It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Blaine91555
Well, that makes more sense I suppose.
I still hate Nazi's tho. . . .
originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask
But I can tell you what would happen if ANYONE kicked my door down at 1 am in the morning.......
You would have been killed by the cops in riot gear if you tried anything.
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
About 1600-2600 dollarsworth no insurance. With insurance I had to pay600 out of pocket and300for the doctors.
Jaden
There is more to this story.
originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: infolurker
Okay this is definitely an overreaction, but allow me to educate parents that have kindergarten level biology.
Yes you love your kids, but that kids life was in danger. The human body cannot withstand temperature fluctuations. A healthy ADULT humans body is roughly 36C, seven degrees more you get hyperthermia, which leads to brain damage, even death. Thirteen degrees less and you get very very sick.
This kid is two years old.
Yes this was a drastic move, but it could've been avoided if the child was taken to hospital as a precaution. What if his fever was a symptom of meningitis? The poor kid would've been dead before the SWAT arrived. The doctor was concerned about the child's welfare, unlike his parents.
When a doctor says take your child to a hospital, effin do it. I wouldn't risk the chance of a Darwin award because I ignored a Foreman's advice not to shoot myself in the head with a nail gun.
SWAT was unnecessary, police checking the place with a polite knock? Sure. All these paranoid androids talking about police states and I'm sure someone has already blamed the democrats but screw the poor kid and his concerns.
Let's leave all that behind, it was over handed but it could have been averted. When you disregard doctors advice there better be a M.D behind that 'mamma knows best.'
originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: sine.nomine
reason.com...
Just after midnight the caseworker got that notice, which is required by law. Matters subsequently escalated:
Cascio wrote that officers consulted with the police criminal investigations bureau and SWAT.
"Based upon the court order, the intent of DCS to serve the order, and exigency to ensure the health and welfare of the child, the decision was made to force entry to the home if the parents refused to respond to verbal requests," according to police records. Police knocked, saying they had a court order and would force entry if needed, according to police records.
And force they did:
It was after 1 a.m. when officers kicked down the family's door. One officer carried a shield, while another was described as having "lethal coverage." Officers pointing guns yelled, "Chandler Police Department," and entered the house.
The rest of the story is equally nuts. The kids were all placed in separate foster homes. When the case got to juvenile court 10 days later, DCS requested it be closed to the public. The judge refused.
But then it seemed as if DCS decided to make everything harder for the parents, because now the press was interested, as was the Arizona DCS Oversight Group, a local organization that fights for families' rights, and a state legislator, Rep. Kelly Townsend (R–Mesa), who had helped write the law requiring DCS to get a warrant before removing a child. Townsend has been lobbing zingers like, "What about the parents' rights to decide what's best for their child? Parents felt the child was fine. Next thing we know, the Gestapo is at their door."
In court, DCS tried to convince the judge, Jennifer Green, to bar the press from covering the dispute. A lawyer for the agency even claimed that the parents had gone against the best interests of the children by involving the media. Green rejected this argument, saying, "In Arizona we like our courts to be open."
However, the judge ultimately sided with DCS, ruling that the children's removal was lawful and telling the parents "to remember that the state had them on a family-reunification plan and wants them to regain custody of their children."
The children's grandparents are undergoing a DCS review, and hope to be permitted to temporarily shelter the kids once that's approved. But there's no telling how long it will be before the kids can just go home to mom and dad.