Baby taken into care over fears it could be radicalised

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: stumason

There was no "might" about it - the children were with their parents who tried to make their way to IS controlled Syria.

As I understand it they were stopped crossing the Turkish Syrian border, not from "joining IS". Obviously, a one year old doesn't know from religion.

They still tried to take their children into a war zone and evidence (social media postings etc) suggests that they planned on joining IS. Either way, it's cause enough for you to be under the kosh for child endangerment.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
I don't think this would hold up if challenged in a higher court in the U.S.

Children are taken into care or made Wards of Court all the time in the US. Get off your high horse.

a reply to: beansidhe

Beansidhe, with all due respect, if you are not stopping them you ought to be. There's no case to be made that someone has a right to join the ranks of IS. # them and the horse they rode in on, the other part I agree about protecting the child. Sometimes from the outside looking in it is hard for folks to understand Americans, in the same respect this is hard for me to understand some of the viewpoints mainly the OPs that makes a case for the freedom of extremists.

a reply to: stumason

Yes, and I have spent many an hour in court with them. I'm not on a high-horse, and I'm not criticizing another country. I think if this is challenged in a higher court there, it will also be defeated. There is no imminent danger to the child, based on what "could happen" and I doubt it will stand in the case.

There are some "could happens" such as a four year old who weights 120 lbs. and the mother cannot control the eating, and the child is morbidly obese and 'could die', or 'could develop diabetes' and such. I could give other examples,
but in this particular situation that the child could become radicalized, is years away, and the child is not in imminent danger.

I'll be curious to see what happens if the parent's appeal this decision.

eta: Stu, I said "in the U.S." not to put the U.S. on a highhorse, but rather to imply that it is only the U.S. court system I know anything about.

a reply to: anxiouswens

That baby belongs with it's parents

We don't have to like the parents - or agree with the parents beliefs or politics

Taking the child into Syria at this time could be considered child abuse

Tough call in that case - but the radicalization argument is pure BS. It's a baby

Kinda shows you how things are done here in the enlightened West

Of course - I'm basing my opinion on things I just read - in the Daily Mail

My brain feels dirty - and a little bit slower

:-)

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Being caught on the border between Turkey and Syria is an obvious "imminent danger" - besides, there doesn't have to be an immediate risk to have your children taken away. The family have clearly demonstrated a total lack of parental responsibility and pose a future risk to their child if allowed unfettered custody.

How you can argue against it is a mystery.

a reply to: stumason

Children are taken into care or made Wards of Court all the time in the US. Get off your high horse.

Bullying is not an argument - how is she on a high horse

Lame - that all you got?

Argue - better

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Lady - your reply is much better than mine - but, honestly...

:-)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

The "radicalisation" argument is coming from the Daily Fail - the Courts are private and they are merely speculating, which is what the Daily Fail does with all it's stories, usually to illicit a desired reaction because they are tabloid gutter press.

The real reasons are likely to be the more prosaic reason of posing a risk to the child because they tried to take them into an active war zone.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

The parents were trying to join Isis, what are you talking about? When we catch someone doing that over here we whisk them away take their children, and waterboard the parents in some unknown location until we get all the information needed out of them, and throw them in prison. That kind of thing is not going to the Supreme Court that kind of thing is going to guantanamo.

a reply to: stumason

Better

Not as High-horsey

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: stumason

Children are taken into care or made Wards of Court all the time in the US. Get off your high horse.

Bullying is not an argument - how is she on a high horse

Lame - that all you got?

Argue - better

Actually, no, I don't need to "argue better" - I've now posted a few times in this thread and contributed a damned site more than ladyinwaiting asinine comment of "if this was the US because we're better"...

Taking children into an active warzone poses an immediate risk. There would have been interviews and such done on the family and if they were demonstrating a desire to try again to take their families there, the Social Workers would act to protect the children.

You say "argue better" but you have totally failed to demonstrate why the children should remain with the parents who have expressed a desire to join IS and take their children with them.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Hmmm...

No, I would not have thought so. That would be a Gitmo holiday club membership and a free bag over the head job.

Fine - I'll accept you weren't trying to paint the US as superior - I misunderstood the sentiment and I apologise.

But my argument stands - I feel no sympathy to these cretins who tried to take their children into a Warzone where monsters and rapists run rampant.

a reply to: stumason

Was pretty much talking about that one post

The entire body of your work was not being taken into consideration - just then

:-)

a reply to: TrueBrit

Yes, I don't know where she's at or what country she thinks she's in but as I said in my above post, they get the waterboard and gitmo treatment, and deservingly at that! I don't always agree with you but here she's completely wrong, we handle this kind of case very swiftly and very harsh.

a reply to: stumason

I guess you missed my edit to add:

eta: Stu, I said "in the U.S." not to put the U.S. on a highhorse, but rather to imply that it is only the U.S. court system I know anything about.

I'm not arguing anyway! I'm "just sayin'.

a reply to: TechniXcality

Please don't talk about me as if I'm not here. We have very strict rules in the U.S. about removing children. I know them all.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

See my last post

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Well I'm glad you know them all, that's curious.here's the deal when you engage in terrorist activity all those rights go away, bye bye and that's the way it works here and quite frankly should be the case across the board.