Medical Marijuana

Kansas Seized Disabled Vet's Children While He Was Moving to Colorado to Use Medical Marijuana Legally

DCF says it doesn't seize children merely because their parents use marijuana.

|

WIBW

A disabled veteran who uses marijuana to deal with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and chronic pain, and says he once used marijuana to kick a heroin habit, had his children seized by the state of Kansas over his marijuana use.

Raymond Schwab, a Gulf War vet, was moving from Topeka, Kan. to Denver, Colo. when, during a family dispute, his mother-in-law took his five children, aged 5 to 16, to a police station in another country and reported them as abandoned, as the Denver Post reported.

Authorities in Kansas are requiring Schwab and his wife to promise to refrain from using marijuana and to submit to marijuana testing for four months before they can recover their children from the stateβ€”this even though they are now residents of Colorado, where marijuana is legal.

Last week, Schwab launched a hunger strike to protest Kansas' treatment of him, prompted by his teenaged son being entered into a psychiatric facility. Schwab says he has evidence that the state of Kansas investigated him for child abuse but found the charges unsubstantiated just a few months after seizing his children.

Kansas' Department of Children and Families (DCF) responded to Schwab's hunger strike by insisting he was presenting an"incomplete" picture of what happened. They say only 4 percent of their removals are backed by substantiated claims.

Further, DCF says it does not seize children from their parents solely for marijuana use."DCF makes recommendations to the court for removal only when serious safety issues are present," the department's statement read."Our priority is always to maintain children in their home, when that is a safe option. Sadly, if a child is in foster care, it is because it is safer than his/her own home."

While DCF said it was limited in what it could say about the Schwab case due to privacy laws, it encouraged him to sign a release"to anyone in the public who wishes to gain more information."

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.

241 responses to “Kansas Seized Disabled Vet's Children While He Was Moving to Colorado to Use Medical Marijuana Legally

  1. his mother-in-law took his five children, aged 5 to 16, to a police station in another country and reported them as abandoned,

    So, she lied. And, unfortunately, is probably immunized under child abuse reporting statutes from ever having to suffer any consequences for telling these lies.

    Further, DCF says it does not seize children from their parents solely for marijuana use.”DCF makes recommendations to the court for removal only when serious safety issues are present,” the department’s statement read.”

    Exactly what safety concerns are these, again?

    1. “Exactly what safety concerns are these, again?”

      Well, he’s got a history of heroin addiction. And the claim that the abuse charges were unsubstantiated came from him, not the state. It is possible that he’s a bad parent.

      1. And the claim that the abuse charges were unsubstantiated came from him, not the state.

        He has paperwork from the state that supports this, and the state does not dispute it.

      2. Well, he’s got a history of heroin addiction.

        Irrelevant.

        And the claim that the abuse charges were unsubstantiated came from him, not the state.

        Since we know the initial charges were a lie, I’m curious what has been substantiated. That’s my question, really. Maybe he would have lost custody anyway, but I see no reason to believe so until I see the substantiated charges.

        1. They say only 4 percent of their removals are backed by substantiated claims.

          And they seem to think this is a good thing.

          1. That caught my eye too. I’m hoping it’s a typo and it’s supposed to say “nly 4 percent of their removals aren’t backed by substantiated claims.”

            Although it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s correct s written. Fucking sociopaths.

            1. not a typo – from the link:

              Though an unsubstantiated finding that doesn’t lead to a parent getting their child back may be confusing, Freed said, substantiated findings account for only 4 percent of the removals the agency handles.

        2. “Irrelevant.”

          Ah…you’re one of those who misses the forest for the trees.

          1. Nope. He raised a valid point and you replied with whiny butt-hurt.

            1. When you say “butt-hurt” you lose your credibility. Avoid doing that.

              1. So ‘pussy hurt’ would be better?

          2. It actually is irrelevant, UC. The legal standard is some variation on “imminent threat” to the safety of the children. Shit you quite doing years ago isn’t an imminent threat, so its irrelevant.

    2. Re: R C Dean,

      So, she lied. And, unfortunately, is probably immunized under child abuse reporting statutes from ever having to suffer any consequences for telling these lies.

      From prosecution, sure. But she’s not free from liability for filing a false report and therefore can be sued in civil court for damages.

      1. Typically, the immunity is both civil and criminal.

        1. Which is why CPS is so far out of control it isn’t funny.

          We may yet see the day when the woodchipper becomes the guillotine of the 21st Century.

  2. They say only 4 percent of their removals are backed by substantiated claims.

    Jeezus tapdancing christ.

    1. But it’s for the children. If we can save even one, don’t we have to remove them all?

    2. This is flat-out inevitable. Any time you create a position with a particular kind of power, the absolute worst kind of person who wants to abuse that power will gravitate to it, until the positions are majority filled by the worst possible people. In this case, the kind of person who relishes the power of being able to take children from their parents. Why would anyone normal want to have that job? Why would anyone normal want to do that?

      As always, the only thing that matters are incentives. And the incentives for working in CPS type departments are for the worst possible people who relish these kind of abuses and take the job because it allows them to do them.

      This is government. This is what government does.

      1. They are normal. Normal sociopaths.

    3. Determining whether an allegation is true is separate from a recommendation to remove children from the home, said Theresa Freed, communications director for DCF. Though an unsubstantiated finding that doesn’t lead to a parent getting their child back may be confusing, Freed said, substantiated findings account for only 4 percent of the removals the agency handles.

      What’s not to understand? Somebody makes up a bullshit charge against you, the state investigates and finds some other reason to take your kids away from you. 96% of the time that somebody’s kids are snatched that’s how it works.

    4. How is that in any way an argument that they are doing their jobs well?

      I now completely see the results of government education and their “social studies” to make good “citizens”. Why in the heck would a government school ever teach Logic or Critical thinking when you can just hammer into the subjects’ brains how important government is?

    5. It is appalling even it is a typo and 40% of their removals are backed by substantiated claims.

  3. Since it appears the family were the ones who started the action, not the state, and since the state has said that the marijuana wasn’t the reason they pulled the kids, it’s probably best to wait for more information to come out before taking a side on this one.

    Dude with a heroin addiction who’s looking to move to Colorado primarily to smoke pot? There’s a good chance he’s not Parent of the Year.

    1. Yeah, but “not Parent of the Year” is light years away from posing an imminent threat of substantial harm to your children.

    2. Um, so much wrong with your comment. No, it’s not clear that the MiL is considered “part of the family,” certainly not after this incident. Your trust in agents of the state is naive, at best. And so fucking what if he’s not “parent of the year”? Not your kids, not your problem. Him today, you tomorrow.

      1. Your trust in agents of the state is naive

        I hear the same bullshit from 9/11 “truthers” too…try a different approach, Tinfoil Hat.

        I’m not going to accept the word of a self-admitted heroin junkie when a) he’s the only one allowed to talk about the incident and b) the reason the other side can’t talk about it is that he won’t allow them to.

        1. The wife could speak. The mother-in-law could speak. So you’re full of shit.

          1. True. But until they share their side of the story, I’m not inclined to pick sides based solely on his word.

            1. His wife is supporting him and the mother-in-law says she regrets what she did.

              1. If that’s the case, then it would probably change my opinion. However, I haven’t seen the wife or the mother-in-law quoted as saying so in any articles…I’ve just seen Schwab claiming that their opinions have changed. I’m not inclined to change my opinions until I see them interviewed and saying so.

                1. You can see the wife fucking picketing with him on his hunger strike in the photo above.

                  1. If you expect people to read and understand an article before commenting on it 22 times, you’re going to die a bitter old woman, Nikki.

                    1. Too late.

                2. You’re actively avoiding anything that might change your opinion, asshole.

              2. The MiL should be flogged in the street.

        2. the reason the other side can’t talk about it is that he won’t allow them to.

          Maybe I missed that part. When did he do that?

          1. He’s claiming that the virtuous hands of the state are tied because the evil, no-good, junkie dad refused to sign a piece of paper that the state wanted him to sign.

            1. IOW, a form that allowed them to discuss his private business. Good move on his part.

              1. Schwab: “The state took away my kids because I smoke weed. My rights are being violated.”

                State: “That’s not the reason we took his kids. We told him why he did it, but we can’t publicly discuss why we did in this case because of privacy laws. We can if he signs a waiver, though.”

                Schwab: “No comment.”

                Tonio: “The state must be lying because the state always lies.”

                1. Yep. Pretty much spot on.

                  Because

                  The

                  State

                  Always

                  Lies.

                  1. You’re irrational, Tonio.

          2. In this story, from the Topeka Capitol-Journal

            “If Mr. Schwab’s interest is in the truth, he is welcome to sign a release to anyone in the public who wishes to gain more information,” the statement read.

            http://cjonline.com/news/2016-…..ger-strike

            1. Hey asshole, he would have to sign a specific release for each individual he wants to give access to. And that release doesn’t apply to journalists who might want to publish it; they still can’t. Keep sucking that yummy state cock, though.

              1. Then go ask him to sign the waiver for you. Prove me wrong.

      2. Not the family? It’s like you don’t even understand the concept of “it takes a village”! And if it takes a village, it takes a village idiot – that’s just plain simple logic.

    3. since the state has said that the marijuana wasn’t the reason they pulled the kids

      Totally! I know I automatically believe everything the government says!

      1. Nope, I’m just not willing to automatically believe everything the (self-admitted) junkie says without hearing any specifics from the government. Especially when the reason the government can’t provide specifics is that the junkie won’t allow them to do so.

        1. Um…former junkie? But it does sound like you’re eagerly waiting to wrap your lips around the root of the government’s statements.

          1. Don’t worry about the correction, Tonio. It seems clear to me that current junkies are more moral than someone who sucks this much state cock.

          2. Former junkie according to whom? How do you know he’s actually quit?

          3. But, once a junkie always a junkie, right? Once you grab the tail of dragon, you’re hooked for life. No such thing as “former junkie”. That’s what the cops who push DARE propaganda told him in school so it must be true. The state never lies.

            1. I mean, once a Tulpa always a Tulpa, so, sure.

              1. Sociopathy is a harder habit to kick than heroin.

            2. If the only reason you’re not using a drug is that you’ve moved on to a different drug, then yes…you’re still a junkie. The only reason he’s not using heroin (according to him) is that he’s using pot. So he’s still a junkie, who is merely using a less harmful drug.

              1. I’ma junkie – I’ve been using caffeine, alcohol and even nicotine for decades.

                SOMETIMES ALL AT ONCE! ITS A CRY FOR HELP!

                1. Yes, that is a good combination. If I am going to drink and smoke a cigar, I want to be awake to enjoy it.

                2. RE: Ag

                  I once quite smoking with the patch and then promptly lit up a cigarette and had a cup of Irish coffee.

                  No joke, that wasn’t smart. whew I felt….strange.

                  (I no longer smoke cigs but I do enjoy a Padron 4000 or a Casa Magna Colorado every once in a while and instead of irish coffee I just drink scotch…and lots of it.)

                3. “I’ma junkie – I’ve been using caffeine, alcohol and even nicotine for decades.”

                  Would you go back to using heroin if you weren’t using those things?

                  1. Are you kidding – I went on the horse to help reduce the amount of Coke I was drinking.

              2. So giving up white powders over 14 years ago is irrelevant because I still like to have a cigarette and a few beers a couple times a week? Or is your definition of less harmful drugs only apply to that which is forbidden by federal law? Am I still a junkie in your eyes?

            3. For some reason I have the old ‘he’s a pepper she’s a pepper’ jingle for the old Dr. Pepper ads in my head. Except I’m substituting ‘junkie’ for ‘pepper’.

        2. It’s a good thing you’re so morally superior to a “junkie” that you can made this distinction. Tell us, is it hard being perfect, or does it just come naturally to you?

          1. ^This. Thanks, Epi.

          2. Drink!

          3. Actually, I am morally superior to a junkie. If he wants to be a junkie, I certainly support his right to put whatever poison into his body that he wishes without fearing imprisonment by the state. But I’m also perfectly happy to sit in judgment of him for doing so and to assume (based on previous experience with junkies) that he probably isn’t a reliable source of information. And when the reason the state intervened is that his family felt it was necessary, there’s more to the situation than his word, so I’m not inclined to assume the worst about the family or the state based on just his word.

            1. Well then I guess I’m morally superior to assholes who decide they’re morally superior to junkies. Because I say so, just like you did. Man, that was easy! I love being morally superior to you!

              1. That is your right. Just as it’s my right to judge that you’re wrong. πŸ™‚

            2. Even so, is he a current junkie, or merely a former one? Second time I’ve asked that.

              1. He’s still using drugs, he’s just switched drugs (from heroin to pot) and indicated in his comment that using pot is the reason he’s not using heroin. In that case, he would still be an addict.

                1. So we’re all talking about whether the guy is a current or former “junkie” but I’m still unclear on what’s wrong with using heroin.

            3. He admitted that he once had a heroin problem. Not that he is currently a junkie. Being a junkie is a set of behaviors, not an immutable characteristic. Having ever been an addict doesn’t make a person forever a sketchy junkie.

              1. If the only reason you’re not using a drug is that you’ve moved onto a different drug, then you’re still a junkie. Even if the new drug is less harmful or addictive than the previous one.

                Perhaps we’re getting hung up on semantics. I use the term “junkie” as a term for addiction to a narcotic. But apparently some think the term only applies to someone actively using heroin. I mean it in the sense that he’s admitted being addicted to heroin and says that the reason he’s no longer using heroin is that he’s switched to a different drug. I still consider that a junkie, same as I would consider someone who switches from heroin to methadone a junkie.

                1. No one except you calls pot users “junkies.”

                  1. No one except you calls pot users “junkies.”

                    Only dyed in the wool, old school anti-cannabis zealots, and morons.

                2. Weed isn’t a narcotic. “Junkie” does most commonly refer specifically to people addicted to opiates/opioids.

                  In any case, even if your personal prejudices are accurate, it is legally irrelevant.

                3. A ‘junkie’ is an addict who’s engaging in destructive behavior related to his drug use. This is the guy who’s lost his job, his home, and is blowing dudes at the underpass to get money for the next fix.

                  An ‘addict’ is someone who has become habituated to the use of the drug and finds it difficult to voluntarily refrain from use – whether due to physiological withdrawal symptoms or just simple psychological effects.

                  Someone who’s simply addicted isn’t suffering from more than minor (at worst) destructive effects of their drug use. This is the guy who’s holding down a job and taking care of business, he just really likes his weed or beer or even likes horse riding a whole hell of a lot. Its the guy who puts in 15 hours a day 7 days a week working the fields during the season.

                  I, for example, have been sufficiently addicted to caffeine to actually experience withdrawal symptoms (one time) when going cold turkey. And that’s a damn hard state to get into.

                  Junkies are a subset of addicts but just as simply using a drug doesn’t make you an addict, being addicted doesn’t make you a junkie.

                4. People addicted to crazy churches are junkies in my eyes.

            4. And when the reason the state intervened is that his family felt it was necessary…

              It’s not like mother-in-laws ever lie about their son/ daughter in laws…

              I’m starting to think you’re either another Tulpa sock, or you’re this dude’s mother-in-law.

            5. I would like to point out that in THIS country, you know where we have actual LAWS, that when it comes down to a citizen’s word against a government agent’s word that the citizen wins. That whole innocent until proven guilty thing is a bitch isn’t it. NOW, if the gov. wanted to drag him into court and prosecute him in order to take his kids away, after an impartial jury of his peers gets to weigh the evidence against him and the propriety of the law, then and ONLY THEN would the state have any legitimate course of action (SLD).

              1. that when it comes down to a citizen’s word against a government agent’s word that the citizen wins.

                Which country do you live in?

                1. the one in my head…unfortunately.

            6. Are you Tony?

            7. I can appreciate that. My perception is that I’m morally superior to pretty much everyone else. So I can appreciate that you look down on others. Which is also easier if you’re over six feet tall. Or walking on stilts.

            8. Really? Have you founded a top medical school lately? How about taking surgery from middle ages to the modern age where surgeons were more than hacks? Have you pioneered work on microsurgery and organ donations? What about developing aseptic surgical techniques that saved millions of surgical patients a painful death from infection?

              A junkie named Dr. William Stewart Halstead, did all this and more. He was junkie until the day he died, but was founding father of Johns Hopkins, and as Head of surgery he developed the minimal damage surgery we still use today, among many other advancements.

              So what have you done that makes you morally superior to a junkie like Dr. Halstead?
              Nothing, I’d be willing to bet.

          4. That’s the problem with “purists”. You seem to think that just because we support someone’s right to do something stupid to themselves that we shouldn’t judge them for being stupid or that we should assume that when they claim their rights are being infringed on, they must be telling the truth.

            People, in my experience, frequently lie about their circumstances when they feel it benefits them to do so. Junkies, in my experience, do so at a much higher rate.

            1. Junkies, in my experience, do so at a much higher rate.

              And how does that rate compare to the rate at which state agents lie to maintain power?

              1. Well, you can’t really go higher than 100%, so I’m gonna guess it’s lower.

              2. I’d tend to trust the DCF bureaucrats more…they’re less likely to lift your wallet.

                1. LOL this dude is rollin’ with his trollin’

                  new standard response: GFY!

                2. I’d tend to trust the DCF bureaucrats more…they’re less likely to lift your wallet.

                  Yeah, because their cut gets taken straight out of your paycheck.

                3. Why would they lift your wallet when they have a private police force to come by and take it all?

            2. Unless there is some damn good evidence that the child is in immanent danger, the presumption should be that he should be with his parents.

              1. Zeb, I answered you with a cite in the AM links. Just an FYI

                1. Well, I’ll be damned.

                  Nick occasionally has some decent snark, but he’d probably be a better fit somewhere else at this point.

                  1. Well, I’ll be damned.

                    Nick occasionally has some decent snark, but he’d probably be a better fit somewhere else at this point.

                    Yeah it took me a while to find it. He’s usually not so direct about that position so there aren’t many examples. He’s said it on ReasonTV a few times too.

            3. It is called evidence. You have none. GFY.

            4. People, in my experience, frequently lie about their circumstances when they feel it benefits them to do so. Junkies, in my experience, do so at a much higher rate.

              As opposed to you, Tulpa, who constantly lies about everything.

            5. People, in my experience, frequently lie about their circumstances when they feel it benefits them to do so. Junkies, in my experience, do so at a much higher rate.

              At a much higher rate than government agencies? Because government agencies are some of the most untruthful groups out there second only to NGO’s sucking at the government teat.

              Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change?
              Sex Trafficking?
              War on Drugs?
              War on Terror?
              Internal surveillance?
              Alcohol use?
              Dangers of firearms?
              Usefulness and efficiency of ‘government services’?
              The F-35?

              1. State agencies, yes…I won’t be defending federal agencies’ truthfulness here.

                1. Seriously – 7 of the lies I listed are pushed hard by state agencies.

                  1. I can’t figure out what the exception is other than the F-35.

    4. Dude – did you *see* the ‘4%’ statistic the Kansas CPS provided itself? This guy could be Dalhmer rolled into Hitler – they wouldn’t know. They have no evidence of anything in 96% of the cases where they snatch children. Why in the hell would you even consider taking their side? If they’re right its not because of any effort or competency on the part of the CPS agency, its sheer random luck that they snatched kids who were in actual danger this time.

      1. Look Goddammit, Chief Wiggum has a LOT of donuts to eat! You better be thankful for that 4%! That 4% is the result of hard work that cuts into taking a long donut shit, or browsing porn at the office.

    5. So former heroine addict, pot smoking PTSD vet = deserves to have his kids taken away by the state and put into foster care.

      Die in a fire, Tulpa.

      1. Die in a fire? He don’t get off that easy.

        Burn the witch!

  4. Have they reported the grandmother for kidnapping yet?

    1. ^This. But as pointed out she’s probably immunized by (perhaps mandatory) reporting laws.

      1. She’s not a mandatory reporter, I’m sure. But voluntary reporters also get immunity.

        Whether immunity extends to actually seizing the children, I doubt very seriously. But no way does she get charged.

        1. Of course she doesn’t get charged, lol. We all know that. But taking them to another county to deliberately remove them from their actual family (parents)…kidnapping by my book.

        2. That’s what patience, and revenge are for.

  5. “Kansas’ Department of Children and Families (DCF) responded to Schwab’s hunger strike by insisting he was presenting an”incomplete” picture of what happened. They say only 4 percent of their removals are backed by substantiated claims.”

    Wait, what? This is supposed to be a defense of their tactics? Jesus, I’d hate to see it when they act capriciously.

    1. Actually, they aren’t allowed to defend their tactics in this case because of privacy laws. They just answered a question from the press…they also said that his claims were false. Unfortunately, we’re only able to hear one side of the story.

      1. They can defend their actions without violating his privacy. Sorry.

        1. No, they can’t, because they’re not allowed to discuss specifics of the case. They can’t talk about why they took his kids unless he grants them permission to do so. Do you not understand how privacy laws work?

          1. Why, yes; yes, I do. They can always find a way to discuss this. “We seized some children.” Etc.

            1. No, they can’t in this case…as the story I linked to shows.

              1. They can’t say “we siezed John Doe’s kids because he’s a hophead.” They can say “we seized the children of a notorious hophead and junkie after the virtuous grandmother removed them from danger…” See, no names mentioned, hence no privacy violated.

      2. They could defend their actions by showing that in *a majority of the cases in which they act there is substantiating evidence*.

        Instead they come right out and say ‘we’re just making shit up as we go along here – but trust us’.

      3. Did you miss the portion where they say that only 4 percent of their removals are backed by substantiated claims?

      4. Keep slurping away at that state cock. You’ll get the gooey cream eventually.

        1. You sexist! What about licking the state labia? Or rubbing the state’s clit? Mysoginist pig!

    2. And per the DCF, the reason they can’t tell their side of the story is that the dad has declined to sign a form waiving that privacy right. Basically, he’s complaining about the department because he knows his side of the story will be the only one available.

      http://cjonline.com/news/2016-…..ger-strike

      1. Nope, once they go all hostile on you you don’t sign anything. Sorry.

        1. Just saying, I’ve known a few heroin addicts and I didn’t consider them to be reliable sources of information when they got into trouble. That prejudice generally turned out to be correct once all the facts came out.

          1. Again, nope. Your opinion of a self-selected group of heroin addicts says nothing about the actions of one possibly ex-addict.

            1. Not nesessarily. I could apply that logic to the progtarded and be consistently accurate.

              1. “Collectivism works when I do it about people I hate.”

                1. Actually I just stereotype…saves time. πŸ™‚

          2. And there we have it. You don’t like heroin addicts, so they’re all guilty to you. I mean, that was obvious as fuck from your initial statements, but it’s good you’re stupid enough to admit it.

            1. No, he just considers them to be homogeneously unreliable people. I know plenty of unreliable people that are pleasant and entertaining. They just aren’t reliable.

          3. You’ve known a few heroin addicts? Have you known a few Dunphy’s, too?

            1. Yeah, he did a good paraphrasing of “totality of circs” up there.

            2. How well do you know Tulpa?

              Biblically?

              1. Ah, Tulpa…the Emmanuel Goldstein of the Reason commentariat.

                1. You’re right, Ucrawford. Everything you have said is right. With victory in your grasp, please leave us.

                  1. I’m the real one, tarran (former colleague from The Liberty Papers)…we just disagree on this issue. πŸ™‚ Or, more accurately, we disagree on our willingness to accept Schwab’s word at face value. But since it does appear, on further research, that his wife backs his story then I’m more inclined to believe him…although absent the DCF’s side of the story, I’m not going to dig in my heels and say the state is completely wrong in this case either.

                    1. Actually, read what I wrote below. I think you and I agree more than disagree.

                      My actual involvement with DCF on 4 occasions over the past 6 years and my rubbing elbows with parents whose kids are in trouble with the law or subject to state supervision of some kind or the other has left me thinking in many cases everybody is awful.

                      I’ve witnessed some cases where the system was ‘working’: a tearful mother sobbing as she declared that she was afraid her teenage son was going to succeed in his attempts to kill her, and the DCF lady telling her “it’s OK, after what happened last night, we won’t send him back to you ever again.” She didn’t hate her son; she wailed that she had failed him as a mother.

                      I’ve witnessed some cases where the parents were awful: the father and son both wearing matching monitoring anklets; dad telling the kid what happens during an arraignment while the kid angrily mutters that he doesn’t give a shit. I’ve seen a wealthy kid sullenly staring out the window, fidgeting in his blazer while an attorney explains to mom and dad that if they get enough letters about how their kid is a good kid, they court will give him probation and he can put this “bump” behind him. No emotional connection between the parents and their son. The adults talk about him like he’s a prize hound, and he ignores them staring out the window.

                      Just because the state victimized ‘bad’ people, doesn’t mean we have to treat them as saints. A little skepticism is good.

                    2. You’re right, tarran…we do agree more than we disagree on this topic. I generally think DCF is a flawed and horrible organization. I just don’t think that they’re always wrong on every case where they remove kids from the home. In this case, I didn’t find the father to be credible since we were only getting his side of the story.

                      As someone else pointed out actual evidence that the wife has joined him on this issue, there may be merit to his case. I’d still want to hear exactly why the DCF removed the kids, though, not just his claims of why it happened. Absent that, I’m not just going to assume that he’s telling the truth and DCF is lying (although that may very well be what’s happened).

                    3. And you’re right, the government navigating family dynamics is a very tangled and messy path and they often cause far more damage than if they’d never been involved at all. I’m not sure if that’s the case more often than not…I imagine that there’s probably a variety of good studies to be had from researching that. But in this case, I don’t think it’s as cut-and-dried as the article makes out and it’s important to note that it’s dangerous to form opinions based on only one side of the story. Unless you’re a fan of lynch mobs, which Tonio apparently does…being the swarthy Mexican racist he probably is. πŸ™‚

                      In all seriousness, though, I’ll just wait until more information comes out before forming an opinion on this. Or I’ll find something else to think about in the news cycle, forget all about this story, and not form an opinion on it at all. πŸ™‚

              2. These masturbation euphemisms etc. etc.

          4. As a fun exercise, I will demonstrate how moral superiority works:

            Since you know several heroin addicts, clearly your decision making process is flawed and we must ignore your line of reasoning. Because heroin.

            It’s not that you’re definitely wrong, it’s that you’re definitely an asshole. ^_^

            1. If you use heroin, you’re bound to know some heroin addicts.

            2. I liked the part where he said we only have this guy’s word that he’s stopped doing heroin – without noticing that we only have this guy’s word that he ever started doing heroin, too. Somehow you trust a junkie’s word to tell you he’s a junkie but not his word that he’s not a junkie?

              1. By the same token as “only” having this guy’s word that he’s a decent father, we “only” have the State’s word that they did the right thing.

                The word of the State and its agents has no more weight than any individual person’s statements.

                1. The word of the State and its agents has no more weight than any individual person’s statements.

                  It does if you’re a Tulpa sock.

              2. Who would say that who is not?

  6. five children

    He needs something stronger than weed.

  7. OT: I want to murder all of these people.

    “Joel Pavelski, 27, isn’t the first person who has lied to his boss to scam some time off work.

    But inventing a friend’s funeral, when in fact he was building a treehouse ? then blogging and tweeting about it to be sure everyone at the office noticed? That feels new.

    Such was a recent management challenge at Mic, a five-year-old website in New York that is vying to become a leading news source created by and for millennials. Recent headlines include “Don’t Ban Muslims, Ban Hoverboards” and “When Men Draw Vaginas.””

    “Mr. Altchek recalled a companywide meeting last September that coincided with the religious holidays Yom Kippur and Eid al-Adha. An Anglo-Pakistani employee asked why management had announced a flexible time off policy for the Jewish holiday, but not for its Muslim counterpart.

    “So I told her, ‘Great point, being inclusive and respectful of all religious affiliations is incredibly important to Mic,'” Mr. Altchek said.

    Afterward, in front of a smaller group, he was approached by a younger, entry-level employee who said that there were two words missing from his reply. “I was a bit confused and said, ‘O.K., what were those?'” he recalled. “And she said: ‘I’m sorry. I didn’t hear an apology.'””

    1. “Don’t Ban Muslims, Ban Hoverboards” and “When Men Draw Vaginas.”

      I’m having a real WTF moment here.

    2. She was later fired for “performance-related issues”.

      So there is hope.

      1. “””People are here from morning to night, and we don’t want to leave,” said Elizabeth Plank, 28, a high-energy reporter who lives in the East Village and hosted a video series called “Flip the Script,” which seeks to challenge assumptions like, “What Happens When a Lady ‘Manspreads.'”””

        There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe, but not for us.

        1. Ms. Plank contrasted her freedoms at Mic to her previous job at a feminist nonprofit organization, which she regarded as exemplifying the outdated work practices of older people.

          “We called people on phones and we ? I don’t know ? we faxed people,” Ms. Plank said, sounding exasperated. “And we had to mail things. And no one really took my opinion into consideration.”

          At Mic, she was able to dabble in different jobs and negotiate grandiose titles like “executive social editor.” Often, she prefers the theater of tweeting back and forth with the editor she sits next to rather than speaking face to face.

          Perhaps because of this very culture of workplace-as-reality-show, Mr. Pavelski, the prevaricating treehouse builder, remains notably unchastened.

          “Maybe this is because I’m young, but, like, I don’t think that there is a lot about my personal life that I wouldn’t want to incorporate into what I’m doing professionally,” he said. “The reason I wrote that essay in the first place was about catharsis, and I wanted to walk through my thought process and figure out what was going on with me.”

          1. Ah, fuck, it’s 1971 all over again. Why can’t he just get a Mood ring and call it a day?

          2. All of Mic’s seed capital just headed to the exit.

            1. All of Mic’s seed capital just headed to the exit.

              That would probably be for the best.

            2. All of Mic’s seed capital just headed to the exit.

              That would probably be for the best.

        2. What Happens When a Lady ‘Manspreads.’

          Any chick could just, you know, go out and try it. You neither need to write nor read an article about such dreck.

          I’ve gotten some entertainment value form manspreading (only as retaliation), but most of the time I prefer to completely avoid all human contact on public transport.

        3. ‘Manspreads.’

          WTF is this shit?

          1. It’s when a dude on public transport thinks his testes need massive amounts of airflow, and takes up two seats with his slutty spread legs.

            KEEP YOUR LEGS CLOSED, YOU WHORES!

    3. “But inventing a friend’s funeral, when in fact he was building a treehouse ? then blogging and tweeting about it to be sure everyone at the office noticed? That feels new.”

      Hardly new. I’m sure at this point most everyone who’s been online for any length of time has busted a lie like this.

      1. This is one of those things I never got.

        I can understand the usefullness of a social media platform that everyone has access to for facilitating group activities – though any *serious* business could and should provide their own in-house solution, even if that solution is just a few private rooms in a free chat app.

        But why, why, why, would you link a single account across all aspects of your life? Why would you not have a *personal* social media account where you put all the TMI aspects and a work account where only carefully curated parts of your personal life are posted?

        You can still have coworkers who are friends linked to both accounts, you don’t have to worry as much about a careless personal post getting back to work and screwing things up, and you can keep the coworkers you’re not friends with at arms length (where they belong) without cutting off professional access to them.

        Plus it makes it easier, when you switch jobs, to ensure that there’s no bleed-over between the old job and the new one. The people at the old and new jobs do not need to know what’s happening at the other company. Its simply none of their business.

        But, maybe that’s an outdated concept nowadays – like ‘free-speech’.

        1. I think it’s because people still haven’t grasped how public a venue the internet is. It’s a subconscious assumption that because you’re operating something in private, whatever you do will stay that way.

        2. People are stupid?

    4. Will the retarded “news” stories bubble ever burst? I guess people will consume anything.

    5. Will the retarded “news” stories bubble ever burst? I guess people will consume anything.

    6. “When Gay Men Draw Vaginas”

      First of all, they aren’t being asked to draw a vagina, but rather the clitoral-vulvular area. If we are going to freak out of synecdoche, let’s freak out every time.

      1. So… your familiar with Mic’s “work” (heavy on the quotation marks)?

  8. How can that be? I have it on good authority that Kansas is a libertarian hellhole, just like Somalia and South Sudan.

    1. Yeah, a libertarian paradise that tried to sue it’s neighboring state for exercising it’s state rights.

  9. I can’t believe you racists want to break up five loving foster families just so this guy can get his kids back. I bet they’re not even fully German!

  10. A disabled veteran who uses marijuana to deal with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and chronic pain, and says he once used marijuana to kick a heroin habit

    Gateway theory PROVEN. Heroin leads to the Devil’s Lettuce.

  11. So there are 2 things we know for certain for now about this story.

    1. Obama is going to Cuba.

    2. Shortly afterwards Obama will appear on TV and say some incredibly creepy and astonishingly idiotic things.

    1. Ooops, shit, wrong story.

      1. I don’t know, it seems to apply to this one too somehow…

    2. These masturbation euphemisms are getting pretty abstract.

  12. “during a family dispute, his mother-in-law took his five children, aged 5 to 16, to a police station in another country and reported them as abandoned,”

    Another country or another county?

    1. Either way, I think that is called kidnapping when the person doing it is male.

    2. Presumably “county”, but what Hyper said.

      1. Regardless, SOMEBODY’S not getting a Christmas card this year.

    3. It was “county” in the linked article, so presumably Mr. Kayewski’s typo. Correcting it would be something of a relief, since I was afraid it’d become an international case.

  13. Last week, Schwab launched a hunger strike to protest Kansas’ treatment of him,

    I’m not sure it would be hunger strikes I’d be launching against Kansas if they took my kids away.

    1. I always wonder why more people don’t shoot the kidnappers of their children.

    2. Maybe he needed to lose a few pounds and decided to multitask?

  14. They say only 4 percent of their removals are backed by substantiated claims.

    So . . . WTF are they doing then if 96% of the time they are wrong.

    Hell, let’s be generous and say that half the time they get it right and an intervention is actually needed, they still *don’t know* because they have no idea what’s going on – because they have no evidence to substantiate the claims.

    They are, literally, just snatching near random children – the only way it could be worse is if they were actually driving down the street in a panel van and rolling a die to see which house they’d raid today.

    1. Paging UCrawford…please comment on this since you seem so willing to believe the state’s pronouncements.

    2. Consider this – *drug dogs* are averaging around a 50% false positive rate, meaning that about half the time a dog alerts the cop will find a chargeable amount of drugs. This is *barely* hitting the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard that seems to be the new baseline for ‘probable cause’.

      This CPS agency is hitting a *96%* false positive rate. This is *witchhunter* levels of bad. This is somebody spinning around with their eyes closed and arm out and wherever whoever they’re pointing at when they stop spinning gets their children taken away.

      1. This is *witchhunter* levels of bad.

        That’s been my experience in the DCF ‘investigations’ I’ve witnessed up close an personal. About the only aspect of their investigations that is at all good is that they don’t take spectral evidence…

        1. they don’t take spectral evidence

          Don’t give them ideas.

          1. They don’t need to. They just handwave away the kids’ testimony. Obviously when two kids who claim to have witnessed the same event describe it using similar terms and with testimony that is consistent on major points, it means that they are confused and were really repeating what a parent taking advantage of their suggestibility told them to say.

      2. Well, it’s not *completely* random. They do have ONE person claiming the children are being abused.
        ONE Person who is immune from being prosecuted for lying about it.

    3. the only way it could be worse is if they were actually driving down the street in a panel van and rolling a die to see which house they’d raid today.

      How do you know they aren’t? Maybe they were trained by OMWC.

    4. That is really bizarre, saying, “Oh, don’t worry, this ain’t nuthin’?96% of the time we’re acting w/o substantiation.” Kind of like the surgeon who says not to worry about your diagnosis, because 96% of the time whatever he removes has no reason to be removed, s/he just likes to cut.

  15. during a family dispute, his mother-in-law took his five children, aged 5 to 16, to a police station in another country and reported them as abandoned, as the Denver Post reported.

    Another country? France? Afghanistan?

    I guess they won’t charge her with kidnapping, because her intentions were good.

  16. There’s a good chance he’s not Parent of the Year.

    Off with his head.

  17. Fuck every single person in this story except for Schwab.

    Fuck Kansas DCF, fuck his fucking mother-in-law. I hope they all get fuckin’ Lou Gehrig’s disease. Or something equally slow and painful.

  18. 4% substantiated that means they kidnap the other 96% for no reason at all. Note they get more money from the federal government for the more children they steal.

    1. No reason? What about the Precautionary Principle?

      1. Seems to me like a policy of taking 96% of children without substantiation fails the PP, too.

    2. Oh they’ve got a reason.

      BFYTW.

  19. his mother-in-law took his five children, aged 5 to 16, to a police station in another country

    What’s the current exchange rate on Pesos/White Children?

    1. They don’t want white children SOTB – they don’t work hard enough to justify the cost of the food they consume.

      1. well then you’re just saying its a negative exchange rate. How many pesos do you have to pay the Federales to take your children away? Asking for a friend.

        1. Dude, didn’t you read the story. Your *own government* is willing to take them away right now – and its *subsidized* so the removal process is free at the point of sale.

  20. How many pesos do you have to pay the Federales to take your children away?

    Now we’re in Ransom of Red Chief territory.

  21. “The Fourth Amendment doesn’t say anything about children.”

    /Constitutional Judge

  22. the MiL apparently regrets her decision. stupid twat.

    1. Her best case scenario is that she gets saddled with the grandkids. If that’s your best case . . . .

  23. Hmmmm, he needs to sign that waiver so we can hear the rest of the story. I don’t trust CPS, but there are legitimately abusive parents out there that would more than happily use a hot topic to cover for their getting caught.

    1. No he doesn’t.

      CPS has no evidence. They’ve flat-out admitted that in 96% of their removal orders they have no evidence to back them up. Kansas CPS is wrong even if, here, they’re right. There are serious *structural* problems with their organization and the whole thing needs to be torn down and rebuilt.

      Seriously arguing as to whether or not they are right *in this case* just hands them an automatic win as the terms of the disagreement are now defined in their favor.

    2. Hmm, two commenters both think it’s important for Schwab to sign a waiver to be believed…yeah, I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.

      1. First, I don’t doubt that DCF is behaving badly; I’ve yet to have an interaction with DCF that didn’t fill me with revulsion and frustration at how shoddily they investigate things.

        But that doesn’t mean that he could be a terrible parent, who is attempting to use a publicity stunt to make an end run around the very unfair system that handles these things. Or he could be sincere….

        Since he is making a public spectacle and trying to enlist we spectators to take up his cause, the question of whether or not he is worthy of our support is very reasonable. And yes, signing that waiver would make our due dilligence easier. On the other hand, maybe it reveals something devastatingly embarassing, such as his incontinence, or the fact that the kids walked in on he and his wife acting out some Brony paraphilic fantasies.

        Personally, I’d fucking sign the waiver; recover my children; and then once they were in state with me, get a doctor’s note prescribing the shit. Then DCF can explain why they are forcing a parent in another state to go against their doctor’s orders. Once the kids are living with their parents in another state, DCF in Kansas will have a much heavier burden in taking the kids away than they have in keeping them from their parents under the current circumstances.

        1. I agree with your position on this, tarran.

        2. Pretty much this. I don’t take people trying to enlist my empathy and support via the media at their word. I refuse to end up supporting a Jackie.

        3. Tarran – I think that he’s *completely irrelevant*. The thing we’re doing here is arguing over whether or not he’s a bad parent.

          That’s the *least important aspect of this story now.

          What’s important is that kansas DCF is full fine with *admitting that they only have evidence to back up their removal orders in only 4% of the cases.

          Even if they were correct to take this guy’s kids they got *lucky* and the agency is BROKEN and needs to be rebuilt.

          The only importance that this guy’s case has is that he’s brought to national attention how fucked up DCF is. We don’t need to take his side, his word, or anything. The agency itself admits that its just making shit up.

          1. Even if they were correct to take this guy’s kids they got *lucky* and the agency is BROKEN and needs to be rebuilt.

            Why rebuild it at all? Seriously! Whatever you build will suffer from the same pressures and incentives that the current system suffers from. And with a rapidity that will surprise you, the new system will be doing the same bad thing the old system does.

            1. Fine, don’t rebuild it.

              But don’t take this guys evasiveness as evidence that the DCF might have done something right in this one case – because that would ignore all the other stuff they’ve done wrong.

    3. If they had real evidence that he was an abusive parent, I’d think he would be charged with something related to that abuse. Which would be public information.

  24. Kansas’ Department of Children and Families (DCF) responded to Schwab’s hunger strike by insisting he was presenting an”incomplete” picture of what happened. They say only 4 percent of their removals are backed by substantiated claims.

    So their DEFENSE is that they seize children unjustly all the time? Did I get that right?

    1. Well, none of the other parents made such a big deal out of it!

  25. “Sadly, if a child is in foster care, it is because it is safer than his/her own home.”

    Not that their home is “unsafe”, just that the foster home is “safer”. I see

    1. Define safer.

      Is a child safe when it’s kidnapped by the state and taken from its parents?

      1. Yes, because the state can do wrong, especially when the parent’s a self admitted junkie. /UCrawford

      2. Doesn’t have to be. Once the kid is delivered into state custody, all the state has to do is ponder which house is safer. Whether they were unsafe in the first house no longer matters.

        1. Also what costs the state the least.

          A bad relative is cheaper than state custody – thank god.

    2. And that overlooks the many reports of abuse and neglect coming out of the foster system, as well.

      1. What’s best for the child = parents have no legal rights.

        Why not just round up all the children and reallocate them to nice upper-middle class households.
        Plenty middle-aged professional women want to adopt healthy white babies. Why not just take them from lower class people?

        1. Why not just treat the kids like actual people instead of chattels?

          1. Why not just treat the kids like actual people instead of chattels?

            /looks up from the latest letter from his lawyer in the probate court

            HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

  26. The mother-in-law did that? That’s going to make for an awfully uncomfortable Thanksgiving.

    1. Plot twist: they moved to Colorado to get away from her, not to smoke pot.

  27. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ——————- http://www.richi8.com

    1. So do you just solo cam, or do you do live fuck shows? Any pics?

  28. Thank you, Barney, for giving us a phrase that will live forever:

    “Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together”

  29. Retired state trooper tries to rob takings from a toll booth. Guns down two in cold blood.

    Is gunned down himself by troopers called to the scene by one of his victims.

    Check out the fucking T shirt he’s wearing at the top of the article.

    Asshole.

  30. I read this and was hard pressed to verify the story with other sources. So the question we need to ask ourselves: Is it better to have the state do this and result in the sexual and physical abuse of the children while under the state’s care because family or acquaintances don’t like their ‘world view’ (replace with faith)? There is a lot more to the story. How does this change the vast majority of opinions regarding the quality of parenting taking place here. Of course, none of that is mentioned in this article.

  31. Dear veterans: FYTW. Sincerely, the state.

  32. Wow get hooked on heroin and shoot up everyday and you can have your kids. Smoke Cannabis and lose them for sure……….it thats not bassackwards I dont know what is.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.