Then get that attorney to bring in a doctor to say that she can only take that medication. Then see if there is funding available for a nurse or care provider to assist while she is under the influence of her medication and you are not at home. All because this is the best medicine for her does not mean that the child should be at risk because of it (assuming, of course, the child IS at risk as a result). If a mother were doped up on Vicodin all day and half unconscious, should be permitted to watch her newborn even though she is whacked out? Because medication is needed does not mean that it is safe for the child to be cared for by that person.She's either on her medication and have her seizures controlled, or not be on the medication and have up to 3 seizures per day which is more of a threat. This is pure insanity. Anyone that can't see it...well I don't know what else to tell you.
Perhaps a friend or family member can help out on the days that you work so that this issue becomes moot.
I live in a town smaller than that. I know the cops, the judges, the defense attorneys, and a number of others ... including drug dealers and gang members. It is impossible to recuse one's self all because you know them. Heck, when I was in San Diego, I knew a couple of judges and some DA's as well, and that is a BIG county.Furthermore, I would like to add to the comment I made about the judge and CPS workers being buddies. A couple of joked about it saying stuff about Arnold and blah blah blah. I live in a small town of less than 10,000. They all live in that town. I see them drinking together at a local bar from time to time. I mentioned that picture because it just states what everyone here already knows. They are buddies.
Again, unlawful "discrimination" as a legal term requires some specific elements to be present - NONE of which have been articulated here.
A Nor Cal Cop Sergeant
"Make mine a double mocha ...
And a croissant!"
Walk humbly with your God
-- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM
As the others have said, you have not yet given enough facts for a discrimination claim. Is it possible? Maybe. If the epilepsy is completly controlled by the "medication" (This is a *prescribed* medication, right? One you get at a normal pharmacy and not one where all you have is a written recommendation. If so, all bets are off. There is not a clear decision on the matter and, as I'll explain later, that would doom your case.) you have an argument you are fit parents. But, now what?We're already talking to a lawyer and a strong case can be made for discrimination.
Arguendo, CPS erred. You are still a long way from any *compensation* for your *injury*. Such things tend to compensate for harm and punitives are rare. You will need to articulate, in dollars, how much you were hurt. Also, you have the problem of qualified immunity. You will need to prove (Essentally, it's complex and why you would need a lawyer.) that there is no way any reasonable CPS worker or department would act as they have or the suit would get kicked at the pleading stage. Not that *these* people *wanted* to hurt you (which is why the judge is irrelevant in the first portion of the suit), but that no reasonable person with like training or experience could believe they were following the law. That means you pretty much need a California court case(s) which prevents them from removing the children for the reasons they stated or for any reason which can be stated from the facts which were within their knowledge at the time of each decision.
With a quick search (don't rely on it, it just used a key word or two), all I found that epilepsy which is not *completely* controlled has been allowed as a reason when there is danger to the child--perhaps because of a prior incident. So, your hurdle will be to claim the disability is completely controlled to even make it to step two.
The end result, as mentioned by others, is that you have high hurdles and absent many more facts, zero chance at punitives. Perhaps you might contract a national epilepsy organization who may help you with your case (if the facts are right) so you can make new law. New law is very expensive, long running and there is not a big money payoff at the end. The end is that future people in the situation you claim may have an easier time proving up discrimination in like circumstances.
Of course you do.I have no reason to to lie on an internet forum.
And what I'm saying is, despite your accusations it's likely that CPS can truthfully justify what they did. Regardless of what you believe, what you've said here is far from any indication of illegal discrimination. By all means, try to get your daughter back. Give up trying to make any money off of this.What I'm saying is...
You're supposed to assume that CPS meant what they said. The mother took the child home despite being warned she was risking a loss of custody. Her willingness to take that risk only serves to justify the CPS's concerns. She went home anyway, CPS did what they said they were going to do. On that point, she has no one to blame but herself.They gathered their information from so called witnesses and gave a stern warning to the mother not to go home. She failed to heed the warning and got busted in the process. Now one could say...Well, you should have not went home and listened to the CPS worker. Are we supposed to assume these people are Gods and thou shalt obey or else?
This site has thousands of members. I'm sure some will believe you're 100% right and CPS is 100% wrong. I'm not naive enough to believe agencies like CPS never make mistakes, but you have yet to convince me that they have in your case.It's not so much as I'm trying to convince strangers to take my side as much as it's to raise the awareness of this kind of thing going on.
It's up to a jury to decide which "skewed" point of view is more accurate. Our attorney will argue our side aggressively. When I wrote that I don't have a reason to lie on an internet forum, you just blasted back with "of course you do". OK, then why. You didn't explain any further. You said that you didn't hear anything that was illegal discrimination. What about them calling her "retarded" and "developmentally challenged"? She aced their tests yet they left it in their reports. These are actual quotes said about the mother in court and written in reports. They started hammering away on the medication with no evidence to support their claim of danger. In fact after the physical danger claim was was not working, it was changed to the danger of being "emotionally unavailable". Well what is that exactly. No one has explained this. They didn't say that the child would be in danger of being emotionally damaged or anything. If there was a threat of danger present, then why have we been able to take care of our child effectively for 5 years without any problems? Healthy and happy was the two most common ways to describe our child by most people in general that came into contact with her. Peoples imaginations run wild when you hear of an epileptic parent taking care of a child. The perceived danger is all their heads. If their was a danger, then something would have happened by now. Their was, is, and never will be any danger because of the mothers epilepsy. Her seizures are controlled, and the only side effect the medication has is moderate drowsiness. If drowsiness is enough of a danger for you, than all parents needs to have their kids removed because everyone gets drowsy at least for part of the day. You said that the mother only has herself to blame for coming home when instructed not. Well, what were we supposed to do? Say well, I guess this is goodbye. We can't be a family anymore because CPS says we can't be together. I guess CPS can break up families and tell them stay apart or else. I'm not sure what everyone expected us to do. What kind of ultimatum is that? I've failed to convince you, and you've suggested that I've lied. Well, there's nothing I can can do about that.