Eat a Bagel, Lose Your Baby

The ACLU of Pennsylvania recently filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of a couple whose newborn baby was kidnapped by Lawrence County Children and Youth Services (LCCYS) because her mother recklessly consumed an "everything" bagel from Dunkin' Donuts the day before the birth. Jameson Hospital, where Isabella Rodriguez was born on April 27, has a policy of testing expectant mothers' urine for illegal drugs and reporting positive results to LCCYS, even without any additional evidence that the baby is in danger of neglect or abuse. LCCYS, in turn, has a policy of seizing such babies from their homes based on nothing more than the test result. Unfortunately for Isabella's parents, Elizabeth Mort and Alex Rodriguez, Jameson sets the cutoff level for its opiate test so low that it can be triggered by poppy seeds, which is why two caseworkers and two Neshannock Township police officers visited their home the day after baby and mother returned from the hospital. LCCYS seized the three-day-old girl and put her in foster care for five days before conceding it had made a mistake.

In their complaint (PDF), Mort and Rodriguez say the "seize first, ask questions later" policy jointly implemented by Lawrence County and the Jameson Health System (motto: "there's no place like home") is not required by state or federal law and represents a conspiracy to deprive parents of their 14th Amendment rights. In addition to seeking "nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages," they are asking the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to declare the policy unconstitutional.

The recklessness and indifference displayed by both the county and the hospital, neither of which made any attempt to corroborate suspicions that the baby might be in danger, is astonishing. According to the complaint, Mort's obstetrician, Nicole Carlson, "did not inform Plaintiff Mort of the positive UDS [urine drug screen] because, in her experience, many of the initial UDS tests come back as 'false positives.' In addition, Dr. Carlson did not inform Plaintiff Mort of the test results because Plaintiff s urine tests throughout her pregnancy were negative for the presence of drugs; because Dr. Carlson did not believe that the Plaintiff was a drug user; and because she did not want to frighten Plaintiff during her labor/delivery." The hospital and LCCYS nevertheless mindlessly proceeded to separate Isabella from her parents, based on nothing more than a "zero tolerance for poppy seeds" rule of their own invention.

More information about the case here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Bastards!

    I came home from work, sat down to relax and then read this story. Fuck, my blood pressure is up again.

  • ||

    It's a fucked up world that we live in that I expected your story to be that the baby was taken away because the mom was too fat or had too much cream cheese. But hey, it's just because of drug testing, so that makes it...better? Worse?

  • mauricegirodias||

    I know, and it was twittered by Balko, so I thought for sure they were assaulting her diet.

  • ||

    Reading H&R ain't always relaxing!

  • TallDave||

    That is just ungodly. I'm surprised the mother didn't tear someone's eyes out.

    I hope they get sued into oblivion over this.

  • Child Protective Svcs Agent||

    Can't sue the Government, TallDave.

  • ||

    Which is why this country really needs a few law-abiding parents to shoot for center-mass when jackbooted thugs storm in to their homes.

    The government ought to fear the people, not the other way around.

  • ||

    It does.

  • Jeff||

    You might wanna look into 42 USC 1983. State sovereign immunity is waived when civil rights cases are brought.

  • ||

    Quite correct, Jeff; our clinic is handling a 1983 action against a county government at this very moment.

  • ||

    Actually, they CAN sue the government, and if you'll notice in the story, they ARE presently suing the government.

  • ¢||

    Again, a positive result on a drug test can't be caused by poppy seeds.

    These "false positive" stories all arise from tests that aren't for drugs being administered as "drug tests" because of the amount of non-negative-for-"drugs" results they generate.

    It's not unintentional, and no amount of lawsuit losses could outweigh the benefits that using a non-drug test to test for "drugs" gives to those who administer them.

    You guys should do a thing about it. You have a science dude, right? Slap the "climate" horoscope out of his hand and put him to work.

  • ||

    It is indeed possible. Especially at the ridiculously low threshold level for a positive test that the hospital employed.

  • Rock Action ||

    Poppy seeds have repeatedly been found to cause a positive drug test for opiates, actually.

    Citation (there are links within the article):

    http://www.poppies.org/faq/leg.....drug-test/

  • Paul||

    A aksed this same question the first time this story came up, because I thought it was impossible (read: urban legend) to get a false positive on poppy seeds-- unless you ate an ungawdly amount of them. I was told that it depends on the test...

    Here's snopes on the subject.

  • ||

    What he means is that if you fail a "drug" test after eating a poppy-seed bagel, the test is actually testing for something other than actual drugs.

  • ||

    They're playing with semantics. Most drug tests test for metabolites of drugs, not the drugs themselves.

    Of course, pleasing such people would seem to require referring to pregnancy tests and HIV tests by other names since they don't test for the condition directly either. Ditto for metal detectors, I guess.

  • ||

    I believe it goes beyond that with the poppy seeds in that the drugs aren't actually _in_ the poppy seeds but rather in the sap from the plant that may or may not have coated the outer shell of the seed when they were extracted from the plant.

  • ||

    I have anecdotal evidence that supports this...I once was called into the company physician's office because I 'failed' one of the random tests my employer administered. The doctor asked me questions about my diet and, seemingly satisfied that I wasn't taking cocaine, he told me the test returned false positives as a result of metabolites for opiates...they only called me in after having sent a second sample for testing...it too came back with low levels of opiate metabolites.

    Not sure the result for pot or alcohol suffers the same false alarms.

  • ||

    Ditto for metal detectors, I guess.

    Magnetometers. [/pedant]

  • AlmightyJB||

    You don't know what you're talking about. I had an ex-coworker who tested positive for opiates going for another job because she had had a poppy seed bagel every day for an extended period of time. If this chick did drugs, I'm the fuckin' Pope. Even Huntington Bank called bullshit on the test and hired her anyways. It does impact the test and is just another reason why the "War on Drugs" is total bullshit.

  • ||

    I agree the war on drugs is total bullshit, enough already, so many of my homies are doing hard core time because they smoke herb and snort funny white stuff.

  • izanurse||

    I hope we all agree that yes, poppy seeds CAN cause positive results. However labs can also do additional testing to check whether the positive is caused by poppyseeds or opiates.

  • Hacha Cha||

    You are an idiot. Poppy seeds contain a small coating of opium on them. The mythbusters even proved you can fail up to 24 hours after consuming a small amount of poppyseeds. Apparently the hospital was going by the OLD cutoff standards which result in more false positives for people who consume poppyseeds.

  • Amakudari||

    Well, to some extent, yes, but heroin is metabolized so quickly that drug tests can only look for the metabolized product (morphine), which happens to be the same as when poppy seeds metabolize. It's an interesting factoid, I guess, but people already know about the poppy seed issue and those tests are still being done.

  • Mike In Seattle||

    Ok then. Did the woman receive an epidural? With and opiate derived anesthetic? With the urine sample coming after the epidural was delivered? Hell. was there a morphine contaminate within the general vicinity - being a hospital where such things exist in abundance?

    To create a 'zero tolerance' drug policy which results in the seizure of a child from an environment swimming in controlled substances is.... Indescribable.

    Christ what a moronic objection.

  • ||

    Wrong! I got a false positive when I went to donate blood to be used for plasma. (I'd eaten my mother-in law's poppyseed roll) They knew me there, and told me to come back in 2-3 weeks, that it happens all the time. I'm 52 years old and don't use drugs.

  • Jerry||

    Wasn't this a Seinfeld episode?

  • ||

    That it was.

  • Restoras||

    I think everything was a Seinfeld episode.

  • George Costanza||

    About that marble rye...

  • ||

    Considering Seinfeld treated procreation as anathema, not exactly. That was the episode where Elaine got fired for testing positive for opium after J Peterman overheard Kramer begging her to let him borrow her showerhead in terms that sounded like the rantings of an addict to his dealer.

  • Jerry||

    I know. I was being rhetorical. Is that the word?
    No, wait...sarcastic. I was being sarcastic.

  • ||

    My god, you can even take the fun out of a hilarious Seinfeld episode merely by describing it. Your powers are tremendous. You had Scolding Power already; now you also have Boring Power? What are you, some kind of Sylar-like monster? What power will you gain next? Nagging Power?

  • ||

    I didn't seek any powers, they were thrust upon me.

  • ||

    Ah, I see: the new power is Excuses Power.

  • AlmightyJB||

    word

  • Almanian||

    Where were these bastards when my kids were born? "You want 'em? They're yours - suckers!"

    But I keeeeeeed!!!

  • Paul||

    You libertards are gonna be fucked when you're wandering through the desert forraging for berries!!!11!!1one!11

  • AlmightyJB||

    You make the future sound so pleasant.

  • ||

    Anyone forraging for berries in the desert is fucked..

  • ||

    An interracial couple to boot. Just asking for trouble.

    (p.s. I'm kidding. I'm in an interracial couple myself)

  • Paul||

    Both of you?

  • prolefeed||

    Are you simultaneously "in" the members of that interracial couple, or do you do them separately?

    Oh, wait, that's probably not what you meant ... =)

  • ||

    My wife is white and she rocks in b4d. she likes my big brown palo too.

  • Edwin||

    Why the fuck don't you morons support this??? That baby was in danger!!! I'll bet that fat cunt mother did drugs and made up the "bagel" story to cover her fat ass!!!!!

  • Tom||

    So what? Her child still isn't anyone else's business. If she is a druggie and it interferes with her ability to care for her own child, then natural selection will gradually rid us of her kind.

  • Edwin||

    Like you liberfucks give a shit about kids.

  • Jeff||

    I don't give a shit about kids. I support full immunity for parents who tap out of parenthood by leaving kids in hot cars up until the age of 10.

    Reduce that carbon footprint, get an abortion.

  • Jeff||

    I don't give a shit about kids. I support full immunity for parents who tap out of parenthood by leaving kids in hot cars up until the age of 10.

    Reduce that carbon footprint, get an abortion.

  • ||

    Edwin you fucking twat, on this particular case you have to admit, you cabezon de mierda, that the actions of the agencies involved are just plain wrong. Mijo, leave behind this homo erotic obsession with big government and think with your small, pansy ass brain, how could you support this act of aggression against the innocent. Don't be a culo, edwin.

  • ||

    In addition, Dr. Carlson did not inform Plaintiff Mort of the test results because Plaintiff's urine tests throughout her pregnancy were negative for the presence of drugs...

    You're right. It's so much better when babies are raised by fat social workers and fat foster mothers instead.

    Daddy doesn't look like he's exactly height-weight proportionate in that picture, either. But enough about him; let's get back to hating every extra ounce of flesh on the mother.

  • ||

    You are just being facetious, right? You are only joking when you disregard the physicians report and opinion, the nine month history if negative drug tests, etc., right?

  • ||

    I'll bet your mother left you in a closed garage with the engine running for a little too long, but no one's suggesting she should have duct-taped your mouth around the tailpipe...

    Oh wait, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.

  • Xeones||

    Yo, fuck Lawrence County Children and Youth Services.

  • ||

    No thank you.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    You ever see the types of women who work in those sort of agencies? You won't want to fuck them.

  • ||

    Wow, that's quite original.

  • ||

    Better than your "No thank you." God, you suck.

  • ||

    Yes, several fold better, and also at least as original!

  • ||

    Actually one of the hottest chicks I've ever known was a case-worker for Missouri CPS.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    YEAHHH!!!! I haven't seen an X "Yo, fuck.." comment inlike a year.

  • ||

    If the building suddenly were struck by -cough-lightning-cough- and burned to the ground I would not shed a tear.

  • Yup||

    If she was beating the child HaCS would have a wait and see attitude.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    This.

    I work for an agency that's contracted with the Department of Human Services. Kids that are actually in bad situations and need to be taken away, DHS doesn't do much. The situation's just maybe a little bad, or actually fine, and the kids definitely DON'T need to be taken away? They run out and snatch them as soon as they can. It's incredibly fucked up.

  • Robert||

    What reasons do they have for acting that way? I doubt they're simply perverse, so what sort of reasoning process produces such perverse results? Is it because they think everyone is trying to trick them, so they do the opposite of the obvious thing, because it's "too obvious"? Like the world is a game being played with them?

  • Robert||

    Is it some sort of feeling they need to balance the scale? So that if the evidence is one way they need to weigh in on the opposite side? And since they're the ones who can act, they do it according to the side of the scale they're on?

  • c andrew||

    My sister worked with severely abused children for her masters degree. A lot of the social workers came from bad family situations. She didn't know if these workers didn't recognize conflict that happens in normal families as normal or whether they *were* trying to get some cosmic payback for what they'd gone through in childhood. Either way, perverse outcomes seemed to be much higher than mere mistakes would justify.

  • ||

    I thought DHS was Department of Homeland Security. Still, you're right; they don't do much.

  • numeromancer||

    No, if the mother were a crack-head and had given the child up for adoption and it had been given to a great couple whom the child had already came to love and they had ripped it away from them to give back to the crack-head mother because she got bored and wanted the child back, then they would have a wait and see attitude.

  • ||

    What a fucking country.

  • ||

    They're supposed to split the sample, test one part on site, and in the event of a positive result from that test they send the other part of the sample to a lab for a more reliable test. Under no circumstances could that haave been done in a day, so they clearly violated drug test protocol by acting on a positive result before the second test was completed.

  • anarch||

    They're supposed to split the bagel, test one part on site, and in the event of a positive result from that test they send the other part of the bagel to a lab for a more reliable test.

  • ||

    No, you split the bagel, put lox spread on one side, taste it, then put chive cream cheese with lox slices and sliced red onion (and possibly capers) on the other side for a more superior bagel experience.

  • anarch||

    Of course; "they" != "you."

  • AlmightyJB||

    I don't know dude. Maybe I just haven't found quality smoked salmon yet, but just not that into it. I'm definitely willing to give it another shot. Any suggestions?

  • ||

    Even the cheaper lox is pretty good, so it just sounds like you're not into it. Do you like sushi/sashimi? How about gravlax? If not, then you just don't care for that raw/cured/uncooked fish flavor, and don't waste your money on lox (because it ain't cheap).

  • AlmightyJB||

    I don't know dude. Maybe I just haven't found quality smoked salmon yet, but just not that into it. I'm definitely willing to give it another shot. Any suggestions?

  • AlmightyJB||

    I did not post twice bastards.

  • ||

    I tried to smoke a salmon once. I coulnd't get it to stay lit.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Do hospitals have GC/MS?

  • Runcible||

    I don't understand why people don't sue the actual government personnel in situations like this. This is the kind of "just following orders" BS that shouldn't be tolerated. Make them run up twenty or thirty thousand dollars in legal fees, just so "public servants" down the road think twice before mindlessly enforcing authoritarian nonsense like this.

  • ||

    Because they have immunity much of the time.

    By the way, is your handle a Neal Asher reference?

  • Jeff||

    No immunity here.

  • ||

    Government employees are protected from lawsuits if they were following their approved procedures. You have to sue "the government".

  • ||

    Sue them for everything else in their lives. Hell, just shoot them in an appendage. Come to think of it, shoot them in every appendage.

  • Jeff||

    You're apparently not smarter than this lib. Government employers are generally immunized from negligence claims if they were following procedure and the procedure reflects a generally acceptable standard of care. They are NOT immunized from liability in their official capacity if, while following procedure, they knowingly or recklessly violated a well established civil right (you know, like not having your kid stolen from you without due process of law).

  • ||

    And the problem is that "knowingly or recklessly" along with "well established" and "due process of law" all provide loopholes that make it in practice really difficult to sue the social worker "just following orders."

    That's the problem with the sort of "balancing tests" favored by Justice Breyer (and Roberts, and Alito)

  • Xenocles||

    Agreed. You have to catch them going completely off the reservation. Otherwise "the procedure" is considered "due process," just like it is for asset forfeiture.

  • Adam||

    With the attitude prevailing around here, we'll never win the war on drugs.

    Eggs and omelettes and kidnappings and such.

  • ||

    To be fair, the baby wasn't "lost." It was just borrowed for a few days.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Yeah....but, what would it cost you to not go on downtown and start torturing the kidnapping bastages to get your child back?

    Sure, not doing it is the only way you will get the kid back, but what will it cost to stay on top of that?

  • ||

    Don't think of it as losing your baby, think of it as gaining co-parents.

  • Liberal Douchebags||

    That's what government is meant to be. Embrace your future.

  • IceTrey||

    First, under what authority was the hospital acting to even administer a drug test. Did she give consent? Second, what ever happened to patient/ doctor privacy laws? People have been arrested for photographing patients being put in ambulances, but these jackholes can tell Child Services all your business?

  • ||

    Did she give consent?

    Probably not her most pressing concern at the time.

    These jackholes can tell Child Services all your business?

    All her "business" was pretty much on display already.

  • ||

    Doctor-patient privilege is forfeited when there are signs of child abuse, which apparently includes a positive drug test in the warped minds of whichever clowns are running that hospital.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the hospital shoved a consent form for the test in front of her or her husband at some point before the birth, either.

  • ||

    Doctor-patient privilege is forfeited when there are signs of child abuse

    Roe v Wade says privacy wins over the well-being of the...oh, hmmm. Hmmm.

  • Hacha Cha||

    No she was tested for drugs without being informed of it. They talked a little bit about this case at my local ACLU annual dinner.

  • Progressive||

    Second, what ever happened to patient/ doctor privacy laws?

    Silly man! The right to privacy applies only to abortion.

  • izanurse||

    She doesn't have to give consent for drug tests at the time of labor/delivery. Sad but true...and legal. Could have saved everyone the pain and just tested the baby. Meconium will tell if she did any drugs during her pregnancy.

  • Binky||

    Require anyone working for Jameson Hospital or Lawrence County Children and Youth Services to resign if they have ever consumed an "everything" bagel. It is unconscionable that impaired people are permitted to ruin the lives of their clients.

  • ||

    The ACLU of Pennsylvania recently filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of a couple whose newborn baby was kidnapped

    At what point should we be expecting Jack Stuef and the rest of the mental midgets from Wonkette to come justify this incredibly reasonable use of the authority of the state?

  • cynical||

    Ho ho ho. Don't be silly -- this is an interracial couple, not a couple of teabaggers. Justice depends on how much you like the person it's being done to, at least in the eyes of a progressive.

  • Wonkette Fucktard||

    HAHAHAHA - look at these fucking tards at reason getting all worked up about child protective services "kidnapping" a baby from a suspected druggie. To them, everything the government ever does confirms their fucked up ideology! Truth is, she probably was on crack, and the baby is better off. If it were up to Rand Paul, that couple wouldn't have even been allowed to marry! And they only get upset because they're scared they might get caught in their own drug test. Just republicans on weed. This is why libertarians are so unserious and libertopia will never work! QED

    Go team blue!

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    Perfect.

  • Mr. Chartreuse||

    Not sure about perfect. There isn't a Somalia reference nor anything about using public roads. 1 point deduction

    9 out of 10.

  • ||

    Plus the poor will starve. And relative status based on wealth makes people feel sad so we have to engineer a flattening of the curve.

  • ||

    Fear not. My new show, Top Hat & Monocle about libertarian superheroes, will aim for perfection in every episode.

  • Edwin||

    ^^^THIS^^^

  • ||

    If the drug test wasn't done under court order then the hospital is in violation of medical privacy laws. look for more of this insanity across the nation if the Obamacare national electronic medical record database is createed. With their insanely low thresholds you would pop for meth if you had cold medicine or diet pills in your system.

  • ||

    Geez, worry about everything why dontcha. No one in the ER is going to have cold medicine in their system. That's ridiculous.

  • izanurse||

    They are REQUIRED to report positive drug test results in that situation or they will lose their license. Also...most hospitals already have EMRs and can access the EMRs of other hospitals. That's been going on for several years.

  • Rrabbit||

    I am surprised they were not shot when their baby was kidnapped.

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    Someone must've forgot to call the ATF. (And it'd been the baby that got kilt, and by fire or tank tread, not shot. ATF has standards you know.)

  • AlmightyJB||

    The dog that they don't have yet is grateful no to have been there.

  • Family Pet||

    They weren't shot.

  • Random Guy on the Internet||

    Medical privacy is dead and buried, another victim of the W.O.(some)D.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    ...but you sure get to sign a lota' HIPA forms.

  • FreeLibertine||

    Personally, I always put LSD-25 on my everything bagels.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Lucky MF

  • imhotep||

    I only wish it would have been their dog was kidnapped. Then people would have been outraged.

  • ||

    Really? I'd like to think that if a SWAT team shot a baby, there would be more widespread outrage compared to their dog shootings.

  • James J. B.||

    Not so. One of the boys in blue shot an unarmed woman and also hit the baby that she held. I think it happened in Ohio. Other than sunshine balko posts (sorry) not even a peep anywhere else.

  • ||

    Sounds like Ruby Ridge... not that such a thing couldn't have happened on more than one occasion.

  • ||

    At Ruby Ridge, the baby wasn't shot, just the mother who was holding her. But she was married to a racist, so she deserved to die.

  • ||

    Yeah, you're right. Thanks for correcting me.

  • jacob||

    You are correct. Lima, Ohio

  • Sincere Wilson||

    I agree

  • ||

    Holy crap, the ACLU is actually going to court for a good reason? Excuse me; I need to go get my apocalypse shelter prepared.

  • The Horsemen||

    Best to be prepared. We're just waiting to saddle up and ride, as soon as Obama toots The Horn.

  • Jeff||

    Yeah, because the ACLU's never gone to bat for legitimate causes. Ignore of course fighting to remove government censorship of the internet, government censorship of music, government censorship of movies, censorship boards that compelled prior review of media, blind invocation of the state's secrets doctrine (to bar the release of the Pentagon Papers), unconstitutional juvenile court proceedings, government intervention into private medical decisions, etc.

  • ||

    And don't forget that the ACLU was on the correct pro-free speech side on Citizens United, too.

  • ||

    The ACLU also sued in California for barbershop raids similar to the Orlando outrage.

    If the entire Democratic Party were like the ACLU, it would be a net benefit on the whole.

  • Annon Imous||

    Since the 2003 Tulyakev reforms, Kazakhstan no longer has death penalty for baking bagels.

  • ||

    BALKOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    sorry,

    SULLUMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

  • ||

    Prohibition has triggered the worst crime wave in history, so how has that helped kids?

    Prohibition has escalated the number of people on welfare who can't find employment due to their felony status, so how has that helped kids?

    Prohibition has creating a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike, so how has that helped kids?

    Prohibition has made dangerous substances available in schools and prisons, so how has that helped kids?

    prohibition has raised gang warfare to a level not seen since the days of alcohol bootlegging, so how has that helped kids?

    Prohibition has creating a prison-for-profit synergy with drug lords, so how has that helped kids?

    Prohibition has removed many important civil liberties from their parents, so how has that helped kids?

    Prohibition has put many previously unknown and contaminated drugs on our streets, so how has that helped kids?

    Prohibition has escalating Theft, Muggings and Burglaries, so how has that helped kids?

    Prohibition has overcrowding the courts and prisons, thus making it increasingly impossible to curtail the people who are hurting and terrorizing others, so how has that helped kids?

    Prohibition has evolved local street gangs into transnational enterprises with intricate power structures that reach into every corner of society, controlling vast swaths of territory with significant social and military resources at their disposal, so how has that helped kids?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    +1

  • ticked||

    If I was the parents I wouldn't bother filing a lawsuit with the ACLU. What these government workers (including the cops) did is just flat out illegal and obviously wrong. These people just get off on the power trip of their overpaid job.

    When the government starts to pull this stuff, its time to take matters into your own hands.

  • Corduroy||

    This is why they invented the baseball bat and face masks.

  • ||

    Another new rule to dodge the Secret Police:

    Never go to the hospital or to a doctor, or allow your kids to do so, unless you are in danger of dieing. They are required to denounce you to the secret police.

    Freedom and Justice for All.

  • ||

    This is why I am steadfastly against big stupid ass government. What happened to common fucking sense, what happens to your fucking ass brains when you start working for the government. I hope this family gets big time feria for this absurd, stupid acts of grand stupidity of the one trillionth degree. These small brained small everything idiots, disease vomit, culeros, pendejos, pudridos de la mente government workers should be lobotomized for their acts of stupidity.

  • ||

    I wonder how long it will be before Congress deals with this problem by outlawing poppy seeds?

  • ||

    Technically, they already have. Harper's magazine ran an article several years ago about how under the Controlled Substances Act, every part of the opium poppy plant is banned, and how that includes the seeds. If you try planting those seeds in your garden just to see the pretty red flowers that come up, the DEA won't bust you, *unless* they know that you know that you're growing an illegal plant, which you do if you read the Harper's article. (The article also told how the DEA forced the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation to stop growing poppies at Monticello. Fortunately, they gave them the opportunity to comply voluntarily and didn't just send the black-clad goons to raid Mr. Jefferson's home and shoot his dogs.)

  • ||

    Virtual tar and feathering: Chrissy Montague (defendent caseworker) comes to mind as a good first target.

  • ||

    On the other hand, the very idea of a "Dunkin' Donuts bagel" probably should be a crime.

  • Robert||

    They got a lot better after their initial try. Chew for yourself if you haven't lately.

  • ||

    Don't tell me what to eat - seems you are the problem.

  • johnl||

    Opium isn't even illegal, just controlled. You would have to know a person's medical history to have any opinion on a positive test result for opium.

  • ||

    "recklessly consumed an "everything" bagel from Dunkin' Donuts"

    The mother is obviously unfit...buying a bagel WITH everything from DUNKIN DONUTS...O the horror!!!
    Everyone knows you can't get an authentic bagel from Dunkin Donuts...

  • ||

    And people think we're irrational racists because we kinda sorta don't necessarily trust what might come at us from federally controleed health care?

  • Mike the Grouch||

    No. We think you're irrational racists because in *this* case it appears to have been a County government that did the bad deed in question. So go ahead and hate the Fedral Gubmint all you want... but unless you are going to talk about eliminating *all* levels of government, you're just replacing one set of overreaching goons for another.

  • DeputyHeadmistress||

    "What reasons do they have for acting that way? I doubt they're simply perverse, so what sort of reasoning process produces such perverse results?"

    Possibilities:
    1. You are wrong, they actually are perverse, a bit power mad, and there is money for the agency for removed children and families who remain on the books as requiring regular visitation- not so much for children left in the home and cleared from the caseload. Arrogance may be a better word than perverse, but the results are the same.

    2. Theory put forth by a friend of mine seeking kinship adoption of his cousin's child after she overdosed and collapsed in a public bus station with her 2 year old- his cousin actually did list him as next of kin and the person she wanted to take her son if she died. This was not the first time she ended up overdosing and collapsing with the child in her custody, in unsafe places. DPS gave pretty rude to my friend and his family while sweet as pie to the overdosing Mama, and she kept her child (under their 'oversight') . My friend said his cousin and her boyfriend were intimidating, scary people, and the social workers were afraid of them. He is a mild mannered, slight of build fellow and he felt like after being frightened of his cousin, the social workers were just sort of 'kicking the dog' because they knew he wouldn't kick back.

    3. I once read a frightening article by a former social worker. As a single, childless woman when she removed a child and the parents freaked out, she considered them unstable, overly emotional, irrational, and suffering from anger management issues. When she removed a child and the parents were calm, seemed cooperative, and didn't freak out and run after her, screaming and crying, she considered them good prospects for keeping their kids.
    She had a child and realized she'd seen it all precisely backwards- parents who DON'T freak out over losing their kids should have been the ones that worried her.
    What I found most disturbing about the article is that she said she tried convincing her fellow social workers that they'd been looking at things topsy turvy, and it was normal and even a good thing if parents were hysterical at the thought of losing their kids, and her co-workers dismissed her concerns.

    4. Combine 3 with the fact that social workers disproportionately come from troubled, abusive, and abnormal families (that's why they tend to go into social work, to 'fix' things so that other kids don't grow up like they did), so they actually have no real experience with or understanding of normal, healthy, families.

    Their judgment is horribly skewed.
    Probably some combination of all of the above, coupled with the fact that social workers are generally immune from punishment- and are more likely to be rewarded than otherwise for bad behavior, and protected by 'privacy' laws that cover their actions with a veil of secrecy and don't protect the privacy of the families a bit.

  • ||

    Just had a case where an father who had been campaigning against local white power, nazi groups was attacked by a group of thugs in his house. The social services agency first reaction was to take his children away. The lack of common decency and empathy combined with sense of unchecked authority is scary. It is the same sort of unthinking "just doing my job" mentality that Im sure bureacrats all over Europe had when handed policies to round up the jews and other groups.

  • izanurse||

    Bravo! Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. People that have a government job they won't get fired from have an awful lot of power.

  • ||

    I think the actual question is, "Was the hopsital negligent in removing a 3 day old infant from its mother for testing positive on a drug test?" Should we sue hospitals, and attempt to sue Counties, for implementing policies to protect newborns from addicted parents? Usually with the help of the taxpayers monies, help is also offered to the addicted parents to reconcile with their infants or find better homes for the babies if help isn't enough. Is it wrong for our hospitals to notify officials for this? Something to ponder, aside from the emotional appeal to the mother, consider the alternative, when we continually sue for systems that are in place to protect the welfare of patients because of some "false" positives, we jeopardize the health and welfare of us all. Mistakes are always a possible equation, we can't select which people we let "slide" for fear of retribution.

  • Spazmo||

    Nothing short of proven abuse or neglect should be grounds for seizing a child. Fuck you and anyone who thinks like you.

  • ||

    "Was the hopsital negligent in removing a 3 day old infant from its mother for testing positive on a drug test?"

    LLCYS removed the child, and they and the hospital were indeed negligent.

  • ||

    Once again, another big government horror story out of a Blue state. Funny how these stories of oppressive governments come from the liberal states. When these laws pass the progressives cheer because the law is only intended to control ‘other’ people – certainly no one in their social circle. But like all governments – they get a little and slowly take more until your freedoms and liberty a gone – then it is too late.

    My only question is whether the social workers and police were wearing brown shirts?

  • ||

    Actually happened to a coworker of mine, though they were able to figure out that the trace amount of poppyseed was in fact the muffin she ate for breakfast. Scary stuff!

  • ||

    This is an imperfect world. Next week we will be commenting about a tragedy where a baby was sent home to unfit parents, and why nothing was done to stop it.

  • Mik||

    > "Mistakes are always a possible equation,
    > we can't select which people we let
    > "slide" for fear of retribution.

    Horsecrap. You'd scream like a banshee if they did this to YOU. And if someone gave you the "mistakes are always possible" line as an answer, you wouldn't accept it for a moment.

  • ||

    Out-of-control CPS, yet another violation of our rights. Add it to the list of gov’t violations of our right:
    They violate the 1st Amendment by placing protesters in cages, banning books like “America Deceived II” and censoring the internet.
    They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns.
    They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by molesting airline passengers.
    They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars for foreign countries.
    Impeach Obama and sweep out the Congress, except Ron Paul.
    (Last link of Banned Book):
    www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/Bo.....-000190526

  • ||

    This is what occurs when man is enforced and enslaved to serve the Law. Law is meant to serve Man and Goodness not just to serve itself and it's own enforcement.

    This is what Jesus meant by the "Sprit of the Law".

    The Rodriguez's are the targets of these hypocritical Pharisees and others like them and are the enemies every free person in the universe.

  • ||

    hunt the swine down and extact vengence with a ball bat so that they won't think of making that same mistake again, not once or twice but a bunch of times so they will fear leaving the office other than running home to hide as the ball bat seeks their dumb a**es out to set those wrongs right.

  • ||

    Please. There is more to this story than you are aware. Ignorance abounds in the good ol' USA.

  • Steven UK||

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/com.....ldren.html

    The same thing is happening in the UK.

  • ||

    what ever they are doing in britain, they will eventually implement here.

    this is just the start.

  • ||

    It is a misconception that opiate levels are reflected by eating a bagel. They had to be getting high. If a prescription for the drug flag was available they would not be harassed. Most states will not remove a child which is positive if they are assured there is no risk. But when things are out of control with rapist and such living with them that is different.

  • olgruniach||

    the mom is a fat ugly pig and that kid is cross-eyed

  • ||

    Arresting the child is always appropriate. The Mom did nothing but the baby was born and that just causes the whole system to come unglued. Now if the mother had aborted under the influence of booze and coke and good old American junk no law in the land would have bothered her. Don't you just love the new world order?

  • ||

    Why did the parents let the authorities in the door?
    Why did the parents let the authorities take their child?
    If this had happened to me...they wouldnt have got inside and wouldnt get my son without a gun battle.

  • Dave||

    But it's FOR THE CHILDREN! You have no right to denounce this because it's FOR THE CHILDREN! Our fine governmental institutions do everything FOR THE CHILDREN, you know. The government, in its infinite wisdom, must do everything to PROTECT THE CHILDREN from all kinds of druggies, perverts, terrorists, and the like - and if that means that some kids get murdered or kidnapped or abused by the system, that's just the price we all have to pay TO KEEP THE CHILDREN SAFE!

  • smaug||

    It seems pretty plain to me, especially under the American public funding model, that CYS was having a slow quarter and needed to maintain a threshold case load in order to justify their budget. So the directive comes out: grab anything that even remotely smells like it's been within a mile of a case, and make it a full case whether there is any merit to it or not. Boom, the caseload explodes, the resolution rate goes up too, and the director can go into the county boardroom at the end of fiscal and show them piecharts and graphs showing a *huge* need for more funding, more staff, more equipment, more office space, and fat raises for management. Anyone who thinks there is any agenda here *not* driven by the almighty dollar is naive or paranoid or both.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement