Take your kid to the dr. or else!!

[chipbennett]

Just for fun...

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/witho...at-cps-steals-children-from-anti-vax-parents/

So, corroborated: CPS requested a warrant to take custody (protective custody order?) of a toddler for having a 100F fever - then while executing the warrant/order, took custody of two other children because they were... sick and had vomited.

Not disputed (and also on security video footage): police executed the warrant/order with guns drawn (i.e. using deadly force).

 

[BugI02]

100F is barely a fever. It is cause for concern to the extent of treating with OTC NSAIDs, keeping the toddler cool and comfortable, and monitoring - not cause for concern to the extent of going to the ER, absent some significant, extenuating circumstances.

I believe that the childs fever was 105F when he was at the naturopath's office, which is considerably more serious and likely the only non-anecdotal, neutraly sourced reading they had to work with. the 'Dr's' word would likely be given more weight than any assertion by the parents

 

[JettaKnight]

So, corroborated: CPS requested a warrant to take custody (protective custody order?) of a toddler for having a 100F fever - then while executing the warrant/order, took custody of two other children because they were... sick and had vomited.

I hope they took pictures of the home.

Not disputed (and also on security video footage): police executed the warrant/order with guns drawn (i.e. using deadly force).

Guns drawn =/= using deadly force.
Shots fired == using deadly force.

 

[Route 45]

Not disputed (and also on security video footage): police executed the warrant/order with guns drawn (i.e. using deadly force).

Drawn guns do not equal deadly force.

Also for your future reference, your finger slipping through the toilet paper does not count as sex.

 

[HoughMade]

...Also for your future reference, your finger slipping through the toilet paper does not count as sex.

Not so fast. It depends:

1) On how long it is until you remove your finger,
2) How many knuckles, and
3) Whether you smell your finger afterwards.

 

[engi-ninja]

What's scary to me is, the police officers had full knowledge of exactly what they were doing. They chose to forcibly enter a private home, in which no crime had been committed, and take children away from their parents, possibly forever, over a fever that had broken hours ago. I don't understand how anyone in their right mind can do that.

 

[CampingJosh]

So, corroborated:

No. Once again, don't mistake a blog for a source.

 

[BugI02]

Guns drawn =/= [STRIKE]using deadly force.[/STRIKE] DEFCON 2
Shots fired == [STRIKE]using deadly force.[/STRIKE] DEFCON 1

Situation should have been DEFCON 4 throughout

 

[chipbennett]

I believe that the childs fever was 105F when he was at the naturopath's office, which is considerably more serious and likely the only non-anecdotal, neutraly sourced reading they had to work with. the 'Dr's' word would likely be given more weight than any assertion by the parents

True, but based on the accounts available, the mother informed the fake doctor (excuse me: naturopath) that the toddler's fever had reduced to 100F before the fake doctor called the ER/reported to CPS.

And heaven help us if the word of a naturopath - i.e. a fake doctor - carries any weight whatsoever in a court of law.

 

[chipbennett]

I hope they took pictures of the home.

To what end? A dirty home and evidence of recent vomit is not and should not be sufficient reason for the state to take custody of children.

Guns drawn =/= using deadly force.
Shots fired == using deadly force.

Right, because in this situation, there is material difference between the threat of deadly force and the use of deadly force. Reverse the roles, and how would the two be treated? As I recall from multiple licensing and self-defense classes is that if the use of deadly force is not justified, then neither is the threat of deadly force.

The point - if you are willing and able to look past a largely semantic difference - is that guns should not have been drawn while carrying out the order. The threat of deadly force was in no way justified.

 

[JettaKnight]

What's scary to me is, the police officers had full knowledge of exactly what they were doing. They chose to forcibly enter a private home, in which no crime had been committed, and take children away from their parents, possibly forever, over a fever that had broken hours ago. I don't understand how anyone in their right mind can do that.

Situation should have been DEFCON 4 throughout

The point - if you are willing and able to look past a largely semantic difference - is that guns should not have been drawn while carrying out the order. The threat of deadly force was in no way justified.

Like I said, I'd like to know the decision making employed here. Was there previous situations that made them believe this tactic is warranted? There's at least indications that this isn't the first time the cops have been to this house. I'm not willing to make the assumption that I think you are, that this is a normal, law abiding, model home.


There's a lot of pieces missing; enough so, that it's unfair to scream, "government overreach police state!" or "scumball child abusers!"

 

[BugI02]

True, but based on the accounts available, the mother informed the fake doctor (excuse me: naturopath) that the toddler's fever had reduced to 100F before the fake doctor called the ER/reported to CPS.

And heaven help us if the word of a naturopath - i.e. a fake doctor - carries any weight whatsoever in a court of law.

I did not catch that the quack had been informed of the break in the child's fever before he called in the law. My thinking is he may have been in CYA mode, worried if the child had died or been seriously injured he could be liable. If he was really worried about just the health of his clients he wouldn't be selling snake oil

To what end? A dirty home and evidence of recent vomit is not and should not be sufficient reason for the state to take custody of children.



Right, because in this situation, there is material difference between the threat of deadly force and the use of deadly force. Reverse the roles, and how would the two be treated? As I recall from multiple licensing and self-defense classes is that if the use of deadly force is not justified, then neither is the threat of deadly force.

The point - if you are willing and able to look past a largely semantic difference - is that guns should not have been drawn while carrying out the order. The threat of deadly force was in no way justified.

I think Chip is right, Jetta. I will agree that serving a warrant seems to be becoming as dangerous as a traffic stop if not more so, but guns drawn is one step closer to someone being shot whether that is the desired result or not. If the police really thought he was a danger, why was no negotiator brought in? Seems more like the level of force was selected to show the peons who's boss - think Roger Stone

 

[JettaKnight]

Maybe excessive force, maybe overreach, maybe not.

I dunno.

I am not a cop, a fake doctor, a lawyer, a parent, an Arizonan... or a person that cares about this story anymore.

 

[BugI02]

True, but based on the accounts available, the mother informed the fake doctor (excuse me: naturopath) that the toddler's fever had reduced to 100F before the fake doctor called the ER/reported to CPS.

And heaven help us if the word of a naturopath - i.e. a fake doctor - carries any weight whatsoever in a court of law.

Maybe excessive force, maybe overreach, maybe not.

I dunno.

I am not a cop, a fake doctor, a lawyer, a parent, an Arizonan... or a person that cares about this story anymore.

And yet, here we are!












Hola, Jetta!

 

[HoughMade]

Maybe excessive force, maybe overreach, maybe not.

I dunno.

I am not a cop, a fake doctor, a lawyer, a parent, an Arizonan... or a person that cares about this story anymore.

I am not a cop, I am a fake doctor...because I'm a real lawyer, I am a parent, I've never been to Arizona, but I identify as an Arizonan (it's 2019).

So here's my take....spoiler alert, there's no conspiracy or systemic anything.

So, kid is taken to (another) fake doc, who finds a 105 degree fever- that's life threatening. Also, he thinks this may be meningitis which is deadly, easily spreadable and probably required to be reported to the county health department. Tells parents to take kid to hospital.

Fever comes down to 102...still bad, not so life threatening....and there's no evidence the fake doc was told what the second temp was. They don't take the kid to the hospital.

Appropriately concerned fake doc lets DCS know. All DCS knows is what fake doc tells them- possible meningitis, other kids in the house, life threatening fever. DCS has had contact with family before.

DCS tries to find out what's going on, parent refuse to communicate in any meaningful way.

For all DCS knows, still a life threatening fever, still possible meningitis.

DCS gets Police involved. Police get warrant and, in this case, have one goal- get the kid and take him to the hospital. They do....with extreme prejudice. We can debate whether that very last point was appropriate...but as far as I can tell, everything else that leads up to that seems to have been in good faith and lawful.

In sum....the activist class got to this one early.

 

[Lex Concord]

.

 

[Double T]

Fever of 105 in a child is quickly approaching the febrile threshold and also quickly could lead to intense dehydration and possibly acute kidney injury or death...regardless of the pathogen. Regardless of the healthcare provider, if they wanted to keep practicing whatever they practice, they had a duty to report.

Just like if a doc in the ER find healed fractures on old fractures for a child, or an elderly patient; with associated multiple bruising stages.

Until you've had to call CPS/APS, I don't think you understand that people's livelihoods and also freedom could be on the line. Failure to report any crime of a patient, if it becomes known that you did not report, could have you stripped of credentials, fined, and or charged as an accessory.

Odds are, the person called the ER to have the kid direct admitted, or have an attending pediatrician assess him. Hell, I've had my doc meet us at the ER for our kids after talking to him on the phone. Remember, you really can't get all of the facts in cases like this.

 

[Tanfodude]

This one time visit to the doctor and the result is this severe? There's got to be more than this story to end up in this magnitude.

Edit: Read the other link. Yep, there was more to this that just that one visit.

 

[Mongo59]

None of this makes any sense. I think that is what everyone here is expressing.

As a Dr of any kind to say you are in fear for the child and then expect the mom to transport him to the ER with the siblings?

You are worried the child may have a potentially lethal, and possibly transmittable disease, so you send the whole family back out into an unaware, unprepared society?

Working with sick/injured children and their parents was my profession, you have to be the one with clear thought eliminating the "what if's".

The time to isolate a potentially transmittable disease is immediately, not after diagnosis is confirmed.

If the doc had their staff make three phone calls: 1) for an ambulance 2) to the ER 3) to the father/friend/family member to take care of the siblings, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

What would you expect to have happen when you tell a mom, "the world as you have known it is possibly coming to an end, have a nice day..."

 

[Route 45]

If the doc had their staff make three phone calls: 1) for an ambulance 2) to the ER 3) to the father/friend/family member to take care of the siblings, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

That depends on whether the mom is notified of the likely $2500+ bill for an ambulance ride to the hospital, due to our greatest health care system in the world. You'll never catch me in an ambulance again, unless I'm unconscious or on death's doorstep.