User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.4394 seconds
45 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I believe this mistake could be made by lots of people. Many people not familiar with US alcoholic beverages attend ballgames.
The response of the CPS is revolting, however. The boy should have been checked by medical professionals, then released to his parents. The goal of the state here seems to be to keep as many people as possible employed by the state. F Michigan.
No disagreement here.
If he hadn't done his thing, and the kid had gotten sick or been in an accident, the first thing the guy would have said was "Hey the security guard said it was ok, he just told me not to do it" or some such nonsense. Look, it was unfortunate, I can't imagine what I'd do in the same circumstances, and I could even see it happening too.
Of course, I have given my 6 year old probably about 10 sips of beer in his life, so I may seem crazy to a whack of you.
Actually, the kid got placed in foster care because his dad made a simlple, honest, regrettable mistake that may or may not have been an indication that he was consitantly putting his child at risk. When it was identified he wasn't consistantly puttinghis child at risk and that it was a SIMPLE, HONEST, REGRETTABLE mistake the child was returned.
In other words, guilty until proven innocent.
That's a pretty unreasonable expectation. People behave irrationally continually. How rational is spending hours over several years posting on this site?
Mmmm, alcoholic peanuts.
The guy didn't lose custody, but it was investigated thoroughly.
he did lose custody.
And this took several days and Soviet-like bureaucratic insensitivity to accomplish? The kid was traumatized, the man was forced to leave his home because of some pencil pusher. You live in strange and self-righteous world, MHS.
Actually, he was guilty the minute the child took a drink out of booze. The only question then is, it a pattern or a one time incident, and that wasn't determind. The proper course is CLEARLY to get the child out of potentially harms way.
Child comes to school with bruises. He says he fell, teacher has good reason to believe that isn't the case and reports it. Should DSS leave the child in the acccused abusers care while they investigate? Are you MAD?
1) It's just alcohol.
2) Kid can obviously handle it.
3) Dude.
4) The body does not change magically at 21, allowing it to process alcohol without bodily harm.
5) Seriously.
6) In any sane society, the kid would already be used to drinking wine.
I've never been carded at a sporting event, Not in San Diego, not in Los Angeles, not in Milwaukee and not in St Louis, it's absurd to actually think these places card. Heck part of the joy of going to the game underage is knowing you are going to get away with drinking. Seriously there are people that actually have ever been carded at a game? That one blows my mind.
In St Louis Lemonade is more expensive than beer at the stadium, it's $6.50 for the lemonade and $6.00 for the beer. heck it's $4 for a cup of hot chocolate that has less than half the volume of the beer.
I say that this was a bad situation, but I'm not really sure that there was anyone really in the wrong here, the security guy was 100% in the right. The police was also right and even child protective services was right up to a point. The point where in my opinion they messed up is telling the aunts that they have to get a place to stay before they will hand over custoday then transferring the child before the aunts returned. That is really the only thing that happened wrong in this sequence of events. Everything else makes perfectly logical sense even if it's tough on the family and the kid.
How long should it have taken? As long as it takes to determine the child is safe.
No, because the father behaved recklessly. You're making excuses because it was an understanable mistake (debatable), that had no malice involved (likely), it doesn;t change the fact that HE made the mistake, and he needs to be accountable for his actions. He isn't. He is blaming the system, like you are.
I honesyly, don't believe I'm self rightous at all. I apologize if I'm comming off that way. It usually is because I disagree with the consensus and end up to stating my opinions stronger than I intend or truely believe, partially to compensate for the many voices disenting. That's my fault though. I feel bad the father lost temporary custody of his child, but from what I know or think I know, I don't believe he was treated unjustly.
Fenway cards. then again, they dont have beer vendors in the seats and i think that is where a lot of the non-carding happens.
exactly. about an hour.
because the mistake was understandable, it wasnt very reckless. especially because it was a bottle of ALCOHOL, NOT POISON. He made a slight mistake that had very slight (or no) harm on the child.
Toronto had a no-alcohol stadium back when the Jays first came to town so it can be done without the world coming to an end. I know I'd prefer it as drunks can easily ruin a ballgame experience.
That having been said, the issue here isn't whether he committed a crime; the issue is whether he's an unfit parent. Given that a large number of states make it entirely legal for a parent to give alcohol to a child, it's ludicrous to think that it makes a parent unfit if he does so.
I don't really see that happening at many venues, the percentage of out of control drunks is no where high enough to take away from the high profits that selling alchohol gives to these venues. I can see non-alchoholic sections happening in ballparks, but not an outright ban on alchohol sales.
I believe a parent can give a minor child alcohol in Texas, however the minor must be in the "visible presence" of the parent/guardian while in possession of the alcohol.
ETA:
Sec. 106.06. PURCHASE OF ALCOHOL FOR A MINOR; FURNISHING ALCOHOL TO A MINOR
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b) of this section, a person commits an offense if he purchases an alcoholic beverage for or gives or with criminal negligence makes available an alcoholic beverage to a minor.
(b) A person may purchase an alcoholic beverage for or give an alcoholic beverage to a minor if he is the minor's adult parent, guardian, or spouse, or an adult in whose custody the minor has been committed by a court, and he is visibly present when the minor possesses or consumes the alcoholic beverage.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
What you have made very clear is that you don't think it is a big deal to forceably remove a seven year old child from his parents, and put that child in a strange, frightening situation for a couple of days. No sane parent would agree with this. I would think that people who don't have children would understand how absolutely crazy this is.
Its one thing if there is good reason to think that the child is at a significant risk of abuse. But anyone who thought this child was at a significant risk of abuse, after hearing the situation and asking questions of the parent, is a moron who is completely unfit to work in this field and should be fired immediately.
How on earth does that escalate into taking the child away? Jeez.
I don't think MHS is being self-righteous- he's just showing that he personally has absolutely no common sense or sense of judgment and once again I pray that he's never allowed to be in a position of authority over anyone else at anytime.
Or what 122 said.
is not the same as:
I deliberatly left it unspecified as to her reasons. I should have said the initial investigator rather than the teacher has good reason. Of course my rational was to avoid the useless/needless lawyer quibbling.
Regardless if a child is deemed in a dangerous situation he/she should not be left in that situation until the full extent of it can be determined.
Parents used to rub alcohol on infants gums while teething, all the books now say "OMG dont't do that!"
Every pediatrician I've run into says that the "current" teething advice (re alcohol) is PC nonsense with no evidentiary foundation.
Personally I gave my kid ice chips and a teething ring, but if someone wanted to dip a cloth in vodka and rub it on their kid's gums- I wouldn't freak out.
No, I believe it is a big deal. But it is better to error on the side of childs safety when the parent at best has been shown to have reasonable judgement. I think those with children are letting the love of their own to impair their senses in this particular case.
I very well may be guilty of the second charge. I'd even say likely. I strongly object to first statement.
1: A complete lack of sense- all it takes is one person with MHS' mindset in the chain of events
2: Zero tolerance type rules, all the players may have commonsense- but believe (correct;y or incorrectly) that "the rules" prohibit the exercise of discretion.
Think of the idiotic "zero tolerance" regimes which have been sprouting up in recent years in schools- some 15 year old is suspended a month for giving an effing tylenol to another 15 year old- and some morons will actually defend the suspension- vociferously.
?????? don't you have that reversed? I can't believe you meant to say that you object to my agreeing with you that you are not being self-righteous, but will concede that you may have no common sense?
And a child consuming a bottle of Mikes lemonade does not come close to rising to that standard. As has been pointed out, it is legal in many states. Investigate if you must, I wouldn't, but for the love of all that is holy, in this situation don't remove a 7 year old from his home and place him with strangers.
My wife burst into tears reading this and couldn't finish the article.
Yes, there are some of us without child who understand the zaniness. I was going to respond with something to that effect, but then i realized that it would be easier to just put the only nutjob in this thread who believes otherwise on ignore.
The incident was a red flag, in the child's interests they just wanted to make sure it wasn't the tip of the iceberg.
I would think that people who don't have children would understand how absolutely crazy this is.
Because god knows there's no evidence in the world that a parent might hurt their own child.
I think he's saying he may not have good judgement, but he does have common sense. Whatever that means.
I think those with children are letting the love of their own to impair their senses in this particular case.
No we're letting our love of our own children imbibe us with common sense. You are still maintaining that this child's safety was potentially at grave risk, based on the facts outlined in the article. Which pretty much proves you have no common sense. or sense of perspective.
It very well may have been a red flag, but don't you think the child could have been returned to his parents after the ER docs said the kid was perfectly fine???
That word doesn't mean what you think it means. Under no interpretation of the facts was the father "reckless."Because the system is the only side that did something wrong.
JPWF - again I just want to point out that from my perspective it takes an awful lot of unusual things to get to the point of well meaning parent to accidentily give his child an alcoholic beverage in this setting. It could happen but it just isn't all that likely. What's next is he going to accidetily serve him cleaning solution from under the sink that wasn't clearly labeled. I just wanted to be sure and I understand the legal system moves slowly. The easiest was for this not to happen is the guy isn't a boob. To me, putting the boob's desires/convince/needs ahead of potentially the child is the view point of limited sense.
With all that said, it is important to keep in mind it is just booze... still what a maroon this parent is.
Jesus H ####### Christ but you guys are ###### up with your red flag and slippery slope ########. How many well dressed and well spoken crack addict pedofiles take their (presumably) well dressed, fed, and by all appearances, well cared for 7 year olds to a major league ballgame? A red flag would be a porrly dressed and underfed kid with a bottle of whiskey outside a bar that his old man is inside getting hammered. This isn't any colored flag, or even a flag.
And you think that there was a good chance that the parent was a high risk for being a crack addict pedophile based on the fact they were drinking hard lemonade at a baseball game, in which the fact that it was alcoholic was in no way advertised where it was sold? This is the red flag? Wow.
Because god knows there's no evidence in the world that a parent might hurt their own child.
And you think there is good reason to think this parent hits their child based on the fact they were drinking hard lemonade at a baseball game, in which the fact that it was alcoholic was in no way advertised where it was sold? Wow.
You need to observe parents with little children in public- restaurants, stadiums, parks, barbecues, picnics, a little more. It doesn't take an unusual chain for a kid to end up with a wine cooler in their hands or a sip of beer.
The thing I find most odd is that the 7 year old didn't take a sip, screw up his face and tell dad his lemonade tasted bad/funny, but then again Mikes Hard Lemonade isn't all that "hard".
My point, I'd hope the guard would just let it go, but I can see why he wouldn't. Once it hit the cops, they have to - HAVE TO - treat it as seriously as possible. Same for child services. Regardless of what clothes the guy is wearing. Or what his job was. Or who his parents were. Or whatever.
I think I watch the news often enough to know that the people committing crimes aren't always the ones I would expect. So I wantto be sure when I see something suspisious.
Come on, it says it does on the bottle. It may have been an innocent mistake, which even if it was it was damn careless.
No, it takes one thing and one thing only. The guy not knowing that Mike's Lemonade is an alcoholic beverage. That is perfectly plausible. The carded canard is just that. One of three things happened:
1) He bought only the lemonade and wasn't carded because he's, like, 47 years old.
2) He bought a beer and a lemonade and was carded
3) he bought only a lemonade, was carded, and didn't think it unusual.
Only option 3 is the least bit implausible, and I still don't see it as that unlikely. People comply with unusual requests from merchants all the time. How many people give Radio Shack their phone number when buying batteries?
ONCE AGAIN: BECAUSE LORD KNOWS ONLY CRACK ADDICT WILD-EYED LUNATIC PEDOPHILES WITHOUT WELL-DRESSED AND WELL-FED OFFSPRING HURT THEIR OWN CHILDREN. NO EVIDENCE OR CIRCUMSTANCE IN THE HISTORY OF HISTORY TO THE CONTRARY.
I'm very sorry for the all-caps, but damn, people. And Toolsy in 146 says it much better than me.
Why? In God's name, why? It is not illegal for a parent to serve his child alcohol in private. Just because it is illegal to do so in public does not change the fundamental nature of the activity, ie, a 7 year old consuming a tiny quantity of alcohol. Not everything a parent does that is illegal translates to child endangerment. Cheating on your taxes is illegal. Crack addicts are likely to cheat on their taxes. Should every parent who cheats on his taxes risk losing his children?
Keep in mind that the parent had no idea that alcoholic lemonade existed, so he had no reason to think to examine the label closely. I have purchased items many times that were not exactly what I had intended, because I didn't read the label carefully enough. I think I would have looked at the label more carefully in this case , but then again I'm aware that lemonade sold in bottles may contain alcohol.
I think I watch the news often enough to know that the people committing crimes aren't always the ones I would expect. So I wantto be sure when I see something suspisious.
So what you are saying is that when a parent does anything the slightest bit wrong, even if there is a very logical explanation, your first reaction is always to take their children away, and give them back after a few days if as long as they turn out to be perfect parents. No harm done, right?
People around here make a joke that when some does something trivially wrong, they should have their children away. They don't mean it, its just a joke. MHS actually believes it.
ONCE AGAIN, IT IS NOT ALWAYS ILLEGAL FOR A PARENT TO SERVE HIS CHILD ALCOHOL. ONLY IN PUBLIC. THUS, IT SHOULD BE PRESUMED THAT THE LAW DOES NOT CONSIDER SERVING A CHILD ALCOHOL MEANS POTENTIAL CHILD ENDANGERMENT, BUT THAT THE LAW EXISTS FOR SOME OTHER REASON.
Crack addicts aren't all that likely to have sufficient legitimate income to be liable for taxes.
Again, my apologies for the shouting. But I don't get the freak-out over this. Would you rather have the law checked on too stringently, or not stringently enough? I agree it went too far, but ultimately it was used correctly and then fixed. In my opinion.
The purpose of child protective services is to protect those too small to protect themselves. If the cost is temporary trouble to some adults, even innocent ones, EVEN MYSELF, I'll take that cost. Every time.
Or do taxes.
I've long said that any policy that starts with "zero tolerance" is going to end with decisions that make zero sense.
It's the same mindset why managers follow the lefty/righty nonsense with relievers so religiously. It removes their judgment from question if they're only "following the book." Pointy-headed school administrators hide behind Zero Tolerance so they don't have to use their judgment to actually make decisions about what's safe on campus and what isn't.
ZTP's sound great when politicians and administrators are pounding the podium on TV, but it's that kind of stupidity that gets honor students with spotless records suspended for having a butter knife in their car on campus along with the gang banger with a rap sheet who has a butterfly knife in his backpack in a classroom since both "brought weapons to school." Instead of assessing the situations for their risk, the administrators merely shrug their shoulders while citing their Get Tough Zero Tolerance Policy and say, "Sorry. That's the rule."
The guard reads this site, and thinks the solution to every problem is taking children away.
What? Why can't I have a beer at a game? Because a kid in Detroit had a beer? I mean, what?
Dizzy, If it had a logical explanation I would completely agree with you. I still don't find the logical explanation to be reasonable. It just isn't likely that a prudent man wouldn't know that Mike's does not have alchol in it. Which is why I find the entire situation just weird.
Misirlou makes ANOTHER great point in 152. You're WHICKED smaht.
He went to the best schools.
The cost, however, is much less to the father than to the son who is wrenched from his parent and sent to live with strangers. It's not as though the person in question had his car impounded until it was determined he was a responsible driver, unless it was Herbie the Love Bug, who has feelings.
The average foster care home is safer than being beaten to within an inch of your life by your guardians.
Do you mean to say that your percentage of harm is greater in foster care than in an abusive home?
The cost, however, is much less to the father and to the son who is wrenched from his parent and sent to live with strangers.
This, and David's stance, is judging the rule by the exception. OF COURSE this one sucked. But it was an exception. If you want to leave all children with all their parents under the "Don't tell me how to raise my kids" philosophy, things will be worse off.
If that's your point then it's a cop-out. If any of these people - guards, cops, doctors, nurses, CPS folks - had felt like their personal judgement would be respected by the system this entire thing would have been short circuited early on. The story clearly indicates that at each step in the process there was sympathy with the parent and a clear message that the system was running amuck. Any time these type of folks are not allowed to employ their judgement it's an indictment of their training and the system as a whole.
And even if you think more should happen, a visit to the ER under the eye of law enforcement is something a parent could never forget. To go beyond that by traumatizing the kid by an hour or a day or half a week apart from family is much worse than the initial mistake. Hiding behind some situation guidelines is cowardly and doesn't serve anyone's interests save the covered a** of the person who won't put the kid's interests foremost.
There is, however, an obvious middle ground, which is that the government could have investigated as much as it wanted, but without seizing the child from his parents. Some people keep saying, "the government should investigate," but it's not "investigation" that's at issue here. It's the government's approach of "seize first, investigate later to see whether the seizure was justified" that's being criticized.
Was there any basis for thinking the child was in immediate danger, based upon the facts presented? No. The only "suspicious" fact that confronted them was that the child was seen drinking a bottle of "hard lemonade." (I should say "allegedly," because as the article points out, they tested the kid and found no alcohol in him, which makes the whole story even weirder.) Is drinking alcohol a sign of immediate danger of physical harm? No. So there was no basis for taking the kid, even if there was a basis for "investigating." (A dubious proposition itself.)
Which is by definition, cheating.
I'm not sure I understand the question. A strong check on the law? Definitely. The law applied to stringently? No, absuolutely not.
The cost was trouble to an innocent child.
Heh!
It's safer than drinking rat poison as well. There's a lot of rat poison in the world. Why subject children to that risk? All children belong in foster care.
Could you repeat this point so it responds to what I said? I truly don't understand what you mean.
The cost was trouble to an innocent child.
See post #163 about judging the rule based on exceptions.
How is this the correct question? If we're judging whether or not foster care is safer than abusive homes, what do average homes have to do with it? Mistakes and exceptions aside, children are not taken out of average homes and put into foster care.
..love the word "guardians," as if parents are just being temporarily entrusted with the care of their children by the government
I'm not sure what world you live in, David, but in mine, kids aren't always living with their parents. Sorry. This is why I used that word.
What percentage of homes investigated for allegations of abuse and neglect are found to be hazardous? What percentage of those found hazardous are deemed suitable for the child to remain in, given heightened supervision by Child Protective authorities?
His point I believe, is that given the facts as assertainable at the time, it was unlikely that Leo came from an abusive home, and given that both parents are university profs, quite likely that a foster home would be a worse environment for the kid, and that the safer course of action FOR THE CHILD, would have been to release him to his parents and investigate.
I'd say cheating on your taxes is making false claims. Not doing them is failure to pay. Semantics.
(*) I assume that's how you look at it; I look at it as exactly the opposite. Erring on the side of caution means not acting unless you're sure.
What exception? I'm pretty sure that it's abusive parents that represent the exception.
Based on this case, children are being taken out of average homes and put into foster care, given that there was no real evidence of abuse. Yes this is an exception, and its an exception that should never have been allowed to happen.
You keep talking about this case as if there was good reason to think the child's life was in danger - as if this is equivalent to a home of physical abuse. Its not. The kid had a drink at a baseball game, which the parent didn't even know contained alcohol. How is this strong evidence of an abusive home?
I'm not judging the rule, I'm judging the way the rule was enforced. Law enforcement has discretion.
My comment would have been better placed in response to your second question about foster care being safer than an abusive home. Foster care is a necessary resource for children who are in genuine trouble. However, in this instance it was treated as the default solution, when abuse had not been demonstrated. As David points out, the assumption should always be that the child is in an average home until legitimate evidence of danger has been produced. In this instance, the child was harmed by the authorities who were repsonsible for protecting him.
I'm not saying this kid was in an abusive home. What I am saying is that given the level and frequency of abuse levelled upon children, foster care is a necessary lifesaver for a majority of those placed in it. Was it in this case? Please. Give me a break. I'm arguing for the concept, which seems to be being argued AGAINST by David and others.
If you want to bring charges against all those involved here, be my guest. A mistake was made, and fixed. If you think NO PARENT would possibly ever allow their 7-year-old to drink ever and be entertained by it, that's your prerogative.
But don't use this example from this game as a reason why there should be no foster care because it's dangerous for kids.
Nobody argued that. I don't know where you got that. Of course there should be a mechanism for removing children from abusive homes (my father spent the better part of a thirty year career doing this in one way or another), but only given evidence of harm to the child. I think you agree with that and nobody else in this thread said anything different.
Agree
I'm not, and I don't really think David is. We are both reacting to this specific example, where there is no evidence that there was abuse. I think we would all agree that:
Average home > foster home > abusive home. It's the kneejerk reaction of utilizing the foster home option that got our dander up.
Except that I don't know who here is arguing it. As far as I can tell, this argument is about whether to put kids in foster care where there is not clear evidence of abuse. And we're saying you shouldn't. As Kirby said, putting children in foster care should not be the default.
So with the exception of MHS, we're all in agreement that this situtation was very poorly handled? Correct?
This is where I got it:
post 155: Traumatic is the least of one's worries. Foster care isn't safe.
I took this an an implication that foster care = bad. If I over-reacted, I apologize.
Anyway, in the state I was practicing in at the time, the standard for removal from a parent was a showing of substantial evidence of a risk of imminent harm. There were many levels of DHR involvement short of removal of the child (e.g. parenting classes, child tutoring, family inspections, etc.) and, in the absence of imminent harm those were always tried first. I - for one - don't believe evidence of allowing a couple of sips of alcohol is substantial evidence of harm. Maybe enough to trigger a review, warning, training, etc. but the default of removing the child is execessive and unwarranted.
I don't see anyone on this thread saying that there is never cause to remove a child from a parent. Dog knows I've seen situations that gave me nightmares where clearly the child should be taken away. But here, it seems that each official in the process jumped immediately to the most intrusive, most severe action possible. What happened here isn't a 'reason why there should be no foster care' but rather a reason why there should be sufficient discretion along the way to avoid absurd results.
Oh yeah, my seven year old daughter doesn't much like hard lemonade, but enjoys a couple of sips on Mom's margaritta while my eleven year prefers wine. All things in moderation.
That is, I believe, the standard, or close to it, in most states.
What's amazing is what some people will believe is (or is not) "substantial evidence" or "significant risk of imminent harm"
at least one poster here seems to believe that a 7 year old holding a bottle containing a 5% (I believe) alcohol drink, in and of itself meets that standard.
OMG that 7 year old in the supermarket picked up and is holding a bottle of bleach (the consequences of drinking would be FAR worse than drinking from a bottle of Bacardi 151 let alone a low alcohol drink like a wine cooler) take him away from his parents!
OMG that mother just bought cough syrup for her toddler, that cough syrup contains alcohol, take her kids away!
Yes there are abusive parents who feed alcohol to their children because watching a drunk 7 year old amuses them- I think it can be fairly said that there was not remotely enough evidence that the father in this case was such a parent to justify removing the child and placing him in foster care.
Much of the defense of these actions in this thread has rested upon the notion that there's a dichotomy between "abusive" and "safe" homes, and that there's a 2x2 matrix of abuse/safe remove/not remove which covers all the options. But "abuse" is not one behavior, but a spectrum of behaviors, and typically only in the most serious cases are children actually removed from the parents. In most cases, they're kept in the homes with followup visits, etc., in the hope that the mere fact of DYFS interest is enough to protect the children.
And yet here we have, based on a single incident with not even a tiny hint of harm to the child, the government taking the most extreme step.
Sometimes better. Of course.
Ratlou, Miserlou, and Dizzypaco, regarding your respective posts 183, 184, and 185 as far as where I was getting THAT idea?
Whitney Houston says "Hi!"
i don't guess you have been a foster parent, have you? trust me on this it is a tough job. let's see YOU do it - you take in babies been neglected/not fed/hit - let's see YOU get them to feed, settle down, not spend most of their time crying. let's see you take in a frightened 3 year old been raped and the first time she sees a man she screams in terror. and lets see YOU deal with some poor little kid keeps crying for his mama even though she the one who was abusing him.
and excuuuuuuuuse us for being poor - or not rich like you. poor is not always bad. and it is a HECK of a lot better then what the poor kids come from.
and until you just try being a foster parent your own self i would appreciate it if you would not shtt all over us who try to do our best to pick up the mess guys like you think you too good to touch.
and yes there are bad foster homes. and no question CPS they get stuff wrong BOTH ways - they don't take kids who should get taken and they take kids like this poor leo child who they had exactly NO business taking.
-------------------
1 - suuuuuurrrrrrrre most men read the labels of a bottle of lemonade before giving it to their kid.
2 - suuuuuuurrrrrrrre some guy who really don't watch much of any tv would somehow "know" mike's lemonade or mike's cranberry has alcohol in it because it is sold at a stand with beer and peanuts
and MHS
if you think it is no big deal for a 7 year old to be yanked from his parents and told to go with total strangers for even a few days you are DEAD wrong. i guarantee you that poor kid spent a lot of time crying and wondering what he done wrong and why he couldn't talk to or see his own parents. and it won't go away for a long LONG time.
1. You don't believe it's possible to not get carded at a baseball game.
2. You don't believe it's possible that the father did not know that the lemonade contained alcohol.
This has persisted despite the fact that at least a dozen people have said that they often (or never) get carded at a ball game, and several people have said that they (or someone they know) didn't know that Mike's contained alcohol.
Do you think that all of these people are lying? If not, then why are you so persistent in refusing to change your mind (on these two subjects only, not the judgment, etc.)?
I agree that MHS is an idiot on this one.
If the father had shot a Child Services agent in an attempt to get his kid back and I wound up on the jury, I'd have voted to acquit. The state should need overwhelming evidence of danger to a child before removing said child from a home. I was burned, badly, as a 5 year old. I "tackled" dad as he was pulling a pot of boiling water off the stove. the water poured down my back resulting in extensive 2nd degree and a respectable amount of 3rd degree burns. It was my fault. It would have been really nice to have had him in the ER with me but, to "keep me safe", he was being interviewed by police and social workers, none of whom gave a damn about me. They gave a damn about making sure they could tell their bosses they had done something. #### them. And #### you if you think you have the right, as yourself or through your hired state agents to intervene casually in the makeup and care of families. If there is ANY doubt, the parents should get the benefit of that doubt. Yes, that will result in some kids remaining longer than we'd like in bad situations. But intervening in a good family is also bad and, in that case, the only bad guy is the state.
Again, anyone who thinks this was not a travesty and abuse of power by ignorant and power hungry bureaucrats is not to be trusted. Stay the #### away from me and away from any authority at all, anywhere.
If that means you are or have been a foster parent, many many props to you.
Mister High Standards spells like his dad gave him too many drinks at age 7.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main