Fighting Words

There are many differing perspectives on when it's acceptable to use force to protect one's Rights. For example I'm of the "shoot first, examine badges later" school when it comes to dealing with any type of home invasion, though for many reasons I'm in the minority on that. Most folks would advocate finding a judicial solution rather than resorting to protective violence against agents of the state. But I don't have to do any in depth analysis of "shoot/don't shoot" criteria to convince most readers here that there are some situations where agents of the state should be met with force. (h/t to Irons in the Fire)

Cops and a social services worker attack husband, threaten wife, and kidnap 5 month old baby.

“I’m going to grab your baby, and don’t resist, and don’t fight me okay?' one officer can be heard telling the mother in the video."

In a nutshell, a couple had their 5 month old son at a hospital because the kid was sick and had been previously diagnosed with a heart murmur. So they, being precautious, admitted their youngin to make sure everything would be alright. They didn't particularly like the care and treatment (they claim to have caught at least 2 "mistakes" the staff made) and so sought a second opinion when the doc stated the baby needed surgery. They didn't bother to wait for a formal discharge form - they just took their baby straight to another hospital.

The doc at the second hospital examined the little tyke and pronounced it safe to take the baby home. But while there the cops showed up, claiming the docs at the first hospital made it seem like the baby was on death's door and the parents had endangered the child. After talking with the docs at the second hospital, the cops bid them all a good day, seeing no problem.

The next day, a few cops and a social worker show up, assault and restrain the husband, enter the house illegally, and then threaten the mother. They steal the baby from her arms.

Let me reiterate - agents of the state used force to steal someone's baby from their home.

Every damn actor in this sorry situation should have been shot. Multiple times. Including the social worker there on the scene.

The parents finally had a day in court, and while they're just happy that they have unlimited access to their son, I'm thinking the judge should be put in stocks whilst small happy children throw rotten fruit at him for a few hours each day. The judge ordered their son transferred to another hospital for medical evaluation, prohibited the parents from removing their son without a proper medical discharge, ordered them to follow the medical "advice" of their doc, and is allowing CPS (Child Protective Services) to continue to monitor the case, including "follow up" visits at the parents home.

What the judge should have done was simply to have dismissed the matter, apologized for the inconvenience, and asked the prosecutor when the court could expect to see the formal charges for the cops and social worker involved (expressed in hours, not days). He didn't, which speaks ill of him.

It's as infuriating to place any sort of limitations on the parents' Rights after a hearing in which no evidence or even allegations of parental abuse was presented as it would be to sentence someone to probation after they were acquitted of a charge brought against them erroneously.

A parent should not have to follow medical advice, nor be required to seek permission to remove their child from a hospital unless such removal would unquestionably cause that child's imminent death. A parent should not have to endure a "visit" from any state employee when no evidence has been substantiated (or even presented) that the parents are a risk to their child's safety.

It should come as no surprise that this happened in California. It should also not elicit shock that the parents are planning to sue the Sacramento PD, CPS and the hospital which likely initiated this illegal escapade.

Here the parents are being interviewed by Glen Beck:

A 9th circuit case from 2007, ROGERS v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN concluded that qualified immunity did not apply when a social worker removed a child from a home without due process unless there's an emergency. That means that 42 USC § 1983 could be used to justify a lawsuit not only against the CPS and Sacramento PD, but the individual cops and social worker involved in this kidnapping.

I still say that the best thing that could have been done to to discourage this sort of abuse would have been to have shot the cops and social worker as they tried to kidnap the baby. Now the best thing that should be done to discourage this sort of abuse is to hold a trial, and (if they're convicted) shoot the cops and the social worker. Anything less will not be enough of an incentive to dissuade this kind of thing from happening in the future.

A slothful social worker relied exclusively on the word of a doctor that the baby should have been under his care, and said social worker got cops to back her up as she sought to kidnap a couple's child. That sounds like more that can be remedied by a slap on the economic wrist of the agencies involved. At this point criminal charges are the only thing that would be appropriate, along with an immediate termination of employment by everyone involved, including the damned judge.

But none of that will happen. The agencies involved will possibly issue a clearer directive regarding such situations and at most someone might get a week long suspension (with pay of course). There could be some "enhanced" training standards mentioned which may or may not be implemented, and likely there'll be an out of court settlement for an undisclosed amount, along with a confidentiality agreement.

I never have liked docs. Most that I've dealt with have had an arrogance about them, as if they weren't service providers but High Priests, and the opinions of their patients didn't matter. "The Doc Hath Spoken, silly mortal - now stop asking questions which you can't understand the answer to anyway and do as I command!" So it may just be my bias, but I'm guessing that this doc saw this couple with accented English and assumed what he thought was his rightful station as their betters. He decided what the best treatment for the child was, and was probably offended that mere parents, especially parents who talked funny, would dare question his judgement. So he got all indignant when he realized his bedside manner was not enough to inspire the trust of his employers (cause docs do work for the patients ya know) and called a social worker to intervene on his behalf.

Perhaps he really thought the kid needed that surgery, and he was the only one on the planet who could save that child. Or perhaps he was just an arrogant prick who needs an attitude adjustment via a series of hickory switches. Either way he should be fired and his license revoked.

(As an aside, I'm generally against state licensing of anything. Whenever advocates of any particular state license argue that licensing ensures competence in a particular area, I point to the idiots we all see every day that do stupid things in traffic (most are licensed), or to docs like this one. I'd much rather take my chances by doing my own research into a professional's credentials than rely on a state certified piece of paper to weed out the charlatans from the able minded.)

The cops did not appear to have a warrant. In fact it was when the father asked about a warrant that he was assaulted. Is that a standard practice with the Sacramento PD, to meet any question of their actions with assault? And do they routinely do a social workers bidding without acquiring a warrant?

I'd also be interested to find out if there was a profit motive involved. Firstly, Sutter Health runs the hospital where the baby was held after he was kidnapped by agents of the state from his parents arms. I wonder what they charge for that kind of service?

Secondly, in other parts of the country, I've heard and read about financial incentive programs for social workers who displace and foster children according to varying localized scales.

For example, from The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services (a paper by the late Georgia state senator Nancy Schaefer) I found the following numbers:

"...The Adoption and the Safe Families Act, set in motion first in 1974 by Walter Mondale and later in 1997 by President Bill Clinton, offered cash 'bonuses' to the states for every child they adopted out of foster care. In order to receive the 'adoption incentive bonuses' local child protective services need more children. They must have merchandise (children) that sells and you must have plenty so the buyer can choose. Some counties are known to give a $4,000 to $6,000 bonus for each child adopted out to strangers and an additional $2,000 for a 'special needs' child. Employees work to keep the federal dollars flowing;

· State Departments of Human Resources (DHR) and affiliates are given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population. For every child DHR and CPS can get adopted, there is the bonus of $4,000 or maybe $6,000. But that is only the beginning figure in the formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the State has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. Therefore States and local communities work hard to reach their goals for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care."

I've seldom if ever heard anything good about any child protection agency. The preponderance of anecdotes points to a mechanism not subject to, but fueled by corruption (google "CPS corruption", or look at wikipedia's CPS criticisms section to read some other horrible stories about the actions of social workers and their agencies). In this case in California I'd like to find out how much cash would have been gained by CPS (and which workers if any would have received additional compensation) if this 5 month old baby had been successfully stolen.

But most importantly, I want to know what exactly is being done to guarantee this won't ever happen again. The answer right now is of course nothing. A lot of folks, such as the previously mentioned Mrs. Schaefer, thinks the best thing to do about Child Protective Services across the country is to dismantle them.

Here's a speech (in 2 parts) given by Mrs. Schaefer concerning the sorry state of the CPS racket:

And here's a video (with less than stellar quality) of a former CPS worker describing her expereinces:

The speaker in the last vid, Carol Rhodes, wrote a book about her time working for CPS. It's entitled Friend of the Court, Enemy of the Family: Surviving the child support and divorce racket.

I don't have children, so a visit from a social worker is not anything I'd likely have to deal with. Still, I cannot fathom why anyone would open their door to any of these people. Hell, I'm wondering why they're not routinely bodily tossed off a person's property. But when they show up with cops acting as muscle then I see absolutely no moral dilemma in using whatever force is necessary to protect not only your Rights but your child.

Yes, yes, I know - an assault of the King's men is an assault upon the King any use of force against any government agent will bring the full force of the government against you. Some things are worth risk however, and I think keeping your child from being kidnapped by anyone is one of those things. If you can't engage in self defense to keep your child from being forcibly abducted, then you have no Right to self defense.

In this instance it's too late for that. Being in California was disadvantageous to anyone who would dare protect themselves from the state anyway. That the couple involved are immigrants from countries where self defense is officially frowned upon probably means that the thought never entered their minds. They likely trusted the government. I'm damn certain they don't now though.

What it isn't too late for, but likely won't happen, is eradication of all the Child Protective Services type agencies across the country. The benefits - and they do on occasion move a child from a harmful environment into a healthier one - do not seem to outweigh the detriments the way the agencies are currently set up. I have seen no indication whatsoever that what happened to this couple in Sacramento is not a result of typical practice by these agencies and their agents. Reforming such a system is likely impossible and it'd be better to do away with it entirely and start over.

In this example "We're from the government and we're here to help you" was rephrased as "I’m going to grab your baby, and don’t resist, and don’t fight me okay?". I'd regard both as fighting words.

Posted by Publicola at May 2, 2013 05:55 AM | TrackBack