The tragedy of Alexandria Hill

[kaz]

Daily Mail

Foster mother beats toddler after she was seized from her biological parents because social services discovered them smoking pot

Whoa, social services discovered them smoking pot? That means they were already being investigated for their care of the child. That means it wasn't just about the pot

I think it's time for you to **** off and go some place else. You doubted the story, made a big stink about and and now without the remotest notion of humility you want to argue the facts of the story. You were wrong, kind of a dick about too.

Isn't it early to be smoking pot already?

Typical wingnut, proven wrong fails to save face.

We'll have to wait to find out if that's true until you prove me wrong.

Again, read the title of the article above. How did SOCIAL SERVICES discover the POT USE in the first place? Why were they being investigated? There was already an issue, duh. So it wasn't just the pot. You really are stupid

 

[Czernobog]

The Dallas Morning News

Toddler’s death raises questions about how Texas contractor screens, trains foster parents

Do you know how to post content? Where does it explain the reasons the child was put into foster care?

On Nov. 27, CPS filed an affidavit saying that she and Hill have “limited parenting skills.” Because of allegations of frequent marijuana use and Sweeney’s seizure disorders, Alex needed to be removed, caseworker Trina Fowler wrote.

I know how to post, can you ******* read?

Why was CPS investigating the parents in the first place since it says they are the ones who discovered the pot? Are you going to have another whining hissy fit now?

According to the Daily Mail, they got them involved themselves over a custody dispute.

 

[kaz]

Daily Mail

Foster mother beats toddler after she was seized from her biological parents because social services discovered them smoking pot

Whoa, social services discovered them smoking pot? That means they were already being investigated for their care of the child. That means it wasn't just about the pot.

Was social services peeking in their window? And it's just the parents they quote saying they only smoked when she was sleeping, none of the articles had any corroboration of that

Actually, they got CPS involved over a custody dispute. The only suggestion from the records was a claim that the father "...almost dropped..." the daughter when he was high. Gee. This was a custody dispute. I wonder who might have made that accusation, and why?

How was there a "custody dispute" when the biological parents were caring for the baby? WTF?

Watch Happy lose it again, it's hilarious

 

[kaz]

The Dallas Morning News

Toddler’s death raises questions about how Texas contractor screens, trains foster parents

Do you know how to post content? Where does it explain the reasons the child was put into foster care?

On Nov. 27, CPS filed an affidavit saying that she and Hill have “limited parenting skills.” Because of allegations of frequent marijuana use and Sweeney’s seizure disorders, Alex needed to be removed, caseworker Trina Fowler wrote.

I know how to post, can you ******* read?

Why was CPS investigating the parents in the first place since it says they are the ones who discovered the pot? Are you going to have another whining hissy fit now?

According to the Daily Mail, they got them involved themselves over a custody dispute.

Again, what custody dispute when the parents were the ones watching the baby ...

 

[Iceweasel]

Daily Mail

Foster mother beats toddler after she was seized from her biological parents because social services discovered them smoking pot

Whoa, social services discovered them smoking pot? That means they were already being investigated for their care of the child. That means it wasn't just about the pot

I think it's time for you to **** off and go some place else. You doubted the story, made a big stink about and and now without the remotest notion of humility you want to argue the facts of the story. You were wrong, kind of a dick about too.

Post the facts instead of slinging your dirty diaper around.

I did, I provided credible links that demonstrated this isn't a made up story. I have no idea what facts you presented here, apparently none, hypocrite.

You stupidly and lazily threw some quickie links like we are supposed to spend the time reading them, you posted no content. Then double downed on your stupidity and posted a story on foster care instead.

 

[kaz]

The bottom line is, this kid was perfectly healthy, and cared for, until she was put in the system

Begging the question

 

[HappyJoy]

Daily Mail

Foster mother beats toddler after she was seized from her biological parents because social services discovered them smoking pot

Whoa, social services discovered them smoking pot? That means they were already being investigated for their care of the child. That means it wasn't just about the pot.

Was social services peeking in their window? And it's just the parents they quote saying they only smoked when she was sleeping, none of the articles had any corroboration of that

Actually, they got CPS involved over a custody dispute. The only suggestion from the records was a claim that the father "...almost dropped..." the daughter when he was high. Gee. This was a custody dispute. I wonder who might have made that accusation, and why?

How was there a "custody dispute" when the biological parents were caring for the baby? WTF?

Watch Happy lose it again, it's hilarious

I have no patience for willful idiots such as yourself.

The question of custody came up because the parents were no longer together and they couldn't decide who should have custody so they involved CPS, you could just read one of the many links.

Then again, you didn't think this story existed in the first place.

 

[Czernobog]

Daily Mail

Foster mother beats toddler after she was seized from her biological parents because social services discovered them smoking pot

Whoa, social services discovered them smoking pot? That means they were already being investigated for their care of the child. That means it wasn't just about the pot

I think it's time for you to **** off and go some place else. You doubted the story, made a big stink about and and now without the remotest notion of humility you want to argue the facts of the story. You were wrong, kind of a dick about too.

Isn't it early to be smoking pot already?

Typical wingnut, proven wrong fails to save face.

We'll have to wait to find out if that's true until you prove me wrong.

Again, read the title of the article above. How did SOCIAL SERVICES discover the POT USE in the first place? Why were they being investigated? There was already an issue, duh. So it wasn't just the pot. You really are stupid

Okay, first of all, your assumption is incorrect. If you call Social Services claiming that I am beating my kid with a barbwire whip. Guess what? They're going to investigate. Now, while they find that, clearly, the original complaint was false, in the course of their investigation they find that I do, on the other hand, smoke pot. Looky there. They discovered that I smoke pot, and I wasn't even doing anything else wrong...

You just assume that if CPS is investigating, then the person being investigated must be guilty of what they are investigating. You get that isn't how it works, right?

 

[Iceweasel]

The Dallas Morning News

Toddler’s death raises questions about how Texas contractor screens, trains foster parents

Do you know how to post content? Where does it explain the reasons the child was put into foster care?

On Nov. 27, CPS filed an affidavit saying that she and Hill have “limited parenting skills.” Because of allegations of frequent marijuana use and Sweeney’s seizure disorders, Alex needed to be removed, caseworker Trina Fowler wrote.

I know how to post, can you ******* read?

How about you, you puffed up sack of puss? It says her seizures were part of the problem.

Fail.

 

[HappyJoy]

Daily Mail

Foster mother beats toddler after she was seized from her biological parents because social services discovered them smoking pot

Whoa, social services discovered them smoking pot? That means they were already being investigated for their care of the child. That means it wasn't just about the pot

I think it's time for you to **** off and go some place else. You doubted the story, made a big stink about and and now without the remotest notion of humility you want to argue the facts of the story. You were wrong, kind of a dick about too.

Post the facts instead of slinging your dirty diaper around.

I did, I provided credible links that demonstrated this isn't a made up story. I have no idea what facts you presented here, apparently none, hypocrite.

You stupidly and lazily threw some quickie links like we are supposed to spend the time reading them, you posted no content. Then double downed on your stupidity and posted a story on foster care instead.

Links that you insinuated that you read and actually didn't? Those links? I posted the links quickly to demonstrate that credible news sources did have info on this. Job done. Now you want to argue what the facts are while pretending to read the links which you didn't. How is this not your problem?

 

[kaz]

Daily Mail

Foster mother beats toddler after she was seized from her biological parents because social services discovered them smoking pot

Whoa, social services discovered them smoking pot? That means they were already being investigated for their care of the child. That means it wasn't just about the pot.

Was social services peeking in their window? And it's just the parents they quote saying they only smoked when she was sleeping, none of the articles had any corroboration of that

Actually, they got CPS involved over a custody dispute. The only suggestion from the records was a claim that the father "...almost dropped..." the daughter when he was high. Gee. This was a custody dispute. I wonder who might have made that accusation, and why?

How was there a "custody dispute" when the biological parents were caring for the baby? WTF?

Watch Happy lose it again, it's hilarious

I have no patience for willful idiots such as yourself.

The question of custody came up because the parents were no longer together and they couldn't decide who should have custody so they involved CPS, you could just read one of the many links.

Then again, you didn't think this story existed in the first place.

I read at least five of the articles and they all said the same vague things.

How does the parents not being together make sense?

- It says the biological parents were the ones who were smoking pot together, are you saying they were split but smoking pot while they watched the baby together?

- It says the mother couldn't watch the kid alone because of a medical condition, so how could she sue for custody?

- If there was someone else and they busted them for smoking pot, why did they put the kid in foster care instead of giving it to the one who wanted the kid and wasn't smoking pot?

You have no critical thinking skills at all

 

[HappyJoy]

The Dallas Morning News

Toddler’s death raises questions about how Texas contractor screens, trains foster parents

Do you know how to post content? Where does it explain the reasons the child was put into foster care?

On Nov. 27, CPS filed an affidavit saying that she and Hill have “limited parenting skills.” Because of allegations of frequent marijuana use and Sweeney’s seizure disorders, Alex needed to be removed, caseworker Trina Fowler wrote.

I know how to post, can you ******* read?

How about you, you puffed up sack of puss? It says her seizures were part of the problem.

Fail.

Yes, part of the problem. If the guys wasn't smoking pot it appears they wouldn't have taken Alexandria away due to her seizures.

 

[Czernobog]

Whoa, social services discovered them smoking pot? That means they were already being investigated for their care of the child. That means it wasn't just about the pot

I think it's time for you to **** off and go some place else. You doubted the story, made a big stink about and and now without the remotest notion of humility you want to argue the facts of the story. You were wrong, kind of a dick about too.

Isn't it early to be smoking pot already?

Typical wingnut, proven wrong fails to save face.

We'll have to wait to find out if that's true until you prove me wrong.

Again, read the title of the article above. How did SOCIAL SERVICES discover the POT USE in the first place? Why were they being investigated? There was already an issue, duh. So it wasn't just the pot. You really are stupid

Okay, first of all, your assumption is incorrect. If you call Social Services claiming that I am beating my kid with a barbwire whip. Guess what? They're going to investigate. Now, while they find that, clearly, the original complaint was false, in the course of their investigation they find that I do, on the other hand, smoke pot. Looky there. They discovered that I smoke pot, and I wasn't even doing anything else wrong...

The Dallas Morning News

Toddler’s death raises questions about how Texas contractor screens, trains foster parents

Do you know how to post content? Where does it explain the reasons the child was put into foster care?

On Nov. 27, CPS filed an affidavit saying that she and Hill have “limited parenting skills.” Because of allegations of frequent marijuana use and Sweeney’s seizure disorders, Alex needed to be removed, caseworker Trina Fowler wrote.

I know how to post, can you ******* read?

Why was CPS investigating the parents in the first place since it says they are the ones who discovered the pot? Are you going to have another whining hissy fit now?

According to the Daily Mail, they got them involved themselves over a custody dispute.

Again, what custody dispute when the parents were the ones watching the baby ...

They were Sep. Er. Ating. What the **** is wrong with you? You haven't even read a single one of the links did you? You just saw what was posted here, decided you didn't like the story, so, now, you want to first insist it didn't happen, then, when proven that was stupid, dispute any facts presented, without even bothering to read any of the numerous articles about the story.

Ya know what? I agree with Happy-Joy. Why don't you just go **** off in a corner somewhere, and come on back when you have read some of the articles.

 

[SwimExpert]

The Dallas Morning News

Toddler’s death raises questions about how Texas contractor screens, trains foster parents

Do you know how to post content? Where does it explain the reasons the child was put into foster care?

You're such a miserable piece of shit. Constantly moving the goal post, blatantly reducing yourself to willful idiocy, right up to the point that the truth is ******* you in the ass, then deluding yourself worse than any paranoid schizophrenic could manage to do on his worst day.

You need to post a source.
You need to post a different source.
You need to post where in that source it says this.
You need to post what the definition of 'is' is.
You need to move my eyes and read it for me.

Texas CPS is a massively powerful government agency. They'll take your children away from you for a Klondike Bar.

 

[HappyJoy]

Daily Mail

Foster mother beats toddler after she was seized from her biological parents because social services discovered them smoking pot

Whoa, social services discovered them smoking pot? That means they were already being investigated for their care of the child. That means it wasn't just about the pot.

Was social services peeking in their window? And it's just the parents they quote saying they only smoked when she was sleeping, none of the articles had any corroboration of that

Actually, they got CPS involved over a custody dispute. The only suggestion from the records was a claim that the father "...almost dropped..." the daughter when he was high. Gee. This was a custody dispute. I wonder who might have made that accusation, and why?

How was there a "custody dispute" when the biological parents were caring for the baby? WTF?

Watch Happy lose it again, it's hilarious

I have no patience for willful idiots such as yourself.

The question of custody came up because the parents were no longer together and they couldn't decide who should have custody so they involved CPS, you could just read one of the many links.

Then again, you didn't think this story existed in the first place.

I read at least five of the articles and they all said the same vague things.

How does the parents not being together make sense?

- It says the biological parents were the ones who were smoking pot together, are you saying they were split but smoking pot while they watched the baby together?

- It says the mother couldn't watch the kid alone because of a medical condition, so how could she sue for custody?

- If there was someone else and they busted them for smoking pot, why did they put the kid in foster care instead of giving it to the one who wanted the kid and wasn't smoking pot?

You have no critical thinking skills at all

The father's mother was taking care of the kid, the parents couldn't agree who should have custody. And the parents smoking pot together...life is complicated, but go ahead and build some weird conspiracy out of it.

 

[kaz]

Whoa, social services discovered them smoking pot? That means they were already being investigated for their care of the child. That means it wasn't just about the pot

I think it's time for you to **** off and go some place else. You doubted the story, made a big stink about and and now without the remotest notion of humility you want to argue the facts of the story. You were wrong, kind of a dick about too.

Isn't it early to be smoking pot already?

Typical wingnut, proven wrong fails to save face.

We'll have to wait to find out if that's true until you prove me wrong.

Again, read the title of the article above. How did SOCIAL SERVICES discover the POT USE in the first place? Why were they being investigated? There was already an issue, duh. So it wasn't just the pot. You really are stupid

Okay, first of all, your assumption is incorrect. If you call Social Services claiming that I am beating my kid with a barbwire whip. Guess what? They're going to investigate. Now, while they find that, clearly, the original complaint was false, in the course of their investigation they find that I do, on the other hand, smoke pot. Looky there. They discovered that I smoke pot, and I wasn't even doing anything else wrong...

You just assume that if CPS is investigating, then the person being investigated must be guilty of what they are investigating. You get that isn't how it works, right?

I didn't assume any of that. Asking questions isn't making an assumption, quite the reverse. Why are you so defensive about being asked questions about a vague story.

So who called social services and why? Saying they would investigate any claim does not mean we don't even need to know why they got involved

If it was someone trying to get custody and called in a complaint, then why didn't they get custody? Why was the girl put in foster care?

 

[kaz]

Whoa, social services discovered them smoking pot? That means they were already being investigated for their care of the child. That means it wasn't just about the pot.

Was social services peeking in their window? And it's just the parents they quote saying they only smoked when she was sleeping, none of the articles had any corroboration of that

Actually, they got CPS involved over a custody dispute. The only suggestion from the records was a claim that the father "...almost dropped..." the daughter when he was high. Gee. This was a custody dispute. I wonder who might have made that accusation, and why?

How was there a "custody dispute" when the biological parents were caring for the baby? WTF?

Watch Happy lose it again, it's hilarious

I have no patience for willful idiots such as yourself.

The question of custody came up because the parents were no longer together and they couldn't decide who should have custody so they involved CPS, you could just read one of the many links.

Then again, you didn't think this story existed in the first place.

I read at least five of the articles and they all said the same vague things.

How does the parents not being together make sense?

- It says the biological parents were the ones who were smoking pot together, are you saying they were split but smoking pot while they watched the baby together?

- It says the mother couldn't watch the kid alone because of a medical condition, so how could she sue for custody?

- If there was someone else and they busted them for smoking pot, why did they put the kid in foster care instead of giving it to the one who wanted the kid and wasn't smoking pot?

You have no critical thinking skills at all

The father's mother was taking care of the kid, the parents couldn't agree who should have custody. And the parents smoking pot together...life is complicated, but go ahead and build some weird conspiracy out of it.

So why did they put the kid in foster care then???

 

[Czernobog]

I think it's time for you to **** off and go some place else. You doubted the story, made a big stink about and and now without the remotest notion of humility you want to argue the facts of the story. You were wrong, kind of a dick about too.

Isn't it early to be smoking pot already?

Typical wingnut, proven wrong fails to save face.

We'll have to wait to find out if that's true until you prove me wrong.

Again, read the title of the article above. How did SOCIAL SERVICES discover the POT USE in the first place? Why were they being investigated? There was already an issue, duh. So it wasn't just the pot. You really are stupid

Okay, first of all, your assumption is incorrect. If you call Social Services claiming that I am beating my kid with a barbwire whip. Guess what? They're going to investigate. Now, while they find that, clearly, the original complaint was false, in the course of their investigation they find that I do, on the other hand, smoke pot. Looky there. They discovered that I smoke pot, and I wasn't even doing anything else wrong...

You just assume that if CPS is investigating, then the person being investigated must be guilty of what they are investigating. You get that isn't how it works, right?

I didn't assume any of that. Asking questions isn't making an assumption, quite the reverse. Why are you so defensive about being asked questions about a vague story.

So who called social services and why? Saying they would investigate any claim does not mean we don't even need to know why they got involved

If it was someone trying to get custody and called in a complaint, then why didn't they get custody? Why was the girl put in foster care?

The question itself was presumptive. "Do you still beat your wife?" Just a question - but a presumptive one.

 

[kaz]

The Dallas Morning News

Toddler’s death raises questions about how Texas contractor screens, trains foster parents

Do you know how to post content? Where does it explain the reasons the child was put into foster care?

On Nov. 27, CPS filed an affidavit saying that she and Hill have “limited parenting skills.” Because of allegations of frequent marijuana use and Sweeney’s seizure disorders, Alex needed to be removed, caseworker Trina Fowler wrote.

I know how to post, can you ******* read?

How about you, you puffed up sack of puss? It says her seizures were part of the problem.

Fail.

Yes, part of the problem. If the guys wasn't smoking pot it appears they wouldn't have taken Alexandria away due to her seizures.

The operative word there being "appears," you are believing insinuation without any corroboration

 

[HappyJoy]

Actually, they got CPS involved over a custody dispute. The only suggestion from the records was a claim that the father "...almost dropped..." the daughter when he was high. Gee. This was a custody dispute. I wonder who might have made that accusation, and why?

How was there a "custody dispute" when the biological parents were caring for the baby? WTF?

Watch Happy lose it again, it's hilarious

I have no patience for willful idiots such as yourself.

The question of custody came up because the parents were no longer together and they couldn't decide who should have custody so they involved CPS, you could just read one of the many links.

Then again, you didn't think this story existed in the first place.

I read at least five of the articles and they all said the same vague things.

How does the parents not being together make sense?

- It says the biological parents were the ones who were smoking pot together, are you saying they were split but smoking pot while they watched the baby together?

- It says the mother couldn't watch the kid alone because of a medical condition, so how could she sue for custody?

- If there was someone else and they busted them for smoking pot, why did they put the kid in foster care instead of giving it to the one who wanted the kid and wasn't smoking pot?

You have no critical thinking skills at all

The father's mother was taking care of the kid, the parents couldn't agree who should have custody. And the parents smoking pot together...life is complicated, but go ahead and build some weird conspiracy out of it.

So why did they put the kid in foster care then???

Why? Because you can't read, that's why.