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 2.4494 seconds
40 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.
Speak for yourself, lightweight!
Which happens to be the ball park.
Uh, no, at least not Wrigley Field.
Uh, no, at least not at Wrigley Field. The signs say they "card under 35," which I suspect (though I won't assume/categorically state, as I am not you) is the case elsewhere.
This was a minor mistake. Many people acted like horsesasses. Starting with the security guard. He couldn't say "sir, were you aware that the lemonade your son is drinking contains alcohol?"
What a bunch of petit fascists.
Yeah, the most common signs about carding that I've seen anywhere usually indicated 30. Occassionally, I see one that lists 39.
And Best Buy--man that's one of my pet peeves. Though I'll admit, I like watching the 16-year-old cashiers' pupils dilate when I immediately and curtly respond "no" when they ask if they can have my phone number. Apparently they're not used to that sort of response.
Again, I've seen nothing in this to suggest that the government workers weren't just your typical government workers who do stuff just to irritate the people they're supposed to be serving. They have power, they want you to know it and they don't care who they have to hurt to achieve that. They'll be first against the wall.
So what happened at the other 3 games?
That's because they usually sort themselves out if you can get them into rehab.
Either that, or some other inflexible rule that says the child must be turned over to foster care within X hours of being taken into custody, and the time ran out while the Aunts were securing a hotel room.
Sounds like it would be perfect for Curb Your Enthusiasm.
Who knows. There are plenty of ridiculously inflexible rules in place everywhere, designed to remove any sort of discretion on the part of the lower level workers. As bunyon said, it has nothing to do with the welfare of the child, and everything to do with CYA.
In which case, how would you know?
But seriously, folks. I don't have a TV, and had not heard of hard leomeonade before today. The sign doesn't mention anything about alcohol. The bottle the dad is holding doesn't say alcohol on it, that I can see. This is a mistake I could have made. This is the kind of situation in which a cop has a lot of discretion. I would have liked him to talk seriously with the father in order to ascertain intention and attitude, then let him go.
Yeah--mine too. I've had some get so confused that they couldn't make the sale without entering a number. I suggested to one that she enter her phone number--at that she had to call her supervisor. I've routinely had my social security number requested at medical offices, and I routinely say, I'm not going to tell you. People just go bonkers.
Larry got Jeff's daughter drunk on wine that he thought was grape juice in one of the episodes.
Haven't seen that one.
This had not occurred to me, fwiw.
OK... agree/disagree?
I find that making one up is a better way to stick it to the man. Area code and everything.
I think he deserves every bit of it. It is one of the more ridiculous viewpoints I've seen espoused, followed by additional, feeble attempts to defend, on BTF. And that's saying something.
Taking a seven year old from his parent. My God. This is blind bureaucracy at it's worst; it's like the INS on Seconol.
Oh, please. Most low-level bureaucrats have nothing approaching power and have exceedingly little desire to achieve it. Saying something like that is dearly ignorant of how being in government works.
Governmental bureaucracy is specifically formulated to create a system that is, as much as possible, fair and equitable. Note I did not say beneficial, rational or just. It turns out the best way to ensure equal treatment for a large bureaucracy is to treat everyone equally poorly. Red tape and administrative formalities exist to:
* Provide a system of incentives and punishments that encourages doing things the "correct" way.
* Provide a system of checks and balances so that no one individual has the power to routinely make substantive decisions contrary to policy.
* Make any one member of the system fully replaceable.
Governmental bureaucracy is simply the closest you can come the the bureaucratic ideal. Government workers do what they do because they are conditioned by a system to encourage them to be soulless autonomous and to treat everyone they encounter as a work product rather than an individual. They don't enjoy it; most of them seem to find it rather distasteful. But personal self interest tends to win out most of the time.
If I even remotely suspect a kid's being beaten, I'm calling the cops. I'd rather be responsible for having 10 kids placed in unnecessary foster care for 2 weeks each rather than having a kid being beaten unnecessarily for 3 extra years.
Which brings me back to the security guard. He doens't suspect child abuse, he saw the guy hand a kid an alcoholic drink, he SAW an illegal act, of course he's calling the cops. It's his legal responsibility and his duty as a citizen to call the cops.
The State should have done a much better job though. If two responsible aunts came, they shoudl have handed the kid to her.
Again, I've seen nothing in this to suggest that the government workers weren't just your typical government workers who do stuff just to irritate the people they're supposed to be serving. They have power, they want you to know it and they don't care who they have to hurt to achieve that.
Maybe they were just incompetent.
The premise is also flawed; the fact that it's a crime does not automatically make it abuse.
BUT SEINFELD WAS RULED GUILTY
It's also nice to know that if Niepronte suspects child abuse, he won't call the cops because he has no legal responsibility and no sense of duty towards society to do so.
The premise is also flawed; the fact that it's a crime does not automatically make it abuse.
That I will have to agree with. Corporal punishment within reason does IMO have a place in parenting.
Well, this isn't a one-time thing. He makes similar retarded comments all the time (threatening to beat up people who don't stand for the National Anthem; blaming the mentally ill for being mentally ill, etc).
My initial reaction is how can a guy be that oblivious.
But you know, if you Look at the bottle
it's not all that easy to tell it's got alchohol. I don't find the father unbelievable.
Gotta call BS on this, at least from my experience working as a cashier at Lowe's (Home Improvement) for two summers. People wouldn't give me their numbers all the time -- I told them "no prob" and put in a fake number.
It would be a believable story even if Mike's had "It's alcoholic!!!! Don't give to kids!!!!!" all over the bottle.
What percentage of people even look at the label everytime they drink something. We rely on prior knowledge. I know my car is red because it was red when I bought it. If it was green tomorrow, I'd probably notice because of the visual shock. But I do not look at my car each day and notice that it is red. I do not inspect how many tires it has or read my license plate number.
Now, I do read the hell out of every label, but that's because it's a hobby of mine. When I ask others what's in stuff, 95% or so have no idea.
I would be that if you used the same color scheme and handed someone a Coca-Cola bottle that says "With real cocaine" more than half would just chug away unaware. And a portion of the rest would notice and chug away.
Of course, the Mike's Hard Lemonade knowledge is special because some people drink alcoholic beverages all the time and have intimate knowledge of the genre. I can't speak for the people here, but the desire to see people's families broken apart for not possessing that knowledge is likely in many cases due to one's own insecurity about possible alcoholic tendencies. (Note: NOT the knowledge itself--knowledge is awesome, but the desire to see others punished for not having the exact same knowledge)
It's an astonishing lack of empathy.
Finally, I'm wondering if people think the vendor should be punished (not the actual person selling, but the vendor). It seems that "Mike's Lemonade" is a ridiculous disingenuous advertisement of the product that intentionally removes the most important element. Then again, "Hard Lemonade" may have been no more helpful in any case. I'm not sure. Maybe it's my own lack of empathy for advertising in the first place.
Which is not what he said at all. Unless you think the only reason people only do things when they have a legal responsibility.
Well, kudos to you. You're apparently made of stronger stuff than the ones I've encountered.
I agree. There was extremely deceptive advertising all around, and someone should be punished for it. At a place where non-alchoholic lemonade is sold regularly, and children are present, a sign is posted advertising lemonade where there is virtually no indication it is alcoholic. A father asks for lemonade for his son, with his son by his side with no mention by the vendor that it is alcoholic. He is given a bottle where any mention of alcohol is printed in very small letters, which pale in comparison to other words written on the label. It was just asking for this type of mistake. Someone should be held responsible. At the very least, this product should be banned from the ballpark until procedures are in place to make this situation much less likely to happen in the future.
The State should have done a much better job though. If two responsible aunts came, they shoudl have handed the kid to her.
Add Ironchef to the list of people holding some very frightening beliefs - that's its not only okay, but that the state should forceably remove a seven year old child from his parents based on the fact that the son was drinking a hard lemonade at a baseball game, and where it was obviousl y likely that it was just an honest error. What if there wasn't an aunt to pick up the child? And you are a doctor? Wow.
Wow, a post from Eraser-X that I agree with so completely...this is as shocking as finding my red car was green some morning.
The kid was seen by ER docs, and they DID NOT even remotely suspect abuse.
Did he see an "illegal act"?
What that father did would be perfectly legal in Ohio, for instance....
This reminds of when wine coolers came out big in the 80's. There was a brand that came in a 2 liter plastic bottle that looked just like orange soda or Hawaiian Punch. There was a period of time when, as 16/17 year olds, we could easily buy it at grocery stores because it looked like soda and the fact that it was several dollars pricier didn't matter.
Purple Passion!
Ah, but he wasn't in Ohio, he was in Michigan, which clearly makes it a case of child abuse.
Seriously though, ignorance of the law not being an excuse, yada, yada..., suppose the father was from Ohio? He and his son drove up from Toledo for the game. Does the state of Michigan still have the right/duty to detain the child? For doing something that isn't even illegal in his home state where he planned to return after the game? I suppose they do, since it would be reasonable and proper to take action if the father were seen beating the child. What if the family was from Windsor? Then it gets even stickier.
Which is not what he said at all. Unless you think the only reason people only do things when they have a legal responsibility.
It is what EXACTLY he said. He said there was no legal responsibility for him to do so, and there was no moral incentive to do so either, because when I said people should report child abuse because it was their duty to society, he simply brushed it off. If he's only providing reasons for people to NOT call the police during suspected child abuse, you really he's going to do it when he sees it?
The kid was seen by ER docs, and they DID NOT even remotely suspect abuse.
I wasn't talking about THIS kid in particular, just some hypothetical kid that I don't want to see in the future.
This reminds of when wine coolers came out big in the 80's. There was a brand that came in a 2 liter plastic bottle that looked just like orange soda or Hawaiian Punch. There was a period of time when, as 16/17 year olds, we could easily buy it at grocery stores because it looked like soda and the fact that it was several dollars pricier didn't matter.
IIRC, only girls were allowed to drink that stuff.
A 7 year old was caught drinking alcohol with his father's permission (and his father's purchase) at a public venue. Does this not strike you at least worthy of investigation?
I'm not saying "TAKE HIS CHILDREN AWAY" if it was an honest mistake, what I'm saying is that "at the time without knowing any facts they should at least investigate the matter". Once they investigated the matter and the father was cleared of any wrongdoing, they shoudl have given up the kid right away and not delayed it for bureaucratic BS.
Edit: I don't even know how I got put in the "take away the kid" crowd. The government handled this terribly after they were called in, if the investigation clears the father, then hand the kid back. How you folks think that I think it's OK for the govenrment to be taking kids away for honest mistakes (that ended up not harming the kid) is ridiculous.
We happily served them...
Wait, Mike Pelfrey is an Indian and was in the habit of underaged drinking with parents?
This is exactly what should have happened. I'm really not sure how anyone could disagree with this. The security guard needs to take some action because he saw a 7-year old with alcohol. He shouldn't just let that go. The only wiggle room I see is that guard could have just made them pour it out, but taking it just one step further (investigation) is preferred.
*raises hand*
I don't want to keep kids away from their innocent parents any more than the next guy, but if "bureaucratic BS" is necessary because it keeps one kid from being mistakenly returned to an abusive situation at the cost of ten kids' "freedoms" being delayed by a day apiece, then I'm in favor of it.
Make sure the kid isn't being harmed, but once that's confirmed, stay out of the F!@3ing way ASAP.
Agree with the implication. All he had to do was ask WTF was up. If met with a satisfactory explanation, move on to the next drunk.
How is that implied? The quoted section says "at least investigate the matter". He even clarified in post 257. "Cleared of wrongdoing" should have probably been done at the ballpark.
Agree with the implication. All he had to do was ask WTF was up. If met with a satisfactory explanation, move on to the next drunk.
I said in my post that at a minimum he should have made them pour out the drink. I suppose leaving it in the hands of the father would be acceptable as well if he felt that the father actually didn't know. I'd vote for bringing the kid and father out of the stands to a place where they could talk, but I'm fine either way.
Your second sentence answers the first. You seem to believe that the child should be taken away from the parents, until the investigation clears the parents - even though no sane person would think the child's in immediate danger. You also made this statement:
The State should have done a much better job though. If two responsible aunts came, they shoudl have handed the kid to her.'
In other words, you think the state did the right thing taking the child away from the father. You just should have given him to the Aunts a little sooner. I think this view is both crazy and inhumane. Why should they have taken the boy away from the father in the first place? Why should an Aunt have come to get the child at all? This was not an instance where the child should have been forceably removed from the parents - period.
BBC: I don't doubt it's a tough job. What does that have to do with my point? It's a tough job to secure Baghdad, too; that doesn't mean we should pretend that it is secure just to make our soldiers feel better. There are no points for effort.
- the point is that you said that foster homes are bad. period. which means you are insulting ME as a foster mother. which i don't appreciate. my home is poor. it is NOT bad. being a parent is damm hard work - unless of course you are rich and get the illegals/darkies to do the work for you. and being a foster parent is even harder, not just because the kid is hurting/afraid/guilty but ESPECIALLY because you know exactly what the poor kid going back to and there isn't nothing you can do about it
unless you have taken in these poor kids and tried to do the work your own self, unless you know where they came from, you have got NO right to spit on us who try to do right by the little brothas and sistas who been hit/tortured/neglected.
i don't know what you mean by - there are no points for effort - unless you mean why should YOU personally give a flying good goddamm about these kids seeing as how they aren't YOUR kids and it isn't YOUR fault the kids been abused/tortured/neglected
----------------
and the Box sells minute maid lemonaid at beer stands. and i promise you that almost NO man out there is gonna read the label on a bottle of "mikes lemonade" to see if there is alcohol in it.
the security guard SERIOUSLY over-reacted, the cops SERIOUSLY over-reacted, CPS MASSIVELY overreacted. there are plenty of times that CPS goes out to investigate a home without yanking the kid in an obviously not dangerous situation and shoves him off on total strangers.
anyone who thinks that a group of strangers taking a child from its parents and making that child stay with strangers (haven't YOU parents told your kids not to go with strangers) EVEN if it is just overnight and that is no big deal to a kid - is full of it.
because there is absolutely nothing that stranger can say to that kid - who is suddenly not allowed to see or talk to anyone in his family - that will make them not terrified or wondering what they did wrong. and THAT, by the way, is one of the toughest things that a foster parent has to deal with.
you try it out david.
before you fling poopoo at the rest of us
Actually, I distinctly remember the first time I saw a commercial for Mike's Hard Lemonade on TV it was ambiguous as to whether it had alcohol in it (though strongly suggestive) and I actually looked it up on the internet.
sorry i wasn't more clear - should have said "change the subject" instead of just the dotted line.
i DO agree with david that it would have been MORE than reasonable, once the poor kid had got dragged into the ER, to let the kid go home after the ER doc said the kid was fine - and then just do a routine investigation instead of reasoning that if a man doesn't read the label on a bottle of lemonade that the kid's life is in danger and needs to get his little self took away...
MHS, tverik and chris wok are not parents. they have never been taken from their parents or questioned by CPS (like bunyon was). and they don't understand from the side of the father OR the side of the kid neither, what that is like.
Sane Joe Bivens Posted: May 02, 2008 at 02:15 PM (#2766624)
I'll say that I knew that Mike's had alcohol in it, and that I didn't find the ads ambiguous at all. But Mike's isn't exactly a household name, so it's reasonable that the father had never heard of it. I think the proof of this is that he let his kid drink it in public in plain view of everyone at the ballpark. He didn't try to hide it, because I bet he felt there was nothing to hide. He thought it was lemonade.
ding ding ding
we got a winner!!!!!!!!
and anyone with an IQ over severely mentally retarded should have figured that out too
edit...I kid!
BC and I are saying the same thing, that this example sucked for everyone involved, which David took as an excuse to make sure we all knew that foster care is, on average, bad.
Few things in life are ideal. By definition, if a kid is in foster care, things aren't ideal, or there would be no need for the foster care to begin with. So why point out the obvious, that foster care comes into play because family situations are less than ideal? No one said otherwise.
The point is, and I'm not saying it was you, but clearly some did say that the kneejerk reaction to swiftly move the kid to foster care was the correct one because he might be in danger. My, and david's point is that there was little to no evidence that the child was in danger, and thus removing him to foster care likely put him in greater danger because that lacking evidence of abuse, he was removed from an average home to a foster home, which we have established is worse.
Nor did anyone say that foster care is worse than getting beaten. Saying its "bad" does not mean its worse or equally bad as other unfortunate situations. There have been several posts defending foster care relative to abusive households, and I don't think anyone is disagreeing.
Traumatic is the least of one's worries. Foster care isn't safe.
(edit: that is, he didn't say "bad")
And he's right. This statement <u>does not</u> judge the providers of foster care, it simply stated [this is obvious from context] that a child is less physically safe in foster care than in the care of his or her parents. Despite the heroism of many foster parents to open their homes to children in need, foster care as a whole is not a safer place for kids who aren't in real danger at home.
But.
Given's the bent of David's political posts, his use of "sometimes" foster care is better than the alternatives strikes me as withering libertarian tinfoil-headed paranoia. Foster care is not "sometimes" better than dangerous and irresposible parenting. (This is what I took DMN's point to be. If I am wrong, I will gladly and truly apologize.) Neither is is ALWAYS better, based on the fact that foster parents - like regular parents - are certainly sometimes incapable of being proper parents. But it is to a large large percentage better than the ####### ######## crap these kids have been put in by the irresponsibility of the human race that thinks any parent is doing the right thing just becasuse they are the parents. It angers me that David thinks that there is some unknown, unused brilliant libertarian concept that could fix the unfit parent problem and give kids a better option than foster parents, the true majority of whom are giving, loving, excellent people.
And, 278 rings a little too true.
What do you think, Baseball Chick? If this lemonade kid was given to your care in this situation, he would by default be less physically safe with you than with his own parents.
I know I'm taking this to the extreme, but it's that statement that makes me understand why BC got upset.
The question's irrelevant. The fact that foster case is safe with one set of foster parents does not mean it is safe overall, at least relative to an average household.
The fact that you can find a safe neighborhood in Newark, New Jersey does not mean its a safe city overall.
Dizzy, I'm not sure that's a good analogy. If we agree that foster care isn't "ideal", but also agree it's better than the abusive home provided by biological parents, that's all there is to it.
There are 10's of thousands of foster care situations in the US. We hear about the handful of bad foster care homes, and nothing about all the good ones, like bbc's.
Foster care is solution for irresponsible, abusive, or zero parenting. It is not a solution for regular or average parenting. DMN's specific statement (#190) is that foster homes AS A WHOLE are only sometimes better than the alternative. The alternative to foster care for these children is NOT loving, regular, or average parenting - it is dangerous, abusive parenting. David citing foster care as only sometimes being better than this alternative is what I consider an insulting dig at foster homes as a whole.
That's true (although I have no idea what percentage of foster care homes are good ones), but it doesn't make foster care "safe". If there is violence in 5% of foster care situations, and 1% of typical households, you can safely say foster care is unsafe relative to the average household (but not when compared to a household known to be abusive).
We're not really disagreeing here, but what started it was David's assertion that foster care is unsafe. And relative to this particular child's likely home situation, I think it was a fair assertion, no matter how wonderful BBC's situation is (and I have no doubt it is wonderful).
Except that children in that home are exposed to dangerous levels of Brad Ausmus's hitting and Carlos Lee's defense.
This statement does not judge the providers of foster care, it simply stated [this is obvious from context] that a child is less physically safe in foster care than in the care of his or her parents.
What do you think, Baseball Chick? If this lemonade kid was given to your care in this situation, he would by default be less physically safe with you than with his own parents.
I know I'm taking this to the extreme, but it's that statement that makes me understand why BC got upset.
- and THAT is what get me upset too.
even IF i had an extra bed for a 7 year old, he would certainly be sharing it in a room with 1 or 2 other boys. this poor kid gonna be in a strange house with strange people, sleeping in a strange bed, maybe even eating different food then he used to AND he is not allowed to call his parents, maybe even his friends or grandparents, who knows what CPS tell us. and i PROMISE you this poor kid gonna be either crying, trying NOT to cry, or acting out because he WILL think that this is because he was a bad kid. kids ALWAYS think it is all about them because that is what a kid is and it is how they think
and this is a kid who IS from a good home with good parents, too, and is probably not used to having to be a bad kid to get SOME attention, any attention, even if it is a kick.
so it would be tough emotionally on this kid. and it is tough emotionally on kids who get taken from BAD homes. because it IS their home.
but for people to say that he is LESS physically safe by default in MY home is an effing insult.
- and the sad fact is that most foster homes, no matter how bad are STILL better than the he!! these poor kids come from in the first place
Except that who is arguing the other side? Who is arguing that foster care is worse than being in an abusive household? Someone saying foster care isn't safe, in a context when we definitely were talking about this particular child's situation, is not the same thing.
No one has said that. Someone has said that, on average, foster care is less safe than a non-abusive household. Not in your household, Not every foster care situation, but foster care in general - when compared to this particular child's situation. Even if 95% of foster care sitations are like yours, and perfectly safe, the statement David made could still be true.
Which posts? Show me one. The only posts attacking foster care that I can see were made in context of talking about this particular child. My bad if there are others that I missed, but I don't see any.
...The fact that foster case is safe with one set of foster parents does not mean it is safe overall, at least relative to an average household.
but you are comparing a foster home to THE WRONG THING
you should NOT be comparing it to an "average household"
you SHOULD be comparing it to a household where abuse is going on
because MOST of the kids are NOT like this poor leo kid.
MOST kids have been beated/starved/raped/tortured/neglected
which i HOPE you are not saying is "an average household"
Just got home from work, Off to physical therapy. I'll scour the thread when I get back, but i think it's safe to say that DMN is attacking the system in general, as well as in this particular instance. (I don't completely disagree with all of DMN's post in this thread.)
The first half, anyway. Toggling back and forth between that and the Red Sox.
you should NOT be comparing it to an "average household"
you SHOULD be comparing it to a household where abuse is going on
No, in this context you <u>should</u> be (and David was) comparing an "average foster home" to an "average living with parents household" because there was no reason to suspect abuse in this particular instance.
Well I am, and Dizzy is, and so are others. Cause frankly, the larger subject is uninteresting. Of course foster care is better than an abusive home. That doesn't mean it's some benign, neutral situation where it's no worse than an average home, and thus it is OK to err on the side of caution and house every kid there until it can be determined that the parents are fit. That's what some here are implying. Someone said he would rather put 10 children in foster care needlessly than have one truly at risk child fall through the cracks. That is simply wrong, wrong, wrong. It is the complete opposite of the very basis of our legal system where it is better to let 100 guilty go free rather than lock up one innocent.
Getting back to Leo...
Apparently it would be legal for him to have his Mikes lemonade in Ohio. I didn't know that. It's quite possible ushers at the Jake don't know that either. Maybe even the first responder cops wouldn't either. I mean, a 7 year old sipping booze? Can't be legal, right.
Now, suppose it was legal in Michigan. I think it is quite possible the kid would still have ended up in foster care. The system is so springloaded to err on the side of caution, and the attitudes of many here seem to support that notion, is that all it takes is an allegation of wrongdoing from someone in an official capacity:
The father, not knowing Mikes lemonade has alcohol, gets one for his son.
The usher, seeing this and not knowing it is legal, confronts the father
The father confesses he didn't know
The usher, suspecting abuse or neglect calls the cops
The cop, being primed by the usher that the father is negligent and possibly abusive, takes custody, orders the kid to the ER, and reports to CPS.
CPS, once receiving an official complaint, must follow through with their inflexible procedures and the kid winds up in foster care for committing a legal act.
True story:
A few years ago, we had some friends over for dinner and pinocle. At the time, they had a daughter ~ 1.5 years old. Ours was 15 months at the time. Sometime during the evening, we heard their daughter cry out. We found her in the bathroom with an open jar of Vics Vapo rub in her hand and a little bit on her lips. The mother immediately called poison control. She was informed that it could be harmful if she swallowed a large amount and she should be brought to the ER. Meanwhile, the rest of us found that she had just a little on her lips, none in her mouth, and she didn't swallow any, let alone a large amount. So the mom called poison control back, said all was well, she didn't put any in her mouth, and she would not be going to the ER. Poison control informed her that she must report to the ER, and if she didn't, they would dispatch a police unit with a CPS rep and take the child.
Now, I'm not comparing a trip to the ER with removal to foster care. It was more like a very expensive inconvienence. But much like the episode in which Jerry couldn't return the jacket because he said spite, once we called poison control, we couldn't unring the bell.
I hope you aren't including me in that group.
The only instances I could find in the thread attacking foster care came from DMN...twice. "Foster care is bad." "Foster care is unsafe." He may have been talking specifically, as compared to the care the father provided his son, but I would bet dollars to donuts DMN's dissatisfaction with foster care stems from government involvement, as I alluded to upthread.
I'd be interested in hearing what alternative to foster care he might offer?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main