would ever consider my wearing a seat belt, or not, when considering removing my kids from my custody, and you know it!

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, because from a crime standpoint comparing smoking pot to wearing a seat belt is a stupid comparison. You can't get arrested for not wearing a seat belt. You get nothing on your record other than your driving record. It was a stupid argument

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Um ... that's what you are doing with pot. You're saying it was pot, period, and you reject anything that doesn't support that assumption when it clearly seems to be wrong

Okay. Let's grant your version. Why should the pot smoking even be considered? That was rather the point of my OP. As evidenced by epileptic parents everywhere, it is a relatively safe assumption that the seizures, alone, would not have been sufficient to remove the child from the parental care. Thus, removing the pot usage from the equation would have, likely, resulted in an entirely different conclusion.

So, we're back to my OP: why should pot use even be a consideration?

Because pot is illegal and if parents are committing a crime that is certainly a factor. You need to change the law, not demand social services ignore them. And I'm with you on changing the law

Bullshit. Refer to my previous post.

Your hyperbole was a terrible argument. Committing a crime and smoking pot is a factor! That means you demand a camera be put in every parent's car and they take kids away for not wearing a seat belt!

No, it means the legality of the behaviour is not a factor, and you know it!

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[kaz]

Irrational pot-head troll thread.

I support the legalization of pot and other drugs because I don't consider it the role of government to decide what we do with our bodies, not because I don't think people who smoke it aren't stupid. But stupidity shouldn't be a crime.

In Czernobog's case, obviously the laws aren't stopping him from getting all the pot he can smoke anyway. And it funds organized crime trying to stop him

 

[Czernobog]

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.

OK, then we're done. I was not refuting that pot was "part" of the problem, I was disputing your claim it was the sole reason they took the kid. I want drugs to be legal, but it is illegal and it's not social services job to decide what laws to enforce and what to ignore

Bullshit. Social Services does not take kids out of a home because the parents are breaking the law. I never wear my seat belt. Ergo, I'm breaking the law. Are you seriously suggesting that Social Services could, and would, reasonably remove my children from my care over my refusal to wear a seat belt?!?! If not, then the legality of pot smoking is irrelevant.

What part of "factor" do you not understand? Another stupid liberal who has to take every point to a ridiculous extreme. Hyperbole is such a terrible argument. But sure, not wearing your seat belt is a "factor."

Oh, bullshit. No Social Services agent anywhere, would ever consider my wearing a seat belt, or not, when considering removing my kids from my custody, and you know it!

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, because from a crime standpoint comparing smoking pot to wearing a seat belt is a stupid comparison. You can't get arrested for not wearing a seat belt. You get nothing on your record other than your driving record. It was a stupid argument

So, you're saying it's not the legality, but the possible punishment that is the factor. Okay. I suppose I can see your point, but that just circles back around to my original contention that we need to change that.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[kaz]

Um ... that's what you are doing with pot. You're saying it was pot, period, and you reject anything that doesn't support that assumption when it clearly seems to be wrong

Okay. Let's grant your version. Why should the pot smoking even be considered? That was rather the point of my OP. As evidenced by epileptic parents everywhere, it is a relatively safe assumption that the seizures, alone, would not have been sufficient to remove the child from the parental care. Thus, removing the pot usage from the equation would have, likely, resulted in an entirely different conclusion.

So, we're back to my OP: why should pot use even be a consideration?

Because pot is illegal and if parents are committing a crime that is certainly a factor. You need to change the law, not demand social services ignore them. And I'm with you on changing the law

Bullshit. Refer to my previous post.

Your hyperbole was a terrible argument. Committing a crime and smoking pot is a factor! That means you demand a camera be put in every parent's car and they take kids away for not wearing a seat belt!

No, it means the legality of the behaviour is not a factor, and you know it!

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So if social services found you had illegal guns and evidence they were committing armed robbery, they shouldn't factor that in to whether you're a fit parent or not? Can they at least ensure they have a good sitter to care for the kid while they are on a job?

And I know it? LOL. Again, whether I think pot should be legal or not, it's illegal. Calling committing a crime a "behavior" is ridiculous

 

[kaz]

OK, then we're done. I was not refuting that pot was "part" of the problem, I was disputing your claim it was the sole reason they took the kid. I want drugs to be legal, but it is illegal and it's not social services job to decide what laws to enforce and what to ignore

Bullshit. Social Services does not take kids out of a home because the parents are breaking the law. I never wear my seat belt. Ergo, I'm breaking the law. Are you seriously suggesting that Social Services could, and would, reasonably remove my children from my care over my refusal to wear a seat belt?!?! If not, then the legality of pot smoking is irrelevant.

What part of "factor" do you not understand? Another stupid liberal who has to take every point to a ridiculous extreme. Hyperbole is such a terrible argument. But sure, not wearing your seat belt is a "factor."

Oh, bullshit. No Social Services agent anywhere, would ever consider my wearing a seat belt, or not, when considering removing my kids from my custody, and you know it!

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, because from a crime standpoint comparing smoking pot to wearing a seat belt is a stupid comparison. You can't get arrested for not wearing a seat belt. You get nothing on your record other than your driving record. It was a stupid argument

So, you're saying it's not the legality, but the possible punishment that is the factor. Okay. I suppose I can see your point, but that just circles back around to my original contention that we need to change that.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again you think only in black and white. I said it's a crime and therefore a "factor." I did not say they should take kids from all parents who commit any crime. Maybe if you googled the definition of "factor" that would help you understand the discussion better

 

[Esmeralda]

Huffington Post

Sherill Small, Foster Mother, Charged In Murder Of 2-Year-Old Texas Girl

Obviously, the story is true.

 

[Tresha91203]

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?

Why was CPS investigating the parents in the first place since it says they are the ones who discovered the pot? Are you going to have another whining hissy fit now?

The parents gave their daughter to her maternal grandmother to care for because the mother has a seizure disorder (so cannot be left alone with her child) and the dad's pot smoking was so bad he almost dropped his child down the stairs). Then, when the family started bickering among themselves about the arrangement, THEY brought in CPS themselves to resolve the issue. I've read the articles and this is what they say.

The vibe I get is that the parents dont want to care for their baby (its too hard) but dont want to let anyone else either (they objected to grandma, foster #1 and now obviously foster #2).

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

Right, I'm seriously doubting it's a true story. So just to be clear, you think my arguing that the story is wrong means I'm now saying it's a true story? I'm not saying the child was fabricated, I'm saying the story is wrong, I don't believe it. And you think that means I think it is a true story? That makes sense to you?

I'm quoting what you said at the very beginning. The story is true, you said it wasn't. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[whitehall]

There are so many holes in the story that it's impossible to make a judgement about the alleged situation. First of all how were the child's parents "caught"? Nobody get's "caught" doing anything in their own home unless the Police have a warrant. Is it possible that the parents were abusive and guilty of child neglect? The second thing is that you don't take a child away from parents without a hearing or several hearings. The pot head defense has got to do better than a strange unverified anecdotal story full of holes.

 

[HappyJoy]

There are so many holes in the story that it's impossible to make a judgement about the alleged situation. First of all how were the child's parents "caught"? Nobody get's "caught" doing anything in their own home unless the Police have a warrant. Is it possible that the parents were abusive and guilty of child neglect? The second thing is that you don't take a child away from parents without a hearing or several hearings. The pot head defense has got to do better than a strange unverified anecdotal story full of holes.

Please, for the love of god, read the links, Mr. Driveby