Sunday, December 27, 2009

CPS seizes toddler in hospital

My local newspaper reports:
SANTA CRUZ -- The 28-year-old father of a toddler who ingested methamphetamine was arrested Wednesday night on suspicion of felony child endangerment. ...

The child's mother, who lives at the apartment, took the toddler to Dominican Hospital late Monday after noticing the boy was acting out of character. Hospital officials notified police about 11 p.m. that they had a child who had tested positive for methamphetamine.

The toddler was taken into custody by Child Protective Services and kept in the hospital overnight. He has fully recovered from ingesting an unknown amount of the drug, Clark said.

Police said the child's mother was home when Ochoa visited, but asked him to leave after she realized he was under the influence. They have not identified her and have determined she has no criminal liability in the incident, Clark said.

It's unclear how the child came across the drug, though police believe it was unintentional, he said. ...

Child Protective Services will complete its own report with information from police before it is decided whether the child can return to his mother, Clark said.
It is a bad sign when a toddler tests positive for meth, but I am trying to figure out how this system works, and I have some questions.

How did the cops determine that the mom had no criminal liability? Maybe she was framing her ex. She could have given the toddler a trace amount of meth, knowing that it would be harmless, and then took the kid to the hospital knowing that the kid would be tested, and her ex would be blamed for the meth.

If the cops decided that the meth exposure was an accident, then why is CPS still holding the kid? The mom, who is supposedly completely innocent, cannot even get her kid back. It appears that CPS suspects her of some wrongdoing, even tho the cops do not.

If both parents are suspected of wrongdoing, then why is the dad named in the article, and not the mom?

Here are my tentative conclusions.

It is really easy for a mom to frame a dad, because the dad always gets blamed if anything goes wrong.

Think twice before taking your kid to the emergency room, because CPS may seize your kid even if it was a unintentional accident caused by someone else.

CPS has some dark motives here. My guess is that CPS is going to tell the mom that she can have the kid back if she gets a restraining order against the dad or tries to terminate his parental rights or gets into the welfare system. Whatever CPS does, you can be sure that it will cause harm to this poor toddler for many years to come.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

George,

You couldn't be more correct in your deductive reasoning, here.

Something(s) very wrong or suspicious about the scenario and the actions of the authorities and the reporters.

Anything is of course possible, but your assumptions, or suspicions seem the most plausible.

Anonymous said...

Now it is not always the dad.. I know for a fact that the dad can 'frame' the mom too... especially when the dad is a psycho abuser.. Been there done that unfortunately... In our case the psycho nut case had money and because of that he did this and came out like roses and now several people and kids have been severely destroyed...

Anonymous said...

Hey,

Would you happen to be referring to the psycho dad that was a convicted felon, then was allowed to continue keeping his gun collection, and setting up his ex-wife ? The guy had some money, too.

George said...

Yes, I am sure that dads frame moms also. The system relies on anonymous reports, hearsay, and bogus analyses. It is way to easy to frame someone.

R33Mag said...

Hey George, I was wondering whether you might consider changing your header to "another angry PARENT" instead of "Father" cuz I'm telling you, I've seen far more women screwed to death in front of CJ than men.

I'm just sayin...

There was one time I was sitting in court, waiting my turn before CJ. This mom was answering her ex husband's petition for unsupervised visitation. My ears pricked up when I heard her plead that the children are afraid of him because he had just gotten out of prison. He was a convicted child molester. And he was exercising his "Father's Rights" to have access to his children. The kids wanted none of that.

I listened in horror as CJ scolded the mom, told her that under the law, he is the father, and he gets visitation, with his mother as the supervisor. The mother left the courtroom in tears. The child-molester "father" left the courtroom with an order that would give him nearly unfettered access to the children.

Stunned does not begin to describe my reaction.

CJ is pure evil.

George said...

Yes, the man is evil. You're right, I should post more about women getting screwed in court, but my tendency is to post stories from my point of view.