Mother battles Michigan over daughter

Mother battles Michigan over daughter

www.msnbc.msn.com

DETROIT — Frustration over her physically impaired daughter's medical care led Maryanne Godboldo to lash out at what she considered state interference and into a 12-hour standoff when Detroit police came to take the girl away.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Ze gestapo is on the move....

a quick run down

she refused to do what the state wanted

five days in jail

a discharge of a gun ect


a little more of the back story appears that some of the health issues may be related to earlier vaccines

the topper to all of this...

But "to this day, there is not one court order saying give her the medication," Folmar said. "No one has recommended giving the child the medication."

thats right still no court order

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

in Forbes

DETROIT -- A Detroit mother is locked in a battle with the state of Michigan over her right to decide what medication her physically impaired 13-year-old daughter must take.

and

Human Services Director Maura Corrigan says for the state, it comes down to medical neglect.

Yahoo.com's

DETROIT – Frustration over her physically impaired daughter's medical care led Maryanne Godboldo to lash out at what she considered state interference and into a 12-hour standoff when Detroit police came to take the girl away.

When it ended, the unemployed mother was in handcuffs; her daughter placed in a psychiatric hospital for children.

reply to post by ripcontrol


This is the power of the family court system. It is their belief that all children are their children/property and our job to raise them for the state. Thus if they disagree with the way a child is raised they take their property and give it to someone else AND lets you fund it in child support. Land of the free indeed.

This is the world im scared to raise my children in. when a parents basic right to decide how to raise their children, and decide what isright for there child is being taken away.

Now I know real child abuse is alive and well, i'm not ignorant. But the children agency needs a major overhaul! Maybe they will dissapear when the shtf? Lol

Definitions....gov

Neglect

Neglect is frequently defined as the failure of a parent or other person with responsibility for the child to provide needed food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision such that the child's health, safety, and well-being are threatened with harm. Approximately 24 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands include failure to educate the child as required by law in their definition of neglect.6 Seven States specifically define medical neglect as failing to provide any special medical treatment or mental health care needed by the child.7 In addition, four States define as medical neglect the withholding of medical treatment or nutrition from disabled infants with life-threatening conditions.8

and

Michigan . gov

Child neglect means harm or threatened harm to a child's health or welfare by a parent, legal guardian, or any other person responsible for the child's health or welfare that occurs through either of the following:

*
Negligent treatment, including the failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical care.
*
Placing a child at an unreasonable risk to the child's health or welfare by failure of the parent, legal guardian, or other person responsible for the child's health or welfare to intervene to eliminate that risk when that person is able to do so and has, or should have, knowledge of the risk.

well

Adequate- legal definition

Sufficient; equal to what is required; suitable to the case or occasion.


A law that requires Public Utilities to provide adequate service does not create a right for customers to sue the electric company whenever the meat in their freezers spoils because of a power outage in the absence of Negligence. Service does not have to be perfect in order to meet a standard of adequacy.

their is of course one other problem CPS is in on this...

so small... she should win on appeal...

ROGERS v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

from the case

In sum, whether we accept the version of the facts offered by the Rogerses or by Royal, there is no support at all in the record for the conclusion that the Rogers children were likely in imminent danger of serious bodily harm.   Thus, we hold that, under any view of the facts, the Rogerses' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when Royal removed the children without a warrant.

and

Assuming Royal's version of the facts, the Rogers children were in a sorry state and suffering from neglect of a type that could, if their parents' conduct was not modified within a reasonable period of time, lead to long-term harm.   Still, the conditions here did not present an imminent risk of serious bodily harm.   It would have taken Royal only a few hours to obtain a warrant.   In removing the Rogreasonable period of time, lead to long-term harm.   Still, the conditions here did not present an imminent risk of serious bodily harm.   It would have taken Royal only a few hours to obtain a warrant.  

my opinion.. this was my take

if applied properly here... they could have ordered the court to force administration of the meds at the house...

this alone CPS loses...

Legally, all children belong to the state in most of the Western nations at least.

Society, the State, is consider the True Parent of a child and the people with custody of that child are considered parents-in-location acting on behalf of the society/state.

If you understand the legalese, this is what is in law. Not a conspiracy. Go ahead, find the laws about custody in any nation, in your state or province. Then when you get the parts in latin, look up what the latin translates to.

You'll find that I'm right. Several years ago I spent a couple of days looking at good cross section of child custody laws in the Western nations.

You'll also find that while your nation or state *MAY* mention parental rights, you'll not find a clear legal definition anywhere as to what that means.

An extra place to look at to see some of these interesting precedents are taxation laws in regards to custody.

What mother wouldn't defend her cub like a mamma bear if she felt it being threatened. This shows the courage of one against a system who has admitted they don't know whats wrong with the child but would force zombifying medication on them.
I say the Medal of Bravery for this mother.

reply to post by ripcontrol


Isn't anything new just getting worse. I am so glad all my children are grown. It reminds me of what happened with my grand daughter this week. There was a dentist that went around the schools checking the childrens teeth. The school sent a note home which said that she had to go to that dentist office due to a cavity in her baby tooth. Once there the dentist said that she would have to have what he called surgery at the hospital with general anethesia to fill her baby tooth. Even though she is covered under medicaid her mother had to pay $50 up front. There is no telling how much all of this is going to cost the taxpayer before its over. Her mom said she was scared to death not to do what she was told because she was afraid the school or the dentist would accuse her of medical neglect. I ask her if she told them if there were any problems with the anethesia she would sue the he$$ out of them.

Originally posted by redrose123
reply to post by ripcontrol

 

Isn't anything new just getting worse. I am so glad all my children are grown. It reminds me of what happened with my grand daughter this week. There was a dentist that went around the schools checking the childrens teeth. The school sent a note home which said that she had to go to that dentist office due to a cavity in her baby tooth. Once there the dentist said that she would have to have what he called surgery at the hospital with general anethesia to fill her baby tooth. Even though she is covered under medicaid her mother had to pay $50 up front. There is no telling how much all of this is going to cost the taxpayer before its over. Her mom said she was scared to death not to do what she was told because she was afraid the school or the dentist would accuse her of medical neglect. I ask her if she told them if there were any problems with the anethesia she would sue the he$$ out of them.

??? Are you serious?? Something fishy about this scenerio..since when do you need to go to a hospital to have a tooth filled? Sounds like a money grabbing manipulation,setup through the school system.

( this world just makes me more and more depressed)

reply to post by gabby2011


Exactly. I was so upset about the entire thing. I left the dentist office singing money money.

reply to post by redrose123


That is wrong on soooo many levels! Im sorry! this reminds me of a fiasco regarding "the smile center" here in san antonio. They would hound medicaid patients out side of wic offices, foodstamp offices, and grocery stores and would strap kids down (my son was done like this) and fill there mouth with caps and temporary cement.

My son came out with 7 caps, terrified of dentists, an abcess a week later, had to take him to a new dentist to put him under to fix the "work" and they had to remove 2 teeth and recap 3 others.

He was 3. He started with 1 cavity

I was going to post this but did a search and saw this thread.

This is just terrible the state we find ourselves in these times. This drug should never have been prescribed to a child in the first place. Then the state makes this bold move from advice of a Doctor that has spent how much time with the child compared to the mother? Its not like she refused her child heart medication. She lives with that child, has the maternal mother/child connection and had witnessed her child decline when on this drug and wanted to try a more natural approach.

The world is really losing it isn't it?