Scott

Inflammatory post reported and removed.

Well, to some extent everybody is Monday morning quarterbacking. I do have a fair amount of experience with removing children and the circumstances. Children are removed because of abuse, neglect or abandonment. There are circumstances where a child is out-of-control and is removed because of behavioral problems, but that is usually done at the request of the parents. None of those conditions appear to exist. Absolutely nothing about hair follicles and former drug use should result in the immediate removal of the children. There is a huge amount of racial bias in removing children. With people of color an emergency removal order is almost always given for minority children -- the bias is that blacks and native Americans aren't as good of parents as whites. When removing white children judges will seriously question the need and often have an emergency hearing. I've never experienced an emergency hearing with minority children -- it's as simple as a phone call to a judge who gives a verbal order and follows up the following day with the written order. No hearing is held. If you want examples, I can give you many. Had the family been white, it's not the media that would have treated it differently, it's the judicial and CPS that would have as well.

A post advocating illegal activity has been removed.

A post violating Fair Use Policy has been removed.

Troll post reported and removed.

Troll post reported and removed.

Continued commentary on others will result in suspensions. It is off-topic and not relevant to the topic. Numerous posts and replies have been reported and removed.

A post containing a trolling meme has been reported and removed.

I am giving very little weight to the drugs and CPS should have largely discounted it as well. The reason is there was such a small amount that it was not dangerous to the children and the drugs were in the possession of the parents and not available to the children. The same with the gun. Drugs and guns become pivotal when children are in a situation where they have easy and unsupervised access to either. If you have a gun in an unlocked kitchen cabinet drawer, and your kids are old enough to be left home alone for a period of time, you may have a problem. You may also have a problem if you leave your prescribed medication where it is available to a young child. CPS here is no doubt somewhat complicit in this situation, but they are far from off the hook. When the parents are being held, CPS has little choice but to get a temporary removal order. But the mother was not charged. CPS was in a difficult situation. This was a family from a different state and headed to another state. Whatever investigation or longer term assistance is needed, won't be done by Tennessee. It will fall to maybe Georgia or maybe Illinois. CPS and the police decided to err on the side of caution. That however, doesn't mean the children have to be removed. Under most temporary orders, it gives CPS the right to decide what needs to be done. In this situation, the mother and children could have been placed in a shelter -- or even a motel room under supervision. CPS should have then contacted the Georgia authorities to ascertain whether any reports had been filed. They also should have had someone contact family members to find if anyone was available. Placing the children in foster care is an extremely traumatic move and should only be done when no other option is available. There were other options and the legal basis for the removal is very weak.

Now find a story where a white couple was picked up for a small amount of marijuana and a gun in the car and their children were taken away with no hearing. I already posted one to show how far the justice system will go with a white couple. If you are a member of a minority, whether it is black, native American or Hispanic, you have a much greater risk of having your children removed. According to national data, roughly 37 percent of the children in foster care are African American despite the fact that African American children make up only 15 percent of the children living in the United States. For a better picture of the numbers: In 2021, there were 168,063 white children in foster care in the United States. This is compared to 86,645 Black or African American children and 85,215 Hispanic children who were in foster care. https://www.citizenreviewpanelsny.org/documents/chapin_hall_document.pdf https://www.statista.com/statistics/255404/number-of-children-in-foster-care-in-the-united-states-by-race-ethnicity/

Yes, children are removed from homes and placed in care if the parents are incapacitated due to their drug or alcohol abuse. The fact that they are in possession is far from sufficient to remove children and neither of the parents were being held or charged with intoxication from drugs or alcohol. Based on that, the mother was quite capable of caring for the children. The exponential rise in opioid (and meth) addiction has resulted in a lot of people ODing. As the rate of overdoses goes up, so will the number of cases referred to CPS for placement. This was hardly the case.

Unauthorized advertising post reported and removed.

It doesn't matter what happened or the outcome of a hair follicle test. The ONLY test they have to pass is that one of the two parents is able to provide care for the children. Children are not removed for simple drug use and if they were the foster care system would be overrun. Children are not removed from parents who get a DUI, even if the children are in the car. Whatever these parents have been up to. There would be no reason to give an emergency order of removal -- and that's what happened. They were not in imminent danger.

Troll post removed.

A troll post removed.

Off-topic post reported and removed.

In my early years I spent several years working in Child Protective Services. That was many years ago, but the system was definitely rigged against people of color. If a judge was contacted for an emergency order to remove children and they were minority-race children, the order was always given. A lot of times, the paperwork was waived until the next day. Fortunately, the rules under which we operated were to NEVER remove children unless they were in imminent danger of being harmed. If there were any family member capable of caring for the children, they were released to them pending a hearing. CPS is expected to make every effort to keep the family together and out of the foster care system. Legal problems by the parents are almost never a reason to remove children from custody. I find it interesting that in the state that I live, children are seldom removed from the custody of white parents. There is a huge drug problem and children are allowed to remain with their parents right up until the time they are incarcerated. So, let's contrast this story with how Teresa Giudice, from one of the Real Housewife series, and her husband, Joe. They were charged with a host of crimes including failing to file taxes, conspiracy, mail fraud, bank fraud and wire fraud. They were both convicted on 41 charges of fraud and sentenced to prison. Teresa was sentenced to 15 months in a federal prison; Joe was sentenced to 41 months. The couple had 4 daughters. In order to keep the family together, Teresa served her sentence first and Joe took care of the children. After she served her sentence, he went to prison. I doubt you will find many cases of minority people being given that kind of treatment. Those children were in no imminent danger; they had a custodial parent who was not incarcerated or unable to care for them. They should never have been removed from her without a full custody hearing.

Troll post reported and removed.

Baiting post and reply reported and removed.

Off-topic, troll posts and replies reported and removed.

Off-topic, troll posts, baiting and bickering posts and replies have been removed. Continue and face a suspension.

Inappropriate, troll post reported and removed.

Inflammatory post reported and removed.

French President Emmanuel Macron shunned parliament on Thursday and invoked a special constitutional power to force through a controversial pension reform that raises the retirement age by two years to 64. The risky move sparked protests outside the National Assembly and is expected to trigger motions of no-confidence in his government. The decision was made just a few minutes before the vote was scheduled at the National Assembly, France’s lower house of parliament. The retirement age has now been raised by two years to 64 in a pension reform that is the flagship legislation of Macron's second term. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230316-????-french-government-to-invoke-article-49-3-executive-privilege-to-push-through-pension-reform-without-parliamentary-vote-govt-sources

Troll post reported and removed.