Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Missing!! > Located Forum Discussion

Notices

Located Forum Discussion Discussion for those who were missing and are now located


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-17-2009, 08:46 PM
SheWhoMustNotBeNamed's Avatar
SheWhoMustNotBeNamed SheWhoMustNotBeNamed is offline
WS Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Puget Sound area, WA
Posts: 19,955
WA - Andrew Christiansen, 2 months, Vancouver, July 2009

Deputies Say Baby Missing In Vancouver

Clark County sheriff's deputies said Friday they're "very concerned" about the welfare of a missing 2-month-old child.

Andrew Christiansen was taken by his biological parents in the Vancouver area sometime after Sunday, but deputies said a court order mandates that Child Protective Services take the baby boy from his parents and place him into protective custody.

On Wednesday, police arrested the mother, Shondra Christiansen, in Springfield. The child was not with her at the time of her arrest and she is not cooperating with investigators, said Sgt. Scott Schanaker in a sheriff's office news release.

Deputies said they're trying to track down the father, 24-year-old Nicholas Christiansen. It's believed that he and the child are somewhere in the Eugene and Springfield area.

More: http://www.kptv.com/news/20089610/detail.html
__________________
FOR THE MISSING: PACIFIC NORTHWEST - Highlighting missing persons in the Pacific Northwest - www.facebook.com/missingnorthwest

STILL DOING IT FOR DYLAN GROENE. REST IN PEACE:
http://www.amw.com/missing_children/brief.cfm?id=32037

HELP FIND MISSING 7-YEAR-OLD PATRICK ALFORD: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107247

Last edited by SheWhoMustNotBeNamed; 07-18-2009 at 01:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-17-2009, 08:49 PM
angeleleven's Avatar
angeleleven angeleleven is offline
proud mom of 3 beautiful daughters
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 9,909
Just saw this on the Nancy Grace show...they are talking about it now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-17-2009, 08:58 PM
Shelby77 Shelby77 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 370
Here's what I think appears to be her Myspace, last login was July 10, 2009

http://www.myspace.com/darkangel1820

Hope it's ok to post...


ETA: Photo album shows same pic of baby A, so think it's safe to say it's her page
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Shelby77 For This Useful Post:
  #4  
Old 07-17-2009, 09:21 PM
Patty G's Avatar
Patty G Patty G is offline
Retired WS Staff
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 16,568
July 17, 2009
Nancy Grace


YouTube - Nancy 7/17/09 Andrew Christiansen Part 1
YouTube - Nancy 7/17/09 Andrew Christiansen Part 2
__________________
Pekingese "Best Of Show" 2012
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Patty G For This Useful Post:
  #5  
Old 07-18-2009, 01:41 AM
DairyGirl's Avatar
DairyGirl DairyGirl is offline
<insert catchy saying here>
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shelby77 View Post
Here's what I think appears to be her Myspace, last login was July 10, 2009

http://www.myspace.com/darkangel1820

Hope it's ok to post...


ETA: Photo album shows same pic of baby A, so think it's safe to say it's her page
Now it says her last log in was today, 7/17/09. I didn't see any pics of the baby, did she remove them? Is she still in custody?

eta the link above says she is still in custody. Who changed her MySpace?

Quote:
Shondra Christiansen remains in the Lane County Jail. Anyone with information on the location of Nicholas and Andrew Christiansen is asked to call 1-877-274-6311.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DairyGirl For This Useful Post:
  #6  
Old 07-18-2009, 01:51 AM
SheWhoMustNotBeNamed's Avatar
SheWhoMustNotBeNamed SheWhoMustNotBeNamed is offline
WS Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Puget Sound area, WA
Posts: 19,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by DairyGirl View Post
Now it says her last log in was today, 7/17/09. I didn't see any pics of the baby, did she remove them? Is she still in custody?

eta the link above says she is still in custody. Who changed her MySpace?
It hasn't changed since I looked at it. The photos in the album of Andrew are either private or deleted. But if you scroll down on the main page, you can see that she has uploaded the pictures.
__________________
FOR THE MISSING: PACIFIC NORTHWEST - Highlighting missing persons in the Pacific Northwest - www.facebook.com/missingnorthwest

STILL DOING IT FOR DYLAN GROENE. REST IN PEACE:
http://www.amw.com/missing_children/brief.cfm?id=32037

HELP FIND MISSING 7-YEAR-OLD PATRICK ALFORD: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107247
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SheWhoMustNotBeNamed For This Useful Post:
  #7  
Old 07-18-2009, 01:56 AM
SheWhoMustNotBeNamed's Avatar
SheWhoMustNotBeNamed SheWhoMustNotBeNamed is offline
WS Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Puget Sound area, WA
Posts: 19,955
"Schanaker said the domestic violence allegations didn't involve the baby, and investigators aren't worried the father will deliberately harm the child."

From: http://www.columbian.com/article/200...r+missing+baby

Well, that's good news. Looks like the parents lost custody because of a domestic violence incident NOT involving the child, and the mom's history of drug abuse.
__________________
FOR THE MISSING: PACIFIC NORTHWEST - Highlighting missing persons in the Pacific Northwest - www.facebook.com/missingnorthwest

STILL DOING IT FOR DYLAN GROENE. REST IN PEACE:
http://www.amw.com/missing_children/brief.cfm?id=32037

HELP FIND MISSING 7-YEAR-OLD PATRICK ALFORD: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107247
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SheWhoMustNotBeNamed For This Useful Post:
  #8  
Old 07-18-2009, 10:15 AM
CHICANA's Avatar
CHICANA CHICANA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho4Groenes View Post
"Schanaker said the domestic violence allegations didn't involve the baby, and investigators aren't worried the father will deliberately harm the child."

From: http://www.columbian.com/article/200...r+missing+baby

Well, that's good news. Looks like the parents lost custody because of a domestic violence incident NOT involving the child, and the mom's history of drug abuse.
If they're not worried the father will harm the child, they shouldn't be taking him. That's what protective custody is for, protecting a child from harm.

Dad smacks mom, so baby goes to foster care ?

I don't remember the name of the 'expert' on JVM, but she said something to the effect of 'you'd have to question the mindset of a parent who would take off with their child, knowing that they're supposed to be handed over to the government'. I don't question the mindset, I agree with it. LE has stated that the child wasn't abused. I couldn't just hand over my 2 month old who had never been abused to be placed with strangers who might abuse him. Many children have been abused and even died at the hands of their state approved foster parents. Plus once he's in the system, it might be impossible to get him back. Where's Grandma ?
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CHICANA For This Useful Post:
  #9  
Old 07-18-2009, 10:30 AM
CHICANA's Avatar
CHICANA CHICANA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,279
An Amber Alert wasn't issued in this case.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-18-2009, 12:27 PM
Salem's Avatar
Salem Salem is offline
WS Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27,304
I too, hope Nick is headed to Grandma's and that Grandma is a very loving Grandma. He has to answer for the domestic violence but a 2 month old in the hands of strangers is scary, in my opinion. I so hope there is some family that is loving that can step up to the plate so that Nick and Shondra can get this worked out. I also hope Shondra gets some drug help and maybe some skills for keeping the house a little cleaner.

Poor baby - may the angels stay with him and protect him. Please, please, please Grandma or Aunt, come through for this baby!

Salem

ETA: Domestic violence is child abuse when it comes to the child. Maybe not physical, but even a 2-month old understands when things are not right in the home and it is SCARY!
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Salem For This Useful Post:
  #11  
Old 07-18-2009, 12:48 PM
CHICANA's Avatar
CHICANA CHICANA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salem View Post
I too, hope Nick is headed to Grandma's and that Grandma is a very loving Grandma. He has to answer for the domestic violence but a 2 month old in the hands of strangers is scary, in my opinion. I so hope there is some family that is loving that can step up to the plate so that Nick and Shondra can get this worked out. I also hope Shondra gets some drug help and maybe some skills for keeping the house a little cleaner.

Poor baby - may the angels stay with him and protect him. Please, please, please Grandma or Aunt, come through for this baby!

Salem

ETA: Domestic violence is child abuse when it comes to the child. Maybe not physical, but even a 2-month old understands when things are not right in the home and it is SCARY!
IMO, hitting your spouse is different than abusing your child. It's definitely not healthy for children to witness their parents beat each other up, but I don't think it warrants removal of the child.
Children being removed over fighting parents will have tragic results.
Women will be reluctant to call the police or seek help when they are being abused, which could lead to children with dead mothers and IMO that would be much more traumatic than watching dad get hauled off to jail for hitting mom.
If I was being beaten and knew there was even a possibility of losing my children for calling the cops, I would take the beating.

In most states, the law on removing a child requires a child to be at risk of serious physical harm or death. That doesn't apply in this case.
It's also the reason the Supreme Court ruled as it did in the FLDS case and the children were returned to their parents.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CHICANA For This Useful Post:
  #12  
Old 07-18-2009, 12:58 PM
not_my_kids's Avatar
not_my_kids not_my_kids is offline
<----The bravest little guy I've ever met.
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 12,732
Chicana - I agree with everything you have said. Under the circumstances, I would have run too.
The parents got into a fight that did not injure or affect their son, and the mother has a PAST HISTORY of drug use, so they order him removed.

I may have figured out the federal deficit, since foster homes get food stamps, cash, WIC, and state insurance for the child even if the parents weren't recieving any of it.

Sorry, not a fan of the child welfare system.
__________________
JMO. Unless there's a link, I can't prove it.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to not_my_kids For This Useful Post:
  #13  
Old 07-18-2009, 01:28 PM
littleangel's Avatar
littleangel littleangel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: east coast
Posts: 49
I so hope this baby is found soon. Even though he hasnt had any domestic abuse charges concerning the baby, there are supposedly some with the babys mother, and IMO he could be a danger to the infant. like if he baby wont quiet down or whatever reason. and he could get frustrated and shake the baby .
I hope not but right now this is my biggest fear.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-18-2009, 01:31 PM
littleangel's Avatar
littleangel littleangel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: east coast
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho4Groenes View Post
"Schanaker said the domestic violence allegations didn't involve the baby, and investigators aren't worried the father will deliberately harm the child."

From: http://www.columbian.com/article/200...r+missing+baby

Well, that's good news. Looks like the parents lost custody because of a domestic violence incident NOT involving the child, and the mom's history of drug abuse.
Deliberate or not, he could harm the child. UGH this is frustrating me.
He should at least take anger management before hes even allowed around this child.
But I feel that should be the case in all situations like this, where there are domestic allegations. It can eventually crossover to the child.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-18-2009, 02:53 PM
CHICANA's Avatar
CHICANA CHICANA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleangel View Post
Deliberate or not, he could harm the child. UGH this is frustrating me.
He should at least take anger management before hes even allowed around this child.
But I feel that should be the case in all situations like this, where there are domestic allegations. It can eventually crossover to the child.
Do we know if he's been convicted of these charges ?
What happens if they take the baby from someone who abuses his girlfriend and gives him to someone who abuses him.
What if he's killed in foster care like so many children have been ?
Will it be justified because the dad hit the mom or the mom was accused of doing drugs ?
Who will be blamed if this baby is hurt in foster care ?
I bet it'll still be the parents. I can imagine family court & CPS saying something like "well, if you hadn't hit your girlfriend and smoked pot, we wouldn't have had to give your baby to those people who killed him."
"Don't blame us, after all, we're from the government and we're here to help."
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CHICANA For This Useful Post:
  #16  
Old 07-18-2009, 02:57 PM
CHICANA's Avatar
CHICANA CHICANA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleangel View Post
Deliberate or not, he could harm the child. UGH this is frustrating me.
He should at least take anger management before hes even allowed around this child.
But I feel that should be the case in all situations like this, where there are domestic allegations. It can eventually crossover to the child.
Funny that the police said they didn't have any reason to believe he'd harm his child.
Why shouldn't he be allowed around his child, if he's NEVER hurt him ?
I believe the law should be followed and children should only be removed from parents when there is risk of serious physical harm or death. Since even LE doesn't think the dad will hurt him, this doesn't apply.
He obviously loves and wants his child very much or he would have just handed him over and walked away.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-18-2009, 03:03 PM
CHICANA's Avatar
CHICANA CHICANA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by not_my_kids View Post
Chicana - I agree with everything you have said. Under the circumstances, I would have run too.
The parents got into a fight that did not injure or affect their son, and the mother has a PAST HISTORY of drug use, so they order him removed.

I may have figured out the federal deficit, since foster homes get food stamps, cash, WIC, and state insurance for the child even if the parents weren't recieving any of it.

Sorry, not a fan of the child welfare system.
I'm not a fan either.
And yes, you have figured out the federal deficit.
Don't forget the adoption incentives, where the state's get at least a $4000 bonus for terminating the rights of bio parents and adopting them out.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-18-2009, 03:07 PM
CHICANA's Avatar
CHICANA CHICANA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleangel View Post
I so hope this baby is found soon. Even though he hasnt had any domestic abuse charges concerning the baby, there are supposedly some with the babys mother, and IMO he could be a danger to the infant. like if he baby wont quiet down or whatever reason. and he could get frustrated and shake the baby .
I hope not but right now this is my biggest fear.
While I'm prepared for the bashing, as long as the baby looked healthy, I wouldn't turn him in if I saw him. I'd probably hand him $10 or $20 to help out with traveling expenses.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CHICANA For This Useful Post:
  #19  
Old 07-18-2009, 04:43 PM
not_my_kids's Avatar
not_my_kids not_my_kids is offline
<----The bravest little guy I've ever met.
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 12,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHICANA View Post
I'm not a fan either.
And yes, you have figured out the federal deficit.
Don't forget the adoption incentives, where the state's get at least a $4000 bonus for terminating the rights of bio parents and adopting them out.
Now with the 4 kids that are missing from NV, I can understand it. Those kids were in a bad situation when they were with their mother in a stable place to live, I don't think they are doing very well on the road.

I really don't think that Andrew is in any danger and apparently LE doesn't either. Which raises the obvious questions...if the kid is safe and happy, what is our right to find him, to let him go to strangers that more likely than not only care about the pay check this child represents? Sometimes it's safer to be missing.
Entirely MOO.
__________________
JMO. Unless there's a link, I can't prove it.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-18-2009, 05:09 PM
Salem's Avatar
Salem Salem is offline
WS Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27,304
According to this article: http://www.columbian.com/article/200...r+missing+baby, mom has been busted for possession of Meth and has violated her probation. She is now sitting in jail.

Nick is still out with the baby. It sounds to me like this is couple is young and dumb. If they want to retain custody of the baby, they should turn themselves in, go to court, do their time (if any) and follow the case plan for having the child returned. It really is not that hard and visiting is allowed during the course of completing the case plan. Sometimes visiting is supervised, sometimes not, depends on the circumstances. I'm pretty sure in this case, it would be given that they have already run once with the baby.

Running away with the baby is not going to solve the problem. They will be wanted across the country. It will be difficult to get a job or a place to live using their real names. They NEED to stand up and take responsibility for what is happening to them and the consequences it will have on their child if they don't get their you know what together.

There are some strong opinions on this thread and I do not discount them as I can see the truth in them. However, I don't condone taking the baby and running. I would much rather see the parents stand up and act like adults.

Salem
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Salem For This Useful Post:
  #21  
Old 07-18-2009, 05:15 PM
CHICANA's Avatar
CHICANA CHICANA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,279
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by not_my_kids View Post
Now with the 4 kids that are missing from NV, I can understand it. Those kids were in a bad situation when they were with their mother in a stable place to live, I don't think they are doing very well on the road.

I really don't think that Andrew is in any danger and apparently LE doesn't either. Which raises the obvious questions...if the kid is safe and happy, what is our right to find him, to let him go to strangers that more likely than not only care about the pay check this child represents? Sometimes it's safer to be missing.
Entirely MOO.
We don't have the right, and honestly, IMO neither does the state. Have you noticed that in almost all cases like this, the parent wins on appeal ? That scares me as it means that family court ignores the very laws it's supposed to uphold.
Problem is, justice is expensive and not many who are targeted can afford to fight.
Not many understand how little evidence is needed to remove a child from his home. Plus, so much depends on the CPS worker's own biases.
Many don't have children of their own and have this picture perfect image of what a family should be like.
There are good times and bad in all families. Kids learn from bad experiences as well as good.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CHICANA For This Useful Post:
  #22  
Old 07-18-2009, 05:40 PM
SheWhoMustNotBeNamed's Avatar
SheWhoMustNotBeNamed SheWhoMustNotBeNamed is offline
WS Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Puget Sound area, WA
Posts: 19,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salem View Post
According to this article: http://www.columbian.com/article/200...r+missing+baby, mom has been busted for possession of Meth and has violated her probation. She is now sitting in jail.

Nick is still out with the baby. It sounds to me like this is couple is young and dumb. If they want to retain custody of the baby, they should turn themselves in, go to court, do their time (if any) and follow the case plan for having the child returned. It really is not that hard and visiting is allowed during the course of completing the case plan. Sometimes visiting is supervised, sometimes not, depends on the circumstances. I'm pretty sure in this case, it would be given that they have already run once with the baby.

Running away with the baby is not going to solve the problem. They will be wanted across the country. It will be difficult to get a job or a place to live using their real names. They NEED to stand up and take responsibility for what is happening to them and the consequences it will have on their child if they don't get their you know what together.

There are some strong opinions on this thread and I do not discount them as I can see the truth in them. However, I don't condone taking the baby and running. I would much rather see the parents stand up and act like adults.

Salem
I have to agree with you here, Salem. Like you, I can see where people are coming from. But the parents need to fight for Andrew the right way. Get a lawyer. Now they are living on the run. And mom is locked up. If they aren't with family, I can't see the dad being able to give the baby everything he needs for very long, unless he's got funds hidden somewhere. They will be caught...eventually...and when they do, they will lose him anyway. EVEN IF Andrew was in a perfectly safe and healthy environment, he sure isn't now.
__________________
FOR THE MISSING: PACIFIC NORTHWEST - Highlighting missing persons in the Pacific Northwest - www.facebook.com/missingnorthwest

STILL DOING IT FOR DYLAN GROENE. REST IN PEACE:
http://www.amw.com/missing_children/brief.cfm?id=32037

HELP FIND MISSING 7-YEAR-OLD PATRICK ALFORD: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107247
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SheWhoMustNotBeNamed For This Useful Post:
  #23  
Old 07-18-2009, 06:10 PM
CHICANA's Avatar
CHICANA CHICANA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salem View Post
According to this article: http://www.columbian.com/article/200...r+missing+baby, mom has been busted for possession of Meth and has violated her probation. She is now sitting in jail.

Nick is still out with the baby. It sounds to me like this is couple is young and dumb. If they want to retain custody of the baby, they should turn themselves in, go to court, do their time (if any) and follow the case plan for having the child returned. It really is not that hard and visiting is allowed during the course of completing the case plan. Sometimes visiting is supervised, sometimes not, depends on the circumstances. I'm pretty sure in this case, it would be given that they have already run once with the baby.

Running away with the baby is not going to solve the problem. They will be wanted across the country. It will be difficult to get a job or a place to live using their real names. They NEED to stand up and take responsibility for what is happening to them and the consequences it will have on their child if they don't get their you know what together.

There are some strong opinions on this thread and I do not discount them as I can see the truth in them. However, I don't condone taking the baby and running. I would much rather see the parents stand up and act like adults.

Salem
But he's their baby. And there's no evidence he's been abused.
They didn't say the father had any charges.
I'll give you a scenario I've heard a lot. The parent complies with everything ordered. Meanwhile the foster parents are bonding with the baby and want to adopt. The state gets federal money for every child they get adopted.
After the parents jump through all their hoops, CPS decides that their bond with their child is broken and it would be harmful to the child to remove him from his new, loving home. It's not in his best interests to be given back to his parents who are virtual strangers. Before the parents know what hit them, they're at a TPR hearing and their kid is no longer theirs.
I'm not saying that all are bad, but I'll give you a little snippet of what I went through when my teen didn't like the rules and her cell phone got shut off.
It's a long story, she's 18 now and has a baby with a boy she was allowed to spend the night with after CPS/Family court gave custody to her aunt.
They gave her aunt custody because they couldn't license her as a care giver based on her family's extensive criminal history( I have none, nor does my husband).
They didn't do a proper background check until my state rep (who lives in my sub-division) got involved.
I made them so mad, they didn't share the info with the judge and left her there.
Her aunt was in it for the money. I was making pretty good $$ then and a child support order would have netted her at least $600 month.

Whew... I'll get to the reason that my daughter now fears CPS, especially since she has a baby.
For one, they started treating her like crap the second she said she wanted to come home.
I'll tell you the biggest reason she will never trust CPS. You know how reunification is supposed to be the goal ? Putting the family back together ?
Well, after the first hearing, all the paperwork said that reunification was the goal. My daughter, who wanted to stay with her aunt(who let her spend nights with her boyfriend) got mad when she read this and told her caseworker that she didn't want to come home.
The case-worker told her not to worry "it's NOT gonna happen, we have to tell the parents that, it makes them easier to deal with and it's required".

I almost lost my job for taking off work to jump through all their hoops.
Court dates, therapy, parenting classes (which showed I had advanced knowledge of child development) took a toll on my job & marriage.
And reunification was NEVER the goal. It wasn't going to happen no matter what I did. It might be hard for some to understand the significance of this, but it is a huge deal.

So when this dad who hasn't abused his child is caught and his baby is given to strangers, will reunification REALLY be the goal ?
He's only two months old, it won't take long for him to completely forget his parents. As a mother, that is a horrifying thought.

I agree that they are young and dumb.
Years ago, they'd grow up and learn how to be a good parent. Today, they might not get that chance.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CHICANA For This Useful Post:
  #24  
Old 07-18-2009, 08:34 PM
DairyGirl's Avatar
DairyGirl DairyGirl is offline
<insert catchy saying here>
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,992
I just want to bring up that in the pictures on the mothers MySpace it looked like the baby was hooked up to oxygen and monitors. It was hard to tell because the pictures were very small but it did seem the baby had problems at birth. If that was the case, given the mothers drug history, CPS may have been involved with this family since his birth. The drug history, a sick baby and reports of domestic violence may have been why they wanted to take the baby away. Not all foster families are bad and when they are they are the ones we hear about. It seems to me that removing the child under the circumstances was warranted. I would be very concerned about a grandchild of mine living under those conditions and want them somewhere safe. We don't know the full story so it's very hard to make judgements. It is not easy to remove a child from their parents in spite of what you have heard. They must have a very good reason. Foster homes are short and if the child had and medical issues it is even harder to place them in medical foster care. I have seen first hand where CPS has been involved in situations and they allow the child to remain even when it seems obvious that the children are in a dangerous situation. I guess we all have different perspective when it comes to these things. Some think they act too quickly, others think they are too slow when it comes to removing a child from their home. As I said, since I don't know the full story when it comes to the drug usage and living conditions I am going to assume that CPS had a good reason to take the child.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DairyGirl For This Useful Post:
  #25  
Old 07-19-2009, 12:00 AM
CHICANA's Avatar
CHICANA CHICANA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by DairyGirl View Post
I just want to bring up that in the pictures on the mothers MySpace it looked like the baby was hooked up to oxygen and monitors. It was hard to tell because the pictures were very small but it did seem the baby had problems at birth. If that was the case, given the mothers drug history, CPS may have been involved with this family since his birth. The drug history, a sick baby and reports of domestic violence may have been why they wanted to take the baby away. Not all foster families are bad and when they are they are the ones we hear about. It seems to me that removing the child under the circumstances was warranted. I would be very concerned about a grandchild of mine living under those conditions and want them somewhere safe. We don't know the full story so it's very hard to make judgements. It is not easy to remove a child from their parents in spite of what you have heard. They must have a very good reason. Foster homes are short and if the child had and medical issues it is even harder to place them in medical foster care. I have seen first hand where CPS has been involved in situations and they allow the child to remain even when it seems obvious that the children are in a dangerous situation. I guess we all have different perspective when it comes to these things. Some think they act too quickly, others think they are too slow when it comes to removing a child from their home. As I said, since I don't know the full story when it comes to the drug usage and living conditions I am going to assume that CPS had a good reason to take the child.
We don't know why or for how long they've been involved with CPS. It's pure speculation that the child had medical issues at all, much less because of drug use. He could have had some minor issues related to child birth for all we know.
He looks perfectly healthy to me, even large for his age, in his recent photos. If the child hasn't been abused , the state should stay out of it IMO.
In spite of what you've heard, it is very easy to remove a child from their parents. They don't have to have a good reason, they can make one up.
I can't assume there is a good reason to take a child from his parents who love him when there aren't even any accusations of abuse.

To me it makes no sense. LE --"we have no reason to believe the father would hurt his child", yet CPS wants to take him anyway.
CPS violates it's own laws, as the Texas Supreme Court determined when they wrongly took over 400 children in the FLDS raid.
According to the constitution, parents have a fundamental right to raise their children without government interference.
The law states that a child should be at immediate risk of serious physical harm or death in order to take him from his parents.
Not because he lives in a dirty house or because his parents fight in front of him. While his parents are young and dumb now, they might be stellar citizens in a few years when their pre-frontal cortex's are fully developed. How are they going to recover from losing their child who they love ? Their child, given to them by God and taken from them by the government. And studies show that children raised in foster care are more likely to do drugs and wind up in prison than children who are raised by their less than perfect bio parents.

Please read this and know that it's happening all over and all the time.
THE CORRUPT BUSINESS OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
BY: Nancy Schaefer
Senator, 50th District

http://fightcps.com/2008/02/29/repor...ps-corruption/

I'm editing to correct my entire statement about the baby looking healthy and large for his age. LE showed us a pic of the wrong baby. LOL. I have no idea what this child lookes like now.

Last edited by CHICANA; 07-19-2009 at 12:40 AM. Reason: add-
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Found Deceased Canada - Andrew Koenig, Vancouver British Columbia 14 Feb 2010 -Growing Pains Actor WhyaDuck? Located Forum Discussion 183 12-31-2010 11:15 AM
Found Alive IL-AMBER ALERT: Delfino Sierra Jr., 6 months, & Judith Sierra, 1, Moline, 5 July 2009 SheWhoMustNotBeNamed Located! Information and Support 4 07-05-2009 10:36 PM


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:55 AM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!