+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 21 of 21
  1. #16
    NRH81 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Clt747 View Post
    I don't think anybody is "getting a kick" out of anything. It's just skepticism. We can believe there's more to this than you're admitting, or we can believe somebody at CPS stood up one day and said "You know, we don't have nearly enough kids in the system. Let's make up a bunch of lies for no good reason and take NRH81's daughter away from him." People tend to be reluctant to help when they feel they're not getting the truth.



    But didn't you say you have a lawyer who says you have a strong case? So, there you go. Let him do the job you're paying him for. Trying to convince a bunch of strangers you're being railroaded isn't going to get you anywhere.

    Here's my legal advice for you: be unfailingly honest with your lawyer.
    Are you suggesting that I came to this forum to blow smoke up every one's ass? Everything I wrote is how it happened. I have no reason to to lie on an internet forum. If you think that your government agencies are 100 percent honest and righteous, well...I'm not sure what to make of that. I'm not saying that they got up one day and said let's all go make up a bunch of lies about this family and screw them over. I'm not f***in nuts. What I'm saying is, it started out as a simple call to CPS. They came out and began their not so competent investigation. I don't like CPS and I make a lot of snide remarks about them so bear with me. 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? I guess so. Boy we sure learned a little something about the awesome power that's bestowed upon them. The discriminatory comments and usage of the disability against the mother came later. They used it when they thought the case was going to get dropped. I find it hard to believe that it was a coincidence that they started hammering away at it at that particular time. It's ridiculous. They called the mother "retarded", yes retarded. Told her she "more than likely wouldn't pass an IQ and developmental test.' That is a word for word statement right there. She aced their tests with well above average scores. They flat out humiliated her in a public spectacle. Some of you have the audacity to suggest she wasn't discriminated against? I beg to differ. Two of the workers are the main culprits and we're targeting their actions. The agency they work for is ultimately responsible for their actions while they're on the job. I'm not just questioning only their judgment, but their ethics as well. To answer your lawyer question: I didn't have one at the time I wrote that. I do now. 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 my attorney's job to convince 12 strangers to take our side. I would love to see a change in legislation on what judges and social workers are allowed to do in court. My thing is, if you want to debate what I write I'm game.
  2. #17
    CdwJava is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27,371
    Quote Originally Posted by NRH81 View Post
    Some of the posters seem to get a kick out my families ordeal.
    I don't see that anyone is getting "a kick" out o your family's ordeal - only that your wife is not given a free pass simply because she has epilepsy. The sole issue is (or should be) whether she is capable of safely caring for the child. The question is NOT whether she is sometimes capable, or capable most of the time, but whether she is normally capable. As we've said, apparently CPS was able to convince a judge that at least for now, the child is better off elsewhere. Hopefully you are jumping through the hoops that have been set down for you to jump through in order to get your child back.

    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.
    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.

    Perhaps a friend or family member can help out on the days that you work so that this issue becomes moot.

    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.
    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.

    Again, unlawful "discrimination" as a legal term requires some specific elements to be present - NONE of which have been articulated here.

    - Carl
    A Nor Cal Cop Sergeant

    "Make mine a double mocha ...
    And a croissant!"

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM
  3. #18
    tranquility is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    18,672
    We're already talking to a lawyer and a strong case can be made for discrimination.
    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?

    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.
  4. #19
    >Charlotte< is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,080
    Quote Originally Posted by NRH81 View Post
    Are you suggesting that I came to this forum to blow smoke up every one's ass?
    No. I'm saying it's possible you came to this forum to argue your side of the story, which is probably not 100% accurate, or at least conveyed from a (your) skewed perspective.

    I have no reason to to lie on an internet forum.
    Of course you do.

    What I'm saying is...
    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.

    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?
    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.

    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.
    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.
  5. #20
    NRH81 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    35
    To Clt744,
    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.
  6. #21
    stealth2 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    44,373
    Quote Originally Posted by NRH81 View Post
    Uh....Why?
    Because there are some lawyers (none here) that will tell you anything you want to hear if you're paying them enough. If you had a truly superb case of discrimination, you'd have lawyers beating down your door to represent you - for free.

Similar Threads

  1. Disability discrimination vs. gender discrimination
    By TMScalzo in forum Job Discrimination and Harassment
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-21-2009, 07:33 PM
  2. job discrimination?
    By Shook in forum Job Discrimination and Harassment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-25-2006, 11:20 AM
  3. discrimination
    By wauktown in forum US Supreme Court & The Constitution
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-09-2002, 09:31 AM
  4. Age Discrimination
    By chin in forum Hiring, Firing & Wrongful Termination
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-21-2002, 07:29 AM
  5. reverse discrimination/plain discrimination???
    By RCW42 in forum Job Discrimination and Harassment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-08-2001, 08:26 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

© 1995-2012 Advice Company, All Rights Reserved

FreeAdvice® has been providing millions of consumers with outstanding advice, free, since 1995. While not a substitute for personal advice from a licensed professional, it is available AS IS, subject to our Disclaimer and Terms & Conditions Of Use.