Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's really sad you folks have such a skewed perception of reality.Reason number 2043 why CPS agents should be double tapped and left to feed the vultures...
Okay. You can look at it that way, but if one of your grandchildren was removed from one of your kids, would you want CPS discussing the details of the abuse or neglect in the newspaper? Just another way to look at it.Depends on what you call "poor parenting." It can be deadly. I have told you what it seems like, from my perspective. You can continue to jump to conclusions and make up the facts that aren't provided to shore up your conclusion that CPS wants any right winger's children. Or whatever it is you're arguing. Sounds to me something like that. But I'm not going there. I've told you facts. I can't tell you facts about the case and you can't tell them, either. You were right at the beginning, when you said there is more to this story. And there is. You can bank on that.The article said "No abuse or neglect was found." I don't believe that can be the case. It certainly isn't the case where I was a Child Protective worker. We had to provide evidence to the court that the child was neglected or abused. My guess is that the first child was in the parents' custody after birth and the child was neglected (that does not mean they did it on purpose). Efforts to educate the parents, provide a safety net/support network to ensure the child's safety would have been tried in my state. However, parents are not obligated to follow through with that, and if this couple dragged their feet or refused or were incapable of learning the things they needed to know, no, the court would not return the child.IQ costs Oregon parents their kids, but is that fair? (Column)
I'm sure we are not hearing the whole story, but to me this doesn't seem to really be fair or even moral. Both parents have a high school Diploma, and one even has a Driver's license.
Removing the kids from the parent's care seems like overkill, couldn't the agency just monitor the situation?
I never had a case where a newborn was removed from the hospital unless the parent was an admitted drug addict and other children had been removed from her in the past with no improvement. I had a couple of heartbreaking cases where low functioning parents, who very much loved their babies, couldn't intellectually handle simple safety routines and decisions when an emergency popped up. Children are always confronting us with the unexpected. We take it for granted that we can handle it, but not all people have the cognitive ability for that.
It is sad, but I do question the statement "No abuse or neglect was found." With the second child, they are basing that decision on the parents past performance. So serious risk of harm is what that would be based on. Often, courts overturn it unless the evidence is very strong.
So it is better to institutionalize the kids and separate them from their parents rather than risk potential accidents due to the parent's low IQ? I'm sorry but where does the line get drawn? Does Child Services now get the right to remove kids because of the parent's politics, or child rearing ideas? What about all these cases where "Free Range Kids" are targeted for review by over-zealous Child Protective people?
One cannot remove the risk for every potential situation. Government should only be involved in cases of abuse, not poor parenting.
it's convenient that CPS can hide behind the privacy thing. And while poor parenting can be deadly, competent parenting can be deadly as well. This is just another function we have given the State with good intentions to see the State run rampant with it.
And since the government isn't willing to provide the facts (hiding behind privacy regulations CREATED by the same government) one can assume the worst.
If there is a railroad job in the making; absolutely it should be opened publicly for everyone can see and smell the can of rotting worms.Okay. You can look at it that way, but if one of your grandchildren was removed from one of your kids, would you want CPS discussing the details of the abuse or neglect in the newspaper? Just another way to look at it.Depends on what you call "poor parenting." It can be deadly. I have told you what it seems like, from my perspective. You can continue to jump to conclusions and make up the facts that aren't provided to shore up your conclusion that CPS wants any right winger's children. Or whatever it is you're arguing. Sounds to me something like that. But I'm not going there. I've told you facts. I can't tell you facts about the case and you can't tell them, either. You were right at the beginning, when you said there is more to this story. And there is. You can bank on that.The article said "No abuse or neglect was found." I don't believe that can be the case. It certainly isn't the case where I was a Child Protective worker. We had to provide evidence to the court that the child was neglected or abused. My guess is that the first child was in the parents' custody after birth and the child was neglected (that does not mean they did it on purpose). Efforts to educate the parents, provide a safety net/support network to ensure the child's safety would have been tried in my state. However, parents are not obligated to follow through with that, and if this couple dragged their feet or refused or were incapable of learning the things they needed to know, no, the court would not return the child.IQ costs Oregon parents their kids, but is that fair? (Column)
I'm sure we are not hearing the whole story, but to me this doesn't seem to really be fair or even moral. Both parents have a high school Diploma, and one even has a Driver's license.
Removing the kids from the parent's care seems like overkill, couldn't the agency just monitor the situation?
I never had a case where a newborn was removed from the hospital unless the parent was an admitted drug addict and other children had been removed from her in the past with no improvement. I had a couple of heartbreaking cases where low functioning parents, who very much loved their babies, couldn't intellectually handle simple safety routines and decisions when an emergency popped up. Children are always confronting us with the unexpected. We take it for granted that we can handle it, but not all people have the cognitive ability for that.
It is sad, but I do question the statement "No abuse or neglect was found." With the second child, they are basing that decision on the parents past performance. So serious risk of harm is what that would be based on. Often, courts overturn it unless the evidence is very strong.
So it is better to institutionalize the kids and separate them from their parents rather than risk potential accidents due to the parent's low IQ? I'm sorry but where does the line get drawn? Does Child Services now get the right to remove kids because of the parent's politics, or child rearing ideas? What about all these cases where "Free Range Kids" are targeted for review by over-zealous Child Protective people?
One cannot remove the risk for every potential situation. Government should only be involved in cases of abuse, not poor parenting.
it's convenient that CPS can hide behind the privacy thing. And while poor parenting can be deadly, competent parenting can be deadly as well. This is just another function we have given the State with good intentions to see the State run rampant with it.
And since the government isn't willing to provide the facts (hiding behind privacy regulations CREATED by the same government) one can assume the worst.
The article said "No abuse or neglect was found." I don't believe that can be the case. It certainly isn't the case where I was a Child Protective worker. We had to provide evidence to the court that the child was neglected or abused. My guess is that the first child was in the parents' custody after birth and the child was neglected (that does not mean they did it on purpose). Efforts to educate the parents, provide a safety net/support network to ensure the child's safety would have been tried in my state. However, parents are not obligated to follow through with that, and if this couple dragged their feet or refused or were incapable of learning the things they needed to know, no, the court would not return the child.IQ costs Oregon parents their kids, but is that fair? (Column)
I'm sure we are not hearing the whole story, but to me this doesn't seem to really be fair or even moral. Both parents have a high school Diploma, and one even has a Driver's license.
Removing the kids from the parent's care seems like overkill, couldn't the agency just monitor the situation?
For nearly four years, the Redmond couple has been fighting to prove to the state of Oregon that they are intellectually capable of raising their children. The Department of Human Services has removed both of their boys, saying the parents are too mentally limited to be good parents.
Fabbrini, 31, and Ziegler, 38, lost custody of their older son, Christopher, shortly after he was born. Five months ago, the state took their second child, newborn Hunter, directly from the hospital. Both are now in foster care.
I never had a case where a newborn was removed from the hospital unless the parent was an admitted drug addict and other children had been removed from her in the past with no improvement. I had a couple of heartbreaking cases where low functioning parents, who very much loved their babies, couldn't intellectually handle simple safety routines and decisions when an emergency popped up. Children are always confronting us with the unexpected. We take it for granted that we can handle it, but not all people have the cognitive ability for that.
It is sad, but I do question the statement "No abuse or neglect was found." With the second child, they are basing that decision on the parents past performance. So serious risk of harm is what that would be based on. Often, courts overturn it unless the evidence is very strong.
Medical kidnap Oregon Couple Labeled “Incapable” Parents by Social Workers – 2 Day Old Baby Kidnapped
"...............A week before Christopher was born, Amy’s mother died from Alzheimer’s. After the baby was born, Amy wanted to bring the baby home to live with her, her father, and the twins, but her father would not allow it. So, Amy decided to take her three children and live with her boyfriend Eric Ziegler, Christopher’s father. But, her father threatened her. She said:
Every time I mentioned to Dad that I wanted to move in with Eric, he would make me feel bad by saying that if I did, he would turn me into CPS, and that we would never get to see the twins. He even told the twins this.
Amy feared that her father would call CPS, so she nixed her plans.
But, shortly after that, the couple learned that Eric’s former roommate called CPS to report the couple, after reportedly getting mad at Eric. CPS came to the home and seized Christopher.............."
VaXism
Actually the first child was taken shortly after birth, as well, according to the story.
Seems the father of the husband lodged a complaint.
Here is a video of the couple, they must have visitation.The article states they can't get anymore info as it is a cps case
The article said "No abuse or neglect was found." I don't believe that can be the case. It certainly isn't the case where I was a Child Protective worker. We had to provide evidence to the court that the child was neglected or abused. My guess is that the first child was in the parents' custody after birth and the child was neglected (that does not mean they did it on purpose). Efforts to educate the parents, provide a safety net/support network to ensure the child's safety would have been tried in my state. However, parents are not obligated to follow through with that, and if this couple dragged their feet or refused or were incapable of learning the things they needed to know, no, the court would not return the child.IQ costs Oregon parents their kids, but is that fair? (Column)
I'm sure we are not hearing the whole story, but to me this doesn't seem to really be fair or even moral. Both parents have a high school Diploma, and one even has a Driver's license.
Removing the kids from the parent's care seems like overkill, couldn't the agency just monitor the situation?
For nearly four years, the Redmond couple has been fighting to prove to the state of Oregon that they are intellectually capable of raising their children. The Department of Human Services has removed both of their boys, saying the parents are too mentally limited to be good parents.
Fabbrini, 31, and Ziegler, 38, lost custody of their older son, Christopher, shortly after he was born. Five months ago, the state took their second child, newborn Hunter, directly from the hospital. Both are now in foster care.
I never had a case where a newborn was removed from the hospital unless the parent was an admitted drug addict and other children had been removed from her in the past with no improvement. I had a couple of heartbreaking cases where low functioning parents, who very much loved their babies, couldn't intellectually handle simple safety routines and decisions when an emergency popped up. Children are always confronting us with the unexpected. We take it for granted that we can handle it, but not all people have the cognitive ability for that.
It is sad, but I do question the statement "No abuse or neglect was found." With the second child, they are basing that decision on the parents past performance. So serious risk of harm is what that would be based on. Often, courts overturn it unless the evidence is very strong.
They have an angel that was doing that. She is in the medical kidnap article. She is probably the one that helped set up baby gifts and such online in feb. 2017I agree with monitoring the situation, not just taking them away from the parents unless their IQ's are bordering 50 to 60.
