County seizes son for medical care

Look, that statement about rule 2 is immaterial to the issue.
Click to expand...

It is most certainly not immaterial. Look, I agree that the axe-wielding guy is an unreasonable nut, okay? But when did it become okay to point guns at people for their own well-being?

The problem here is that there is a large group of people here that are looking for reasons to slam cops, rather than looking at each issue in a reasonable way.
Click to expand...

...and some people would defend the police regardless of whether or not their acts are reasonable.
 
Yeah, I'll chime in here and say that a SWAT raid was over the top. But then, I don't have access to all the facts, such as what he told the 2 deputies that visited him or the DSS/CPS worker who examined his son (or how perfunctory that examination might have been).

I'll also say that if the father was a surly curmudgeon, that might have raised concerns of the EMTs and DSS/CPS as well. It is well to remember that making comments that could even seem threatening to gov't officials will often be taken AS threatening, even if made in an offhand or flippant manner (experience has shown this to be true and that gov't officials will offer the quote without the context).
 
The original question was: When is it appropriate for the government to take children away from parents for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment?

The answer is: When the refusal of the parents to obtain proper care for their child poses a significant risk to the child.

What is a significant risk? I'm not so sure... But, I'd say that when multiple qualified medical personnel (such as EMS workers, nurses, etc...) (not just doctors) believe so strongly that the kid should be checked out that they go to Child Services, and ultimately to the courts, to force the parent to bring the child in, you've got a clear case of "significant risk."

Now! Did the kid need any kind of special treatment? No. Not this time. BUT, several qualified medical personnel felt that there was no way to tell if the kid needed special treatment UNTIL he was checked out. So, they had the courts order this guy to get the kid checked out.

WHICH BRINGS ME TO MY NEXT POINT, Boys and Girls:

When the courts order you to do something, DO NOT SIMPLY REFUSE!!! If you feel the courts are unjust, you can either:
(1). Obey the court order anyway; or
(2). File an appeal in a court of law, seeking a temporary injunction against enforcement of the court order until the appeal is decided.

I am of the opinion that people who simply refuse to obey a court order, without filing appeal or seeking legal redress, ABSOLUTELY deserve to have their door broken down by the SWAT team!

In this country, you DO have options against tyranny. Your options include challenge against unreasonable laws and measures in an appellate court of law. You do NOT have the right to simply IGNORE court orders.

Thank you, that is all.
 
Samurai, I agree that ignoring a court order is cause for action; but note also question #2 in the first post of this thread. And I'll stand by my question in post #41...
 
I guess, being an attorney, as I watch the way the system works, I am growing more and more dissatisfied with the ineffective nature of the "contempt of court" measure. It seems, any more, that if a judge orders you to do something (i.e., quit stalking that poor lady), and you don't obey the judge, there's not much the cops can do about it. In matters of Restraining Orders, I wish that a judge who issues a restraining order would have the power to beat-the-living-doggie-doo out of some scumbag who disobeys the order! But, they "aren't supposed to."

In this case, I transpose my hatred of idiots who disobey court orders, and I lose all sense of sympathy for the guy who got his door beaten down by the SWAT team. Fact is, the judge said to bring the kid in, and he didn't bring the kid in. Nor did he file any appeal or request for injunction. He just acted like the law didn't apply to him! For that, I say he DESERVED to have his door kicked in, his kid taken away from him, and his butt kicked!
 
Samurai wrote:

In this case, I transpose my hatred of idiots who disobey court orders, and I lose all sense of sympathy for the guy who got his door beaten down by the SWAT team. Fact is, the judge said to bring the kid in, and he didn't bring the kid in. Nor did he file any appeal or request for injunction. He just acted like the law didn't apply to him! For that, I say he DESERVED to have his door kicked in, his kid taken away from him, and his butt kicked!
Click to expand...

Now thats just total crap. The PROBLEM here that you are clearly missing is WHY did a judge have to even get involved in the first place? If the paramedics truly thought the kid needed urgent medical care, they should have gotten an officer to help with the situation and treated the kid. What, in this country I can sign myself out of a hospital and totally refuse medical treatment, but I don't have the power to make the same decision for MY OWN CHILD? The government is going to step in and FORCE me to OBEY?

Lets not even touch on the fact that CPS, while it used to be a good thing, and still is in some cases, has gotten WAY TOO MUCH CONTROL over people's lives, and very, very, often goes way over the top in ruining innocent people that don't cooperate with them. After all, what judge, law officer, or anyone else for that matter is going to question them or call them to task when they will say "Well we just had the child's best interests in mind, don't you?"

And the police were just following orders sure, but the orders they got weren't really all that far from the orders certain police got and followed blindly during a certain war now are they?

C'mon, kicking in citizens doors in the middle of the night, HOLDING CHILDREN AT GUNPOINT, and forcefully dragging a child away, and terrifying him and his whole family? What about the health and well being of these other young children, who are no doubt now terrified of the police? And you say your GLAD, and they DESERVED IT!? WTF!? You further the belief that they did this out of spite just because he so dared to defy his almighty goverment.

I hope he wins the largest lawsuit ever recorded in this century. And maybe the unchecked power of some of these agencies will get put under a microscope.
 
Actually, there are cases where you do not have the legal right to refuse medical care, either. If for example, you are intoxicated, have threatened suicide, you are mentally incapable of understanding the ramifications of refusing, or if you are a danger to the community in your present condition.

In the case of children, the issue gets much more complicated. The medics cannot force the medical care using police at the scene unless the child is in immediate (in the next hour) danger of death or serious injury.

There are cases where medical care can legally be forced on both adults and children. There are entire classes on the legal and ethical issue in relation to medical care. It is a complicated issue covering way more information than we can hash hash out here. So, you are just going to have to believe me on that one. As a paramedic instructor, I can tell you that we spend quite a bit of time covering this topic.

I do not look at it as forcing you to obey, as much as the people here were stepping in to protect the rights of the child. Remember that the parent's rights are not the only ones involved here, and someone much guard the rights of the child, and sadly, the parents don't always do that.
 
"Actually, there are cases where you do not have the legal right to refuse medical care, either. If for example, you are intoxicated, have threatened suicide, you are mentally incapable of understanding the ramifications of refusing, or if you are a danger to the community in your present condition."

Add unconscious to the list.
Years ago I worked as a paramedic and we received a call for a stabbing victim.
Left calf, relatively deep, but the guy refused any treatment.
We watched him for a few minutes and realized he would pass out in short order, so we just waited.
He became unconscious, we treated him and transported to the ER.

A lot of details are missing in these kinds of casses since no official can respond under the various confidentiality laws, especially when a child is involved.
 
I'm trying, but do not see the problem some of you have with this particular governmental intrusion.

Had the medical diagnosis been different, would yor opinions remain the same?
 
Last edited:
Had the medical diagnosis been different, would yor opinions remain the same?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

But then, my objections, while strenuous, are rather more specific and limited than the objections raised by others here. I simply think that sending in the SWAT team was reckless child endangerment.
 
So what would be appropriate? Keep in mind that other methods had been tried, including:

- Paramedics tried to convince the father, to no avail
- social workers tried to convince the father, even offering to pay
- Two deputies came by and tried to take the child to the hospital
- Bringing the Doctor to the child is not an option, as CT scanners are not small enough to be readily transported (the portable ones are semi-trailer sized)

Since the child needed to be evaluated, and the court order needed to be enforced, what would you have done, had you been the Sheriff?
 
Since the child needed to be evaluated, and the court order needed to be enforced, what would you have done, had you been the Sheriff?
Click to expand...

It's difficult to say since I'm not familiar with the details of the situation; however, I would have tried to apply some intelligence. There are other ways to deal with troublesome people; the application of a 2x4 to the head (brute force) is not always necessary, nor is it usually desirable.

There's a difference between sending a team of officers to present the order and take the child for evaluation (arresting or detaining the father if necessary), and sending a SWAT team on a no-knock entry pointing guns at everyone (including children). The latter choice is, IMNSHO, criminal.

Other possibilities include serving the court order to the child's mother, when the father is not home. One could even try to lure him out of the house for this purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top