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.
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).
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.
to the BOLD: What state do you live in? Because that is certainly not the case in Arizona. If CPF thinks they have a reason, they take the kid. You can appeal their actions, which would result in a hearing, but no hearing is necessary for them to take the kids - only to get them back.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.
Okay. I went back, and reread my OP to make certain that I hadn't said something I didn't mean to say; I hadn't. Please quote for me where I stated that pot smoking was the sole reason the kid was removed. If you cannot, then either you deny that smoking pot was a reason - not the reason - but a reason, that the kid was removed, or you don't.I'm still arguing it's not true, the child wasn't removed just for pot smoking as the article claimed. So I said it wasn't true in the beginning and I'm arguing it's not true now. So what am I supposed to admit to?
It was shoddy reporting for an agenda. It sounds like they took the baby away because the parents couldn't care for it, pot being a factor in that, but the article was wrong it was not just for pot smoking
Okay. I went back, and reread my OP to make certain that I hadn't said something I didn't mean to say; I hadn't. Please quote for me where I stated that pot smoking was the sole reason the kid was removed. If you cannot, then either you deny that smoking pot was a reason - not the reason - but a reason, that the kid was removed, or you don't.I'm still arguing it's not true, the child wasn't removed just for pot smoking as the article claimed. So I said it wasn't true in the beginning and I'm arguing it's not true now. So what am I supposed to admit to?
It was shoddy reporting for an agenda. It sounds like they took the baby away because the parents couldn't care for it, pot being a factor in that, but the article was wrong it was not just for pot smoking
If you deny that it was a reason, please support that claim.
That is not clearly the case. It may not have been the only reason, but you keep implying with your comments that it wasn't a reason, at all. Please indicate your evidence for this.Okay. I went back, and reread my OP to make certain that I hadn't said something I didn't mean to say; I hadn't. Please quote for me where I stated that pot smoking was the sole reason the kid was removed. If you cannot, then either you deny that smoking pot was a reason - not the reason - but a reason, that the kid was removed, or you don't.I'm still arguing it's not true, the child wasn't removed just for pot smoking as the article claimed. So I said it wasn't true in the beginning and I'm arguing it's not true now. So what am I supposed to admit to?
It was shoddy reporting for an agenda. It sounds like they took the baby away because the parents couldn't care for it, pot being a factor in that, but the article was wrong it was not just for pot smoking
If you deny that it was a reason, please support that claim.
OP: "When are we going to figure out that marijuana smoking is no more "unsafe" than drinking, or smoking cigarettes. I mean, what? If dad occasionally got drunk - not drunk, and abusive, mind you' just drunk - at home, we gonna yank the kid out then, too?
And, yeah, I know...all the moralists are gonna come rushing along to remind us that, "Well...he was breaking the law..." Yeah, and? I don't wear my seat belt when I drive. I'm breaking the law. Should DCFS get to waltz in, and yank my kid away?"
-----
The whole point of this is that you are arguing they took the kid away for firing up a doobie, which is clearly not the case. And yeah, if the father was drunk all the time as it sounds like this father was stoned all the time, that would be a big factor as well
That is not clearly the case. It may not have been the only reason, but you keep implying with your comments that it wasn't a reason, at all. Please indicate your evidence for this.Okay. I went back, and reread my OP to make certain that I hadn't said something I didn't mean to say; I hadn't. Please quote for me where I stated that pot smoking was the sole reason the kid was removed. If you cannot, then either you deny that smoking pot was a reason - not the reason - but a reason, that the kid was removed, or you don't.I'm still arguing it's not true, the child wasn't removed just for pot smoking as the article claimed. So I said it wasn't true in the beginning and I'm arguing it's not true now. So what am I supposed to admit to?
It was shoddy reporting for an agenda. It sounds like they took the baby away because the parents couldn't care for it, pot being a factor in that, but the article was wrong it was not just for pot smoking
If you deny that it was a reason, please support that claim.
OP: "When are we going to figure out that marijuana smoking is no more "unsafe" than drinking, or smoking cigarettes. I mean, what? If dad occasionally got drunk - not drunk, and abusive, mind you' just drunk - at home, we gonna yank the kid out then, too?
And, yeah, I know...all the moralists are gonna come rushing along to remind us that, "Well...he was breaking the law..." Yeah, and? I don't wear my seat belt when I drive. I'm breaking the law. Should DCFS get to waltz in, and yank my kid away?"
-----
The whole point of this is that you are arguing they took the kid away for firing up a doobie, which is clearly not the case. And yeah, if the father was drunk all the time as it sounds like this father was stoned all the time, that would be a big factor as well
"...you are arguing they took the kid away for firing up a doobie, which is clearly not the case..." Please present your evidence for that. Demonstrating that there were "other factors" in no way demonstrates that the quotes statement is not also true.That is not clearly the case. It may not have been the only reason, but you keep implying with your comments that it wasn't a reason, at all. Please indicate your evidence for this.Okay. I went back, and reread my OP to make certain that I hadn't said something I didn't mean to say; I hadn't. Please quote for me where I stated that pot smoking was the sole reason the kid was removed. If you cannot, then either you deny that smoking pot was a reason - not the reason - but a reason, that the kid was removed, or you don't.I'm still arguing it's not true, the child wasn't removed just for pot smoking as the article claimed. So I said it wasn't true in the beginning and I'm arguing it's not true now. So what am I supposed to admit to?
It was shoddy reporting for an agenda. It sounds like they took the baby away because the parents couldn't care for it, pot being a factor in that, but the article was wrong it was not just for pot smoking
If you deny that it was a reason, please support that claim.
OP: "When are we going to figure out that marijuana smoking is no more "unsafe" than drinking, or smoking cigarettes. I mean, what? If dad occasionally got drunk - not drunk, and abusive, mind you' just drunk - at home, we gonna yank the kid out then, too?
And, yeah, I know...all the moralists are gonna come rushing along to remind us that, "Well...he was breaking the law..." Yeah, and? I don't wear my seat belt when I drive. I'm breaking the law. Should DCFS get to waltz in, and yank my kid away?"
-----
The whole point of this is that you are arguing they took the kid away for firing up a doobie, which is clearly not the case. And yeah, if the father was drunk all the time as it sounds like this father was stoned all the time, that would be a big factor as well
I never implied that. Your argument was clear in your OP, you only referred to their being taken away for pot, I argued it wasn't that simple, there was more to it. I was right
"...you are arguing they took the kid away for firing up a doobie, which is clearly not the case..." Please present your evidence for that. Demonstrating that there were "other factors" in no way demonstrates that the quotes statement is not also true.That is not clearly the case. It may not have been the only reason, but you keep implying with your comments that it wasn't a reason, at all. Please indicate your evidence for this.Okay. I went back, and reread my OP to make certain that I hadn't said something I didn't mean to say; I hadn't. Please quote for me where I stated that pot smoking was the sole reason the kid was removed. If you cannot, then either you deny that smoking pot was a reason - not the reason - but a reason, that the kid was removed, or you don't.I'm still arguing it's not true, the child wasn't removed just for pot smoking as the article claimed. So I said it wasn't true in the beginning and I'm arguing it's not true now. So what am I supposed to admit to?
It was shoddy reporting for an agenda. It sounds like they took the baby away because the parents couldn't care for it, pot being a factor in that, but the article was wrong it was not just for pot smoking
If you deny that it was a reason, please support that claim.
OP: "When are we going to figure out that marijuana smoking is no more "unsafe" than drinking, or smoking cigarettes. I mean, what? If dad occasionally got drunk - not drunk, and abusive, mind you' just drunk - at home, we gonna yank the kid out then, too?
And, yeah, I know...all the moralists are gonna come rushing along to remind us that, "Well...he was breaking the law..." Yeah, and? I don't wear my seat belt when I drive. I'm breaking the law. Should DCFS get to waltz in, and yank my kid away?"
-----
The whole point of this is that you are arguing they took the kid away for firing up a doobie, which is clearly not the case. And yeah, if the father was drunk all the time as it sounds like this father was stoned all the time, that would be a big factor as well
I never implied that. Your argument was clear in your OP, you only referred to their being taken away for pot, I argued it wasn't that simple, there was more to it. I was right
Why is Texas using "for profit" companies for foster care. Those people want to take more children. The more children they have, the more money they make.
Outsourcing government services like prisons and foster care, generally there are clauses guaranteeing a minimum level of occupancy, which encourages corruption and abuse e.g. the judge who took bribes to send as many juveniles to prison as possible.
That's because I got it from the links already given. It's not my fault you are unable or unwilling to read. Everyone else had no problem.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".
to the BOLD: What state do you live in? Because that is certainly not the case in Arizona. If CPF thinks they have a reason, they take the kid. You can appeal their actions, which would result in a hearing, but no hearing is necessary for them to take the kids - only to get them back.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.
