CPS confiscates healthy, happy little girl, and drugs her till her tongue hangs

[rambone]

Children can be confiscated from loving, attentive parents, based on a one-time recreational drug use. Not all that different from consuming alcohol at a party.

Neglect and child abuse are no longer the standard.

This little girl was happy and healthy with her parents. Once CPS took her, she was drugged up until she couldn't keep her tongue in her mouth, and looked like she was starving.




3-year-old in CPS' care overprescribed psychotropic drugs

The only reason CPS took custody was the young parent's recreational drug use. Something they admitted to and lived to regret.

But ironically Rachel would be the one hooked on drugs while under CPS's watch including Risperdal, a drug used to treat Schizophrenia and Bi-Polar disorder and according to the FDA, should not be given to a child under 10.

CPS wouldn't allow the family to see Rachel for two months. What they say they saw was a drooling, lethargic emaciated looking little girl who wanted to play a very strange game.

"She was also writing prescriptions, Rachel which is not normal," her mother said. "They might play doctor but she was writing prescriptions on paper, here take your medicine."

The family spent months asking CPS if Rachel was on drugs. "We kept asking but they kept denying," Christina Harrison said.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXt9c8s4o50"]www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXt9c8s4o50[/ame]

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

The effing government is out of control. These maniacs need to e stopped.

Imagine this run amok when sheeple "see something, say something" and we have neighbors snooping and snitching on each other?

This makes my blood boil!

 

[hornadylnl]

Mothers doing some recreational drugs is a totally new concept.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0U95Aj783s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0U95Aj783s[/ame]

 

[KLB]

What is up with drug tests every time she was in the hospital?

 

[rambone]

They could use the same logic to confiscate children from people who smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol.

 

[KLB]

They could use the same logic to confiscate children from people who smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol.

Once the .gov is running our healthcare I imagine there will be a lot more laws saying what we can and can't do. After all they have to pay the bill now, so it is their right.

 

[indykid]

Obese parents who don't provide government approved healthy meals for their children are the next group in the crosshairs.

Didn't Chairman Mao, Premier Nikita, and a guy named Adolph have their people become walking rats? How quickly we progress from a free country to a country of slaves under government control!

 

[Bunnykid68]

They could use the same logic to confiscate children from people who smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol.

They can most certainly try. Think I will grab a beer and a smoke now and go talk to the kids about our glorious government that knows what is best for them.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Obese parents who don't provide government approved healthy meals for their children are the next group in the crosshairs.

That is divorce court.

 

[littletommy]

That is divorce court.

Not to take away from the outrage I feel about the OP, but that^^^^^, is funny, and true!

 

[Ted]

Shouldn't the prosecutor be looking to file a criminal action against those responsible?

 

[littletommy]

Shouldn't the prosecutor be looking to file a criminal action against those responsible?

YES! They should. NO! They won't. Idiocy, ineptness, and "there's nothing you can do about it" is the rule. Nothing works in a logical manner with these people.

 

[mike8170]

They can most certainly try. Think I will grab a beer and a smoke now and go talk to the kids about our glorious government that knows what is best for them.

I talk to my kids constantly about our glorious government, and they get it. Got to offset the liberal agenda that is taught in the schools.

 

[Loco179]

Shouldn't the prosecutor be looking to file a criminal action against those responsible?

Yes they should but they will not. Its horrible.......

 

[Lex Concord]

I talk to my kids constantly about our glorious government, and they get it. Got to offset the liberal agenda that is taught in the schools.

You know, you have the option to keep them out of the government schools...then you can give them a proper and truthful indoctrination

 

[threefiftyfour]

I find it hard to believe the people not making the differentiation between drug use (currently illegal) and cigarettes and alcohol (both currently legal). I'm not talking about this case, just the responses, starting with the op. We all know the government is out of control, but we must stay intellectually honest with at least ourselves. At the time I am writing this, it is legal to drink, responsibly. It is legal to smoke tobacco, in most private places, but illegal drugs are illegal. Think things through people.

 

[littletommy]

I find it hard to believe the people not making the differentiation between drug use (currently illegal) and cigarettes and alcohol (both currently legal). I'm not talking about this case, just the responses, starting with the op. We all know the government is out of control, but we must stay intellectually honest with at least ourselves. At the time I am writing this, it is legal to drink, responsibly. It is legal to smoke tobacco, in most private places, but illegal drugs are illegal. Think things through people.

Okay, I guess if momma was being drug tested, there must have been some other issues going on. Still, the article states momma tested positive for marijuana use. I know you aren't saying kids should be taken away from parents because they smoke some weed occasionally, right? Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, just wondering. I would say, regardless of legality, there is a huge difference between somebody who smokes some weed and, say, a meth head.

 

[88GT]

You know, you have the option to keep them out of the government schools...then you can give them a proper and truthful indoctrination

The only logical solution, IMO. Why have to worry about undoing theirs and implementing yours when you can just skip the whole first part completely?

 

[threefiftyfour]

Okay, I guess if momma was being drug tested, there must have been some other issues going on. Still, the article states momma tested positive for marijuana use. I know you aren't saying kids should be taken away from parents because they smoke some weed occasionally, right? Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, just wondering. I would say, regardless of legality, there is a huge difference between somebody who smokes some weed and, say, a meth head.

Why is it some people "get" to decide what laws they will follow? I didn't say that the government was right, they very rarely are, what I said actually had nothing to do with this incident. I was talking about people picking and choosing what laws to follow and what laws not to. If you think a law is wrong, work to change it.
Someone once felt that marijuana was bad, and made it illegal. If they were wrong, then change the law.
They once made alcohol illegal, and it didn't work out to well. People changed the law.
As broken as our system is, it is still the law of the land. I believe it can be straightened out, if it's done right.

My post was specifically pointed at the op. I was very disappointed in his view of recreational ILLEGAL, well anything. IF the drugs were medicinal, you may have an argument, but they were not.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I find it hard to believe the people not making the differentiation between drug use (currently illegal) and cigarettes and alcohol (both currently legal). I'm not talking about this case, just the responses, starting with the op. We all know the government is out of control, but we must stay intellectually honest with at least ourselves. At the time I am writing this, it is legal to drink, responsibly. It is legal to smoke tobacco, in most private places, but illegal drugs are illegal. Think things through people.

In a narrow understanding of your statement, you make perfect sense. The problem is that the present boundary between legal and illegal is irrelevant to the primary cause of concern, which is that Big Brother starts with a wide standard, and then progressively tightens it until the time arrives in which absolute perfection according to the .gov is the minimum acceptable standard. First, the line is drawn at overt harm to the children (which is not uniformly enforced as it is), then personal habits of a less than legal nature albeit with no demonstrable harm to the children, at least until CPS gets their hooks into them, and eventually dietary habits, "correct" thinking, and political "reliability" will be part of the standard. Are you really sure you want to stand with the Grand Marshal of this parade?