Unmitigated Bullshit

[BDBoop]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/n...l?_r=2&pagewanted=1&sq=marijuana&st=cse&scp=2

The police found about 10 grams of marijuana, or about a third of an ounce, when they searched Penelope Harris’s apartment in the Bronx last year. The amount was below the legal threshold for even a misdemeanor, and prosecutors declined to charge her. But Ms. Harris, a mother whose son and niece were home when she was briefly in custody, could hardly rest easy.

The police had reported her arrest to the state’s child welfare hot line, and city caseworkers quickly arrived and took the children away.

Her son, then 10, spent more than a week in foster care. Her niece, who was 8 and living with her as a foster child, was placed in another home and not returned by the foster care agency for more than a year. Ms. Harris, 31, had to weather a lengthy child neglect inquiry, though she had no criminal record and had never before been investigated by the child welfare authorities, Ms. Harris and her lawyer said.

“I felt like less of a parent, like I had failed my children,” Ms. Harris said. “It tore me up.”

 

[koshergrl]

Typically child welfare doesn't remove children JUST because there's dope in the home...if there's dope in the home and the parent refuses to work with child welfare, they will take the kids. If the kids test positive, they'll take the kids.

So there's probably a lot more to this story.

 

[yidnar]

the sub human sow should not be allowed to reproduce!!

 

[Oldstyle]

Typically child welfare doesn't remove children JUST because there's dope in the home...if there's dope in the home and the parent refuses to work with child welfare, they will take the kids. If the kids test positive, they'll take the kids.

So there's probably a lot more to this story.

What the original poster neglected to mention is that police accused the woman's boyfriend of dealing drugs out of the apartment. Her son was returned to her custody under the conditions that the boyfriend not return to the apartment and she undergo random drug tests. A parent smoking a little pot around the house isn't going to get police and child welfare worked up...someone selling pot out of a house in which there are minors will.

 

[koshergrl]

Yup.

Child welfare will approach the parents, say there's a problem, what can we do to address this?

When the parents refuse to address it is when they consider removing the kids.

I suspect that the mom was told, "your bf is selling drugs out of the house, what are you willing to do to make sure this doesn't happen any more"....and the mom most likely said "f-you, he's my boyfriend, I didn't do anything wrong" yada yada yada.

so essentially mom chose her druggie boyfriend over the kids.

 

[Oddball]

Typically child welfare doesn't remove children JUST because there's dope in the home...if there's dope in the home and the parent refuses to work with child welfare, they will take the kids. If the kids test positive, they'll take the kids.

So there's probably a lot more to this story.

What the original poster neglected to mention....

As it often happens with liberoidals off on a self-righteousness bender.

 

[California Girl]

Typically child welfare doesn't remove children JUST because there's dope in the home...if there's dope in the home and the parent refuses to work with child welfare, they will take the kids. If the kids test positive, they'll take the kids.

So there's probably a lot more to this story.

What the original poster neglected to mention is that police accused the woman's boyfriend of dealing drugs out of the apartment. Her son was returned to her custody under the conditions that the boyfriend not return to the apartment and she undergo random drug tests. A parent smoking a little pot around the house isn't going to get police and child welfare worked up...someone selling pot out of a house in which there are minors will.

So that explains why the kids were removed. I fully agree that kids should not be in the home of a drug dealer. While I don't support people doing MJ, it certainly isn't a reason to take someone's children away.

 

[Moonglow]

How the hell would any of you know, you were not there.

 

[Oldstyle]

How the hell would any of you know, you were not there.

Ah, it was in the same NYTimes article that the OP cited? I wish people would read more than the first few paragraphs of what they cite here. If Betty Boop had done so the reason why Protective Services took custody of the children would have been very apparent. Instead she took the usual progressive tact that the police are out to "get" minorities for no reason at all. It's a fact that the mother involved did not have a prior criminal record. I'd be willing to bet the same could not be said for her live-in boyfriend.

 

[Mad Scientist]

You see how that works? The US Government arms drug cartels to kill other drug cartels who don't launder their money in the correct American Banks (That's on record).

THEN, they help smuggle drugs into the US by leaving the borders wide open. But when you or I smoke that stuff or inject it in our veins we get our asses thrown in jail!

That's Freedom!

 

[George Costanza]

Typically child welfare doesn't remove children JUST because there's dope in the home...if there's dope in the home and the parent refuses to work with child welfare, they will take the kids. If the kids test positive, they'll take the kids.

So there's probably a lot more to this story.

What the original poster neglected to mention....

As it often happens with liberoidals off on a self-righteousness bender.

Just not happy unless you are saying something insulting or negative about someone - anyone, right?

 

[WillowTree]

so the taxpayers are expected to subsidize her use of marijuana? sucks.

 

[Dr.House]

What the original poster neglected to mention....

As it often happens with liberoidals off on a self-righteousness bender.

Just not happy unless you are saying something insulting or negative about someone - anyone, right?

Tissue?

 

[BDBoop]

What the original poster neglected to mention....

As it often happens with liberoidals off on a self-righteousness bender.

Just not happy unless you are saying something insulting or negative about someone - anyone, right?

Right. They're a little

 

[Dr.House]

As it often happens with liberoidals off on a self-righteousness bender.

Just not happy unless you are saying something insulting or negative about someone - anyone, right?

Right. They're a little

^, says the hypocrit...

 

[Oddball]

What the original poster neglected to mention....

As it often happens with liberoidals off on a self-righteousness bender.

Just not happy unless you are saying something insulting or negative about someone - anyone, right?

Normally, I save such jabs for mindless party man hack zombies and insufferably pious blowhards, who ride around on the highest of high horses.

But whaddaya want from such a target rich environment?

 

[George Costanza]

As it often happens with liberoidals off on a self-righteousness bender.

Just not happy unless you are saying something insulting or negative about someone - anyone, right?

Tissue?

You too, cupcake.

 

[George Costanza]

As it often happens with liberoidals off on a self-righteousness bender.

Just not happy unless you are saying something insulting or negative about someone - anyone, right?

Normally, I save such jabs for mindless party man hack zombies and insufferably pious blowhards, who ride around on the highest of high horses.

But whaddaya want from such a target rich environment?

As I said . . . .

 

[Oddball]

Thanks for riding in on the high horse and lending proof to what I was talking about, ace.

Fact is that the dopey OP very rarely, if ever, reads the avalanche of swill she posts on a daily basis, and often has been caught leaving such details of substance out of snippets posted....This cannot be interpreted as anything more than a willfulness to mislead at the least and to outright lie in the extreme.

Therefore, derision, mockery and insults are about all such little twirps deserve in return.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/n...l?_r=2&pagewanted=1&sq=marijuana&st=cse&scp=2

The police found about 10 grams of marijuana, or about a third of an ounce, when they searched Penelope Harris’s apartment in the Bronx last year. The amount was below the legal threshold for even a misdemeanor, and prosecutors declined to charge her. But Ms. Harris, a mother whose son and niece were home when she was briefly in custody, could hardly rest easy.

The police had reported her arrest to the state’s child welfare hot line, and city caseworkers quickly arrived and took the children away.

Her son, then 10, spent more than a week in foster care. Her niece, who was 8 and living with her as a foster child, was placed in another home and not returned by the foster care agency for more than a year. Ms. Harris, 31, had to weather a lengthy child neglect inquiry, though she had no criminal record and had never before been investigated by the child welfare authorities, Ms. Harris and her lawyer said.

“I felt like less of a parent, like I had failed my children,” Ms. Harris said. “It tore me up.”

What do you see as the outrage in this story?