American Gvmt seizes child

Would be interested to see what is going on with the other 2 kids they are supposed to have neglected.

Maybe there is more going on here than the "Oath Keepers" thing...

 

Their association with these groups may or may not be part of the reason that the child was removed, but there's a lot more to this story story than AJ's spin will tell you about. Violation of bail, and carrying a concealed weapon, for starters, sexual assault on a 14 year old girl, and more.

 

Why don't these people just use birth control? Is it possible to be as stupid as they seem to be? Apparently, they are.


State takes infant, spurs protest

By SHAWNE K. WICKHAM
New Hampshire Sunday News Staff
Oct. 9, 2010 Saturday

A baby girl was taken into state custody at Concord Hospital by child welfare officials on Thursday, just hours after she was born, according to her parents. And now the parents are at the center of an Internet-fueled fire storm over government intervention and parental rights.

In court paperwork, the state alleges the health and safety of the infant, named Cheyenne, was in "imminent danger" if she was left with her parents because of "a lengthy history of domestic violence" between them.

Johnathon Irish, 24, calls the allegations of domestic violence lies. "They're using their false claims to take my daughter away," he said.

Irish said he and the baby's mother, Stephanie Taylor, have been flooded with messages of support and requests for interviews since an interview he did with a self-described "independent journalist" was posted on the oathkeepers.org website. By 5 p.m. yesterday, the audio recording of that interview had gotten more than 17,000 hits on YouTube and sparked a protest outside Concord Hospital.

Irish and Taylor stood at the hospital entrance yesterday, talking with about a half-dozen supporters who were alerted to their case by media and social media reports. Irish wore a "Don't Tread on Me" hat; both were still wearing their hospital wristbands from the baby's birth. "It's not coming off until she's home," Taylor, who is 22, said tearfully.

Her baby girl was born shortly before midnight on Wednesday at Concord Hospital. And that's where the infant's parents say they were served the next afternoon with an "abuse and neglect petition" filed by the state Division of Children, Youth and Families.

Taylor said she doesn't know why the agency states in court documents that she twice last year reported to a state social worker that Irish had hurt her and that she feared for her life because he had a gun. "The only time he would put his hands on me was to give me a hug," she said.

In an affidavit supporting its actions, the DCYF also notes Irish's affiliation with Oath Keepers, which it describes as "a militia," and his purchase of "several different types of weapons including a rifle, handgun and Taser."

And that's what has sparked the outrage from Oath Keepers and others who see the case as the government intruding on constitutional rights. On its website, Oath Keepers describes itself as a "non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God."

There will be a hearing in the case on Thursday in Rochester Family Court. And Irish said he expects the courtroom will be "packed with a bunch of tea partiers."

"This has gone viral overnight," he said.

DCYF asked for the case to be moved from family court in Concord to the family court in Dover, citing that court's familiarity with the family involved.

Their battle with DCYF dates back to January of last year, Taylor said, when the state welfare agency took her other two children, boys who are now 2 and 3, for alleged abuse and neglect.

The boys currently live with a foster family, and Irish said he was told baby Cheyenne will go to live with the same family for now.

DCYF is legally prohibited from discussing child welfare cases. A spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services said it can't even confirm a child was taken into custody at Concord Hospital.

But Concord police Lt. Keith Mitchell confirmed officers from his department were asked by both DCYF and Concord Hospital security to "stand by" during a "custody issue" on Thursday and again yesterday.

"We were there just to keep the peace, to make sure there were no issues between the parties involved," Mitchell said.

Mitchell said there are no criminal charges pending in the case from his department.

Taylor said she is seeking a divorce from her sons' father, who lives in Seabrook. But because she is still married to him, DCYF considers her husband to be the "legal father" of baby Cheyenne, according to the affidavit.

Irish said hospital staff "refused" to put his name on the baby's birth certificate unless Stephanie's husband signed off on it.

When two DCYF social workers on Thursday arrived at the Concord Hospital room where Irish and Taylor were staying with the baby, they were accompanied by four Concord police officers, according to Irish. He says one officer searched him against his will and confiscated his pocketknife and a lighter.

Under such emotional circumstances, Lt. Mitchell said, it would be appropriate for an officer to check to make sure someone involved did not have a weapon and to temporarily confiscate it if one was found.

"The last thing we want is for someone to get hurt," he said.

In its affidavit, DCYF cites "significant mental health and safety concerns" involving "all parents" that remain unaddressed. It also states that a termination of parental rights hearing was held on Sept. 14 in Rochester Family Court involving Taylor's other two children; a decision is pending.

DCYF says Taylor "has failed to recognize the impact of domestic violence in her life and the potential danger it poses to a newborn baby."

And it states that Irish "has not acknowledged any responsibility to date and remains a significant safety risk to an infant in his care."

The agency concluded that "the infant's health and safety is in imminent danger if left in the care of" either Taylor or Irish.

But for Irish and his supporters, the case is about something far different. "I want everyone and anyone to know that ... they're not going to demonize someone just because of their political outlooks on something and because they're a patriot and they're a Second Amendment supporter," Irish said. "That is not a reason to take someone's child, especially a newborn."

He said he'll fight "tooth and nail" for his rights. "I'm not quitting until my daughter's back in my arms ... and even after that I'm not going to quit," he said.

State takes infant, spurs protest - Saturday, Oct. 9, 2010

 

What did they do wrong? From what I read they had their newborn child taken away from them within hours because the child was in "imminent danger" if she was left with her parents because of "a lengthy history of domestic violence" between them. Thats complete fuckin bullshit and not a reason to take someones child. At least give the parents a chance to fuck up before taking the kid away. The kid might actually change them for the better. Now the kid is in a foster home because of another fucked up government agency.
Although many of your comments cant seem like they can get any more stupid, but somehow they always do

 

At the risk of feeding a troll, do you have any idea how many children are dead because of this type of mentality to just sit back and "wait", especially with parents who have a history of domestic abuse?

I'm all for the Rights of man, but it's rare that we EVER hear of a State taking this kind of action so early in a child's life. Chances are it was warranted, and we probably don't know the half of it.

 

I'm not going to defend the government on their actions on this what so ever and I'm looking at this like a parent and also a husband who's wife is in a career to help abused/unstable children.

If there is a history of domestic violence that is documented (even though the wife states it never happened) it leaves me to believe the wife is brainwashed or scared that she would not have her daughter if she stood by her initial claim.

Should the government take the child and throw the child into foster care so that could F-up the child's life? NO. But should we, as people (not a government), allow the parents to do the same thing (let's give them a chance to do right or do unrecoverable damage to the child)? NO.

What the government should of done was place the child in the care of the mother or/if she is found unstable to raise a child grandparents are a family member. The father of the child should be given visitation UNTIL he is deemed capable of being a parent (wow how the hell would anyone say: Okay your good to be a parent.. good luck).

I'm also on the same mind set that to have a kid you should have to get a license to prove your capable of the responsibility; but as I said above how would we ever know who is ready.

And if you still believe that the government is completley wrong for strong arming on this one just google search, read reports, or watch some Jerry Springer to see that allowing a child to go home with the father with the potential of damage he could cause.

I do have one other issue with this article in the Oath Keepers. Having had to deal with them in the military it also should be known that like any group with good intentions there are allot of sub-groups out there. The ones linked to the Oath Keepers are a very bad racist/xenophobic/homophobic/anti-non-christian type group. I didn't delve into which Oath Keepers were there; but if its some of the splinter groups it would be like the KKK trying to protest the governments actions.

Sorry for yet ANOTHER rant today

 

"The kid might actually change them for the better." Yes, newborn babies are very good at changing the behavior of unfit parents. If the child fails to do this, and is harmed, maybe the next time they have a baby it will do a better job of changing them. Gotta keep trying, it's not fair to the unfit parents to expect them to fulfill their responsibilities like mature, caring adults without multiple opportunities.