Also, 5 posts to a "children taken away". Cna't believe it took that long

I call BS, there is no way an academic person doesn't know about every single of kind of alcohol on this planet.

The sign beside the vendor said "MIKE'S LEMONADE". He can be forgiven if he was not in fact sold lemonade.

"Once the court has authorized a child's removal," Patterson told me, "we cannot return the child to the parental custody" until the court has OK'd it.

But that doesn't explain why CPS refused to release Leo to the custody of two aunts -- one a social worker and licensed foster parent -- who drove all night from New England to take custody of their nephew.

Chris Ratte's sisters, Catherine Miller and Felicity Ratte, left Massachusetts at 10:30 the night of the fateful lemonade purchase after the police officer who'd reluctantly requested a removal order told Ratte the state would likely jump at the chance to place Leo with responsible relatives. But when the two women arrived at the CPS office early Sunday, a caseworker explained they would not be allowed to see Leo until they had secured a hotel room.

The sisters quickly complied. But by the time they returned to CPS around 10:30 a.m., their nephew had been taken to an undisclosed foster home, where he would remain until a preliminary court hearing the following afternoon.

At a hearing later that day, Jones recommended that Leo remain in foster care until she had completed her investigation, a process she estimated would take several days. It was only after the assistant attorney general who represented CPS admitted that the state was not interested in pursuing the case aggressively that juvenile referee Leslie Graves agreed to release Leo to his mother -- on the condition that Ratte himself relocate to a hotel.

Finally, at a second hearing three days later, Graves dismissed the complaint and permitted Ratte to move home.

The Comerica cop estimated that Leo had drunk about 12 ounces of the hard lemonade, which is 5% alcohol. But an ER resident who drew Leo's blood less than 90 minutes after he and his father were escorted from their seats detected no trace of alcohol.

"Completely normal appearing," the resident wrote in his report, "... he is cleared to go home."

Does this tell us that Mike's is some weak (stuff), or that Leo is one badass 7-year-old?

No kidding, that's why the sign is bad. But again, even if the word "HARD" was there, a harried papa might just see "LEMONADE". That product is marketed extremely deceptively.

I don't think the security gaurd or the system did anything wrong. The assumption should not be the someone did not know what they were purchasing. Not knowing the speed limit is not an excuse for driving above the speed limit.

I don't think the security gaurd or the system did anything wrong.

You can get beer and soda at the same stand at PNC.

certainly is if there is no sign posted.

The more I think about I believe his parent rights should be questioneds.

The article has a picture of a sign that may be from the stand in question, and it says "mike's lemonade", not "mike's hard lemonade".

Seriously--what if the shoe's on the other foot? In other words--the security guard never sees Leo holding the bottle (so there aren't any legal consequences for dad), but Leo gets mysteriously ill during or after the game from consuming the lemonade. Based on Leo's illness, does dad have a case against the team/ballpark for not exercising proper care in labeling the drink? I think a reasonable argument can be made that he does.

Knowingly giving your child alcohol is a crime.

I find this discussion quite intriguing, mostly because I think it has to be generally recognized that the reason Mike's Hard Lemonade and other fruity, sugary alcoholic drinks even exist is to appeal to underage drinkers, particularly girls. It's amazing how much flak the tobacco industry got for gearing advertisments to teenagers, while the alcohol industry gets off easy.

The more I think about I believe his parent rights should be questioneds.



Oh good god, I PRAY that you are not in a position of authority over anyone, ever.

You're right. Those must have been alchoholic peanuts, given that only alcohol is sold at beer stands. Funny, I've never had alcoholic peanuts before.

But what if the sign said George's Chicken?

So are you suggesting that one can assume that any item at any ballpark that is more expensive than beer is alcoholic?

I'm 36, and I almost never get carded anyplace except at places that card everybody.

or had a lot more volume than A CAN of beer.

Oh good god, I PRAY that you are not in a position of authority over anyone, ever.

It would if you know that alcoholic lemonade exists. If you don't, like this guy didn't, how would it be a warning sign? If I saw orange juice sold for more than the beer, I'd just assume it was fresh squeezed, not that it was alcoholic.

I'm 36, and I almost never get carded anyplace except at places that card everybody.



Which happens to be the ball park.

Which happens to be the ball park.

Have you read the comments from people who don't get carded at the park? I'm 27, wasn't carded in Oakland two weeks ago.

But I know, every other person at every other location in the world has had the exact same experience as you have in a similar situation.

Same goes for Dr. Love, a true idiot.

You clearly have not been to Fenway Park.

Hate to break it to you, but I have.

Well, then you'd know that there is plenty of soda available at Fenway for just 50 cents less than beer.

1) He was supposedly carded. For him not to be you need to assume someone else didn't do their job.
2) That he has his head in the sand and didn't know that Mikes was booze.
3) That he didn't look at the label that clearly states Mikes is booze.
4) That he didn't recognize that the price was considerbaly higher than a comperable beverage.

Still, I think the law is well intentioned and has the best inrerests of society behind it. And just because this is probably the .0001 percent of cases where it failed, I don't think throwing the whole process out is the right answer.

Or am I the only cynic here on this matter?

It looks to me like the right thing happened all the way around. The guy didn't lose custody, but it was investigated thoroughly. My concern isn't for the man, its for the boy.

My point is that it is unlikly that ths SECURITY GUARD should take his story on face value since:

1) He was supposedly carded. For him not to be you need to assume someone else didn't do their job.

My point is that it is unlikly that ths SECURITY GUARD should take his story on face value since:

1) He was supposedly carded. For him not to be you need to assume someone else didn't do their job.
2) That he has his head in the sand and didn't know that Mikes was booze.
3) That he didn't look at the label that clearly states Mikes is booze.
4) That he didn't recognize that the price was considerbaly higher than a comperable beverage.


Now if you tell me:
1) The guard checked and the man wasnt carded. (the vender wouldn't admit it)
3) The drink was served in a solo cup or something without a label. (it wasn't because the kid was seen drinking it from an identifiable container.)
4) The prices were vastly similar

Then I would agree that it went too far.

Has anyone else thrown out there the non-zero chance that the guy did the entire thing on purpose to set up a chain of inevitable (hopefully) events leading to a very lucrative lawsuit against the Tigers?

I'm guessing you've never been a parent.

You expect a security guard to think every person that bought alcohol was carded? We all know they aren't, so why should the guard?

4) That he didn't recognize that the price was considerbaly higher than a comperable beverage.


4) The prices were vastly similar

No, I expect everyone to act rationally. I have little reason to believe that everyone here didn't.