AZ - Mother refuses medical care for child who recovered, gets SWAT raided

[Anti Federalist]

So, dressing your kid up like a drag queen and having nasty old queeers throw money at him is okey dokey.

But this gets you SWATTed.



Mom Ignores Doctor When Her Sick 2-Year-Old Starts Feeling Better, Child Services Send a SWAT Team

https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/27/s...am-dcs-parents

"What about the parents' rights to decide what's best for their child?"
Lenore Skenazy|Mar. 27, 2019 10:50 am

Chandler, Arizona, cops broke through the door of a family's home in the middle of the night, stormed in, pointed their guns, handcuffed the father, and watched as the state's Department of Child Safety (DCS) took custody of the parents' three kids—all because mom had decided her toddler's fever was not serious enough to merit a trip to the hospital.

It was dinnertime on February 25 when the pregnant mother took her 2-year-old to the doctor with a fever of over 100. The doctor told her to take him to the emergency room, fearing that because the boy was unvaccinated, perhaps he had meningitis—a life-threatening disease.

The doctor called the hospital to alert them. But by the time the mother and child left his office, the boy was "laughing and playing with his siblings," according to this excellent piece by Dianna M. Nanez in The Arizona Republic. Mom took his temperature again, and it was almost normal. So instead of going to the emergency room, the family went home. The mom called the doctor to say her boy's fever had broken and she wasn't going to the emergency room. The doctor told her she should go anyway, so she agreed she would—but then she didn't.

That's when the madness began.

The hospital called the doctor to tell him the toddler hadn't arrived. The doctor called DCS. And DCS requested the cops check on the family as a caseworker headed over.

And then, according to The Arizona Republic:

It was about 10:30 p.m. when two police officers knocked on the family's door. The officers heard someone coughing.

Officer Tyler Cascio wrote in a police report that he knocked on the door several times but no one answered.

A neighbor approached the officers and police explained the situation. The woman said she knew her neighbor and that "she was a good mother." At the request of officers, the neighbor called the mother and said police wanted to speak with her.

The DCS caseworker arrived and updated police on the toddler's fever and the mother choosing not to take her child to the hospital. The officer called the family's doctor, who repeated her recommendation that the mother take the child to the hospital. ...

At about 11:30 p.m., the caseworker informed officers that DCS planned to obtain a "temporary custody notice" from a judge to remove the child for emergency medical aid.

Just after midnight the caseworker got that notice, which is required by law. Matters subsequently escalated:

Cascio wrote that officers consulted with the police criminal investigations bureau and SWAT.

"Based upon the court order, the intent of DCS to serve the order, and exigency to ensure the health and welfare of the child, the decision was made to force entry to the home if the parents refused to respond to verbal requests," according to police records. Police knocked, saying they had a court order and would force entry if needed, according to police records.

And force they did:

It was after 1 a.m. when officers kicked down the family's door. One officer carried a shield, while another was described as having "lethal coverage." Officers pointing guns yelled, "Chandler Police Department," and entered the house.

The rest of the story is equally nuts. The kids were all placed in separate foster homes. When the case got to juvenile court 10 days later, DCS requested it be closed to the public. The judge refused.

But then it seemed as if DCS decided to make everything harder for the parents, because now the press was interested, as was the Arizona DCS Oversight Group, a local organization that fights for families' rights, and a state legislator, Rep. Kelly Townsend (R–Mesa), who had helped write the law requiring DCS to get a warrant before removing a child. Townsend has been lobbing zingers like, "What about the parents' rights to decide what's best for their child? Parents felt the child was fine. Next thing we know, the Gestapo is at their door."

In court, DCS tried to convince the judge, Jennifer Green, to bar the press from covering the dispute. A lawyer for the agency even claimed that the parents had gone against the best interests of the children by involving the media. Green rejected this argument, saying, "In Arizona we like our courts to be open."

However, the judge ultimately sided with DCS, ruling that the children's removal was lawful and telling the parents "to remember that the state had them on a family-reunification plan and wants them to regain custody of their children."

The children's grandparents are undergoing a DCS review, and hope to be permitted to temporarily shelter the kids once that's approved. But there's no telling how long it will be before the kids can just go home to mom and dad.

[DamianTV]

Real Terrorists hide behind children, laws, bibles, and flags.

What they are doing is reinforcing the idea that children are not the property of their parents, and that their parents have neither any Right or Responsibility to protect their children from ever overreaching government. Essentially they are holding the parents hostage for money, but apparently its legal because they are giving something in "exchange" for the money they demand. We are gonna force you to let us vaccinate / treat / medicate / whatever to your kid and you WILL give us money for our "services". Your money or your life. The choice offered to you by any common criminal. Every parent should have Legal Authority to say "NO" and thats that. You can go home and cry about how tragic the consequences of her lack of treatment are, but if the parent(s) cant afford it, then they cant afford it. Its just yet another indication that govt always knows how to spend your money for you.

The "People" are now only soullless Corporations, and living breathing humans are no longer considered People.

The other MAJOR TARGET is the NUCLEAR FAMILY. Family provides more than enough for any individual that they may not become hopelessly dependent on the State, which directly contradicts their plans. Thus, FAMILY must be destroyed.

Belief, Money, Violence, in application yet again.

[tod evans]

Bastards!

[Origanalist]

[RonZeplin]

[Anti Globalist]

I wonder which SWAT team raided the house. After all every government agency has its own SWAT team.

[Stratovarious]

This type of tyranny will keep 'slow' parents from even taking their kid to
see the 'Doctor' , who will turn them in to CPS should they make the 'wrong' decision
or not jump high enough , quick enough.

The sht doctor broke his Hippocratic oath, putting an entire families very lives
at stake.

I'm a little shocked that they didn't percussion grenade the house to make sure
no officers of the Crown would be injured.

[Brian4Liberty]

This type of tyranny will keep 'slow' parents from even taking their kid to
see the 'Doctor' , who will turn them in to CPS should they make the 'wrong' decision
or not jump high enough , quick enough.

The sht doctor broke his Hippocratic oath, putting an entire families very lives
at stake.

I'm a little shocked that they didn't percussion grenade the house to make sure
no officers of the Crown would be injured.

The Doctor is the Primary person to blame. She initiated this police action because the mother did not respect her authoritay. Second up is the Judge, who was supposed be a check on outrageous behavior by the others involved. CPS? Well they are evil, that is a given. Police? Just doin’ their job; taking orders, following procedure and kicking ass.

[Swordsmyth]

[donnay]

Mom Ignores Doctor When Her Sick 2-Year-Old Starts Feeling Better, Child Services Send a SWAT Team
"What about the parents' rights to decide what's best for their child?"

Lenore Skenazy|Mar. 27, 2019 10:50 am

Chandler, Arizona, cops broke through the door of a family's home in the middle of the night, stormed in, pointed their guns, handcuffed the father, and watched as the state's Department of Child Safety (DCS) took custody of the parents' three kids—all because mom had decided her toddler's fever was not serious enough to merit a trip to the hospital.

It was dinnertime on February 25 when the pregnant mother took her 2-year-old to the doctor with a fever of over 100. The doctor told her to take him to the emergency room, fearing that because the boy was unvaccinated, perhaps he had meningitis—a life-threatening disease.

The doctor called the hospital to alert them. But by the time the mother and child left his office, the boy was "laughing and playing with his siblings," according to this excellent piece by Dianna M. Nanez in The Arizona Republic. Mom took his temperature again, and it was almost normal. So instead of going to the emergency room, the family went home. The mom called the doctor to say her boy's fever had broken and she wasn't going to the emergency room. The doctor told her she should go anyway, so she agreed she would—but then she didn't.

That's when the madness began.

The hospital called the doctor to tell him the toddler hadn't arrived. The doctor called DCS. And DCS requested the cops check on the family as a caseworker headed over.

And then, according to The Arizona Republic:

It was about 10:30 p.m. when two police officers knocked on the family's door. The officers heard someone coughing.

Officer Tyler Cascio wrote in a police report that he knocked on the door several times but no one answered.

A neighbor approached the officers and police explained the situation. The woman said she knew her neighbor and that "she was a good mother." At the request of officers, the neighbor called the mother and said police wanted to speak with her.

The DCS caseworker arrived and updated police on the toddler's fever and the mother choosing not to take her child to the hospital. The officer called the family's doctor, who repeated her recommendation that the mother take the child to the hospital. ...

At about 11:30 p.m., the caseworker informed officers that DCS planned to obtain a "temporary custody notice" from a judge to remove the child for emergency medical aid.

Just after midnight the caseworker got that notice, which is required by law. Matters subsequently escalated:

Cascio wrote that officers consulted with the police criminal investigations bureau and SWAT.

"Based upon the court order, the intent of DCS to serve the order, and exigency to ensure the health and welfare of the child, the decision was made to force entry to the home if the parents refused to respond to verbal requests," according to police records. Police knocked, saying they had a court order and would force entry if needed, according to police records.

And force they did:

It was after 1 a.m. when officers kicked down the family's door. One officer carried a shield, while another was described as having "lethal coverage." Officers pointing guns yelled, "Chandler Police Department," and entered the house.

The rest of the story is equally nuts. The kids were all placed in separate foster homes. When the case got to juvenile court 10 days later, DCS requested it be closed to the public. The judge refused.

But then it seemed as if DCS decided to make everything harder for the parents, because now the press was interested, as was the Arizona DCS Oversight Group, a local organization that fights for families' rights, and a state legislator, Rep. Kelly Townsend (R–Mesa), who had helped write the law requiring DCS to get a warrant before removing a child. Townsend has been lobbing zingers like, "What about the parents' rights to decide what's best for their child? Parents felt the child was fine. Next thing we know, the Gestapo is at their door."

In court, DCS tried to convince the judge, Jennifer Green, to bar the press from covering the dispute. A lawyer for the agency even claimed that the parents had gone against the best interests of the children by involving the media. Green rejected this argument, saying, "In Arizona we like our courts to be open."

However, the judge ultimately sided with DCS, ruling that the children's removal was lawful and telling the parents "to remember that the state had them on a family-reunification plan and wants them to regain custody of their children."

The children's grandparents are undergoing a DCS review, and hope to be permitted to temporarily shelter the kids once that's approved. But there's no telling how long it will be before the kids can just go home to mom and dad.

https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/27/s...am-dcs-parents


Here is the video:

[TheTexan]

However, the judge ultimately sided with DCS, ruling that the children's removal was lawful and telling the parents "to remember that the state had them on a family-reunification plan and wants them to regain custody of their children."

That's very generous of them.

[Swordsmyth]

Two parents in Chandler, Arizona, have been granted custody over their children months after the kids were taken into state custody because the parents failed to bring their sick toddler to the hospital. Despite the custody order, however, the state continues to retain all decision-making authority over the children.

The Arizona DCS Oversight Group, a local advocacy group for parental rights, and State Representative Kelly Townsend (R-Mesa) spoke out in favor of the parents.
Townsend, who helped to draft legislation that requires DCS to obtain a warrant before removing children from their homes, said that DCS and the police distorted the purpose of that legislation, which was to minimize the number of children being removed by DCS and to restore due process and protections against illegal search and seizure.
“It was not the intent [of the law] that the level of force after obtaining a warrant was to bring in a SWAT team,” Townsend said. “The imagery is horrifying. What has our country become that we can tear down the doorway of a family who has a child with a high fever that disagrees with their doctor?”
The story became even more convoluted, as it appeared that DCS was making it harder for Bryce and Beck to get their children back because the parents were oppositional to DCS and communicated with media. Furthermore, the children, when originally removed from their home, were placed in separate foster-care homes, something that is atypical of this type of situation. The parents believe that DCS was purposefully making it difficult for their family.
Some also raised concerns that the parents were targeted because their children were unvaccinated.
“It was brought to my attention that these parents may have been targeted by the medical community because they hadn’t vaccinated their children,” Representative Townsend said. “I think if DCS decides to use this as a factor they would be violating a parent’s right to have a personal exemption, a religious exemption and perhaps a medical exemption,” she said.
The doctor claimed that because the toddler was unvaccinated, she was concerned that the child has meningitis, but her assertion had little credibility. According to the CDC’s vaccination schedule, the recommended age for vaccination against meningitis is 11-12 years. A two-year-old generally would not have received that vaccine even if he had pro-vax parents, unless he was in a special situation, such as having an immune deficiency or was traveling to a country where meningitis is prevalent.
Fortunately, Heber did not have meningitis, but had RSV, a common respiratory virus among young children that generally requires rest, fluids, and nasal aspirations at home.
About two months after the children were taken into temporary state custody, they were returned home under the condition that Bryce’s parents acted as “safety monitors” for the children. But on Tuesday, Maricopa County Juvenile Court Judge Timothy Ryan granted the parents custody over the children, meaning Bryce’s parents no longer have to serve as monitors, but the state is still currently retaining decision-making authority.
Amanda Steele, a spokesman for the Maricopa County Attorney’s office, said that they will not be bringing charges against the parents because they are not likely to achieve any convictions.
The police continue to defend their actions, claiming that officers were acting under an order to protect children from abuse and neglect, but critics contend that the raid was “more fitting for drug dealers,” Associated Press reports.
Bryce and Beck are continuing to seek full custody and decision-making authority over their children.
“We didn’t do anything wrong,” Bryce said.

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu...their-children