NH - Couple: the state took our baby

New Posts

I think there has to be more to this story.
The hospital even went along with this.
Lots of people in trouble if it is political.
I need to see stuff from abuse, CYS etc.
 
I agree...but, wow. It'll be interesting to see how this is handled.

"If true, then this is as bad, and in fact worse, than any of the violations of liberty that our Declaration of Independence lists as the reasons for our forefathers taking up arms in our Revolution and for separating from England," Rhodes wrote. "We no longer have freedom at all if this is allowed to be done. And we will not let it stand."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby?page=0%2C1
 
The affidavit also states that Irish is "associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers and had purchased several different types of weapons including a rifle, handgun and Taser."
Click to expand...

Has anyone seen the affidavit, or are we just taking his word for it that this is included? (I mean 'we' as in the public, not posters on WS)
 
I dont know, the article in the OP says its actually due to repeated allegations of violence to the woman and her other kids....that's a little more likely IMO.
 
The affidavit is available. Just google~Irish family affidavit.



Note: Be cautious NOT to use the infant's name on the thread.
 
Irish has quite a long list of offenses and has failed to follow the guidelines of the court concerning attending an "Ending the Violence" workshop. The state has also been involved in the mother's life for the last 21 months concerning two other children. IMO, the state had reason to take action. Can you imagine how up in arms we'd all be if that baby was harmed down the line?

Here we have a mom involved with DHS with two children and not living with her legal husband. She has an infant with another man who has a long history of violence and is known to keep firearms. I think that might be why his involvement with the Oath Keepers factored in. JMO

ETA: I just realized that the mom just had her rights terminated for the other two children. This alone could be the reason that the baby was taken into care. The court is already fully aware of Taylor's inability to parent and thus, is attempting to err on the side of caution, IMO.
 
Missizzy said:
Irish has quite a long list of offenses and has failed to follow the guidelines of the court concerning attending an "Ending the Violence" workshop. The state has also been involved in the mother's life for the last 21 months concerning two other children. IMO, the state had reason to take action. Can you imagine how up in arms we'd all be if that baby was harmed down the line?

Here we have a mom involved with DHS with two children and not living with her legal husband. She has an infant with another man who has a long history of violence and is known to keep firearms. I think that might be why his involvement with the Oath Keepers factored in. JMO

ETA: I just realized that the mom just had her rights terminated for the other two children. This alone could be the reason that the baby was taken into care. The court is already fully aware of Taylor's inability to parent and thus, is attempting to err on the side of caution, IMO.
Click to expand...

I know in my state, if parental rights have been terminated and a new baby is born, the state automatically steps in to investigate. With the termination being so recent, they would, without a doubt, take action to ensure the new infant was safe. I don't see how these parents have a case with the prior history. Also, I'm not sure how it works in other states, but in our state this guy would not be the legal father and would have no rights to the child. If the mother is married at the time of conception or birth, that man is the legal father. Biology has nothing to do with it at that point. He would, for all the purpose of the state, only be considered as mother's boyfriend and someone who would be around the child.
 
But according to an affidavit provided to Irish by the state Division for Children, Youth and Families, state officials took the child because of Irish's long record of violence and abuse. According to the affidavit, a judge determined that Irish abused Taylor's two other children. She is still married to the father of those children, though Taylor said yesterday that her husband has refused to accept her divorce petition for the past two years.

The affidavit also says that the police in Rochester report a "lengthy history of domestic violence" between Taylor and Irish, and that she accused him of choking and hitting her on more than one occasion. According to the document, Irish failed to complete a domestic violence course as ordered by the state, and that a hearing was held last month to terminate Taylor's parental rights over her two older children.

Taylor "has failed to recognize the impact of domestic violence in her life and the potential danger it poses to a newborn baby," the affidavit reads. "Mr. Irish has not acknowledged any responsibility to date and remains a significant safety risk to an infant in his care. . . . Without the intervention of the court, the infant will be at risk of harm."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby?page=0,0

Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The court is keeping this baby safe.
 
Can you still receive ss disability benefits if you are found guilty of child abuse and/or domestic violence? What about gun ownership?
 
MOO. It is mentioned in the affidavit that he is a member of The Oath Keepers militia only to mention the weapons. I think a person having firearms is pertinent in a domestic abuse situation. I don't think that mentioning The Oath Keepers in the affidavit is indicative of the state taking his child to punish him for belonging to that group.

Also, MOO, it's ridiculous for him to think that all the other stuff on there (abuse, anger management issues, etc) wouldn't be the main reason to take his parental rights away.
 
I've never heard of a disabled person losing their OWN SSI or SS benefits due to a termination of parental rights. Remember, very few parents who have their rights terminated are actually criminally charged. The penalty is loss of the child. IME, abuse must be physically very severe or involving sex abuse for there to be criminal charges brought. The charges typically stay at the Family Court level.

Concerning gun ownership, I'm not a gun owner so I don't really know the rights involved but I cannot imagine that SSI or SS benefits could be discontinued due to gun ownership. I do believe that we'd have more than a few people "up in arms" about that!!

I'm not positive but I don't think that a convicted criminal loses their benefits either, unless they are incarcerated. I'll have to check. In any case, if the children were receiving benefits based on disability or survivor's benefits those would follow them into foster care or adoption and become a "patch" in their funding resources.

Concerning this infant, was there information I missed concerning a disability for her?
 
alwaysonmymind said:
Can you still receive ss disability benefits if you are found guilty of child abuse and/or domestic violence? What about gun ownership?
Click to expand...

Yes, you can. Also, in many states, a person found to have committed DV must turn over their guns to LE for the duration of the restraining order.

These people obviously should not have children. This has nothing to do with their political affiliation and everything to do with their high level of dysfunction. Domestic violence is considered child abuse even when it is not perpetrated against the children. Just allowing them to be exposed to it causes long-lasting emotional scars. To add to that, this guy has apparently harmed some of her children and refused to undergo a DV course? I guess they really don't want their kids.
 
I love this quote from one of their fellow anti-government Oath Keepers:

Amanda Biondolillo, a Concord woman who came with her young daughter, said she didn't think the state should get involved in family issues at all, even if there is reason to suspect abuse.
"The family should be left to resolve it on their own," Biondolillo said. "Or private enterprise - private companies can contact the family and say, 'We heard you were hitting your kids. Can you stop that?' "

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby?page=0,1

Hmmm. Government ain't perfect but IMO, these people are wacky!
 
I think we might be talking about different issues. Here's a site which discusses SS benefits for convicted felons. Lots of links:

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/ans...viction-affects-your-social-security-benefits.

If we're talking about the parents continuing to receive SSI benefits (paid on behalf of a disabled child) even if they are charged or convicted of a crime, that's a different ball of wax. The SSI is paid to the child and thus a parent in jail or with rights terminated would not get them. They follow the child. If the state chose to return the children, the benefits could resume. SSI is a means based program AFTER it is deemed that a child qualifies due to disability.

Courts can certainly take away the right of gun ownership in cases of assault or DV, but there's no connection to receipt of SS benefits connected to that.
 
gitana1 said:
I love this quote from one of their fellow anti-government Oath Keepers:

Amanda Biondolillo, a Concord woman who came with her young daughter, said she didn't think the state should get involved in family issues at all, even if there is reason to suspect abuse.
"The family should be left to resolve it on their own," Biondolillo said. "Or private enterprise - private companies can contact the family and say, 'We heard you were hitting your kids. Can you stop that?' "

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby?page=0,1

Hmmm. Government ain't perfect but IMO, these people are wacky!
Click to expand...

Can you stop that? What!? :biglaugh:
 
A private company? Now, I've heard everything. I know that some children's services are contracted out but I've not heard of privatization of the actual child protection agencies. And this would be better why? I have to agree that these folks are sounding wackier by the minute. But wacky can get dangerous too.

We had a case in Oregon almost 10 years ago where three little girls were taken by DHS from a family living in their motor home. The children were seriously malnourished and had marks and bruises on them. The family mounted this major "political" campaign to get their children returned. It was extremely heated. Because of confidentiality laws, the State really could not defend their actions in the press. The Christines argued that their children were vegetarian and therefore slim. Well, I'm vegetarian too and slim. But all I needed to read was that the 2 year old weighed only 15 pounds. That did it for me.

It all came to a head when Brian Christine kidnapped his daughters from a social worker at gunpoint. Both parents were found guilty and are doing time. Two children were born to them after the initial report and all five children are living with relatives.

The reason I bring this up is I don't think this case is over and done. I certainly hope the foster family has protection and anonymity. I don't trust this man.
 
According to the affidavit, a judge determined that Irish abused Taylor's two other children.

That's enough for me. If Taylor refuses to protect her babies from a man, then she forces the state to step in & do it.
 
They should put all that energy into learning how to parent properly. I think that LE, CPS, and the hospital better be on careful watch - these two sound wacked enough to go on a shooting spree.
 
Missizzy said:
I've never heard of a disabled person losing their OWN SSI or SS benefits due to a termination of parental rights. Remember, very few parents who have their rights terminated are actually criminally charged. The penalty is loss of the child. IME, abuse must be physically very severe or involving sex abuse for there to be criminal charges brought. The charges typically stay at the Family Court level.

Concerning gun ownership, I'm not a gun owner so I don't really know the rights involved but I cannot imagine that SSI or SS benefits could be discontinued due to gun ownership. I do believe that we'd have more than a few people "up in arms" about that!!

I'm not positive but I don't think that a convicted criminal loses their benefits either, unless they are incarcerated. I'll have to check. In any case, if the children were receiving benefits based on disability or survivor's benefits those would follow them into foster care or adoption and become a "patch" in their funding resources.

Concerning this infant, was there information I missed concerning a disability for her?
Click to expand...

Thank you for this information. The parents both receive SSI. I had heard about someone losing their SSI due to a felony crime. I've looked it. The benefits can be suspended if the recipient has a felony warrant for drugs or a violent crime.

I questioned the gun ownership due to the DV and child abuse charges. Not SSI benefits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 83 more.
Total: 2,220 (members: 84, guests: 2,136)

Online statistics

Members online
84
Guests online
2,136
Total visitors
2,220
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,530
Messages
17,953,989
Members
228,522
Latest member
Cabinsleuth
Back
Top