“Even after a judge required ACS to reunite Ms. Rivers with her baby, ACS continued to subject Ms. Rivers to needless court proceedings and a litany of conditions that interfered with her parenting of TW for months, while the unlawful removal of her baby was ratified by senior ACS leadership,” the complaint reads. “This was not because ACS was trying to protect TW; this was because Ms. Rivers is Black.”
I see nothing in the article indicating any problem except racism.
And the article is omitting information such as why there was a drug test to begin with and if it was breach in privacy, why is the hospital not being sued?
Here’s why: “claims from a hospital worker that she smoked marijuana in the hospital room”. Mother also had previous interactions with the agency in regards to her older children.
So, hospital has cause to run a drug tests, drug test comes back positive on mother and newborn. Hospital reports to ACS who tell hospital to hold baby. Mother goes to court to get baby released, but this whole issue greatly affects an existing case she has with ACS in getting her older children back.
The lawsuit claims racism and falls flat when evidence suggests she is a neglectful parent and willingly endangering the unborn child by smoking marijuana while pregnant.
This is not a hill to die on when it comes to police problems. Not when there are more clear cut examples of systemic issues than this.
I’m old and fat, and would die climbing any hill.
Always I’ve been told that there’s confidentiality when dealing with doctors, hospitals, clinics, even blood and urine samples, so when you say, “hospital has cause to run a drug test,” that startles me. A hospital giving drug test results to ACS startles me. If this is OK, it establishes that doctors, hospitals, clinics, and medical labs are agents of law enforcement, which startles me.
And it should because thanks to democrats we are moving towards a world where no one has any privacy or any fundamental liberties and is a slave to the state
This is not the country I want for my children
Lmao!!!
Good! we don’t want you here either… so leave… oh wait that’s right, you can’t leave, even if you wanted too.
You’re a peasant like the rest of us… yet you think eating the boot is a better resource than lining up with your fellow countryen for perceived us, against them mentality…
You’re not very bright, are you?
Every year since Biden became President you fake leftists are acting more and more like conservatives and it’s starting to get real annoying. You’re the ones now destroying the environment, you’re the ones attacking environmental protesters, you’re the ones racially attacking black people 24/7, you’re the ones violating peoples basic rights and destroying peoples right to privacy, increasing the police budget, attacking peaceful protesters.
Congrats, you’re now the Neo-Cons of 2004
Asking nicely. Knock it off and talk about the police, please.
Self aware wolf moment - “western democracy paints a false dichotomy of choice when really all it offers are flavours of neolib”
Am I reading it wrong or does it imply she smoked it while pregnant?
Even heavy weed smokers would agree you don’t take that shit while pregnant. Most people try to avoid shit like Tylenol, let alone weed.
That’s advice, possibly even good advice. It’s not the law.
Ignoring advice, even good advice, should not be grounds to lose a child.
I don’t know the law in NY, but where I am something does not have to be against the law in order to trigger child safety services.
I’d like to know more about this, but I know Googling it would sour my stomach and ruin my evening. Can you tell me (briefly please) what not-illegal acts can trigger action or an investigation by child safety services?
Other than substance use (don’t smoke around kids, don’t be drunk/high and incapacitated when taking care of kids), having a disgusting house (e.g. things like uncleaned animal feces and urine everywhere) is a good one. It’s not illegal to live like that, but can rise to level of being unsafe for children.
That’s not a good example. Child endangerment is illegal, which is what your examples are.
Makes sense, thanks.