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 kidsâ€”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 meningitisâ€”a life-threatening disease....
Kidnapping isn't just an analogy. Check out the medical section at parentalrights.org. Disagreement with a doctor is a prime way to have your kids stolen. Even disagreements btwn doctors can get kids stolen. Do as the "experts" say and don't ask a lot of questions.
Just thinking wrote: Possible mother is illegal. Going to the hospital could cause issues. Bigger issue- Where did the idea come from that children belong to the state? If they do, then what country do we live in? If they don't, then why isn't the state guilty of kidnapping?
I agree! What many cultures have done is make parenting synonymous with babysitting. I remember Hillaryâ€™s famous quote that â€śit takes a villageâ€ť. She was serious and that is the trend of our country.
Something is fishy about this. This whole situation- the fact that in the end all of the children were taken away- could have maybe been solved with clear communication. Why didn't the mom just tell the doctor they weren't going to the hospital? The article made it seem like she then told the doctor she would go to the hospital, but then she never showed up. I assume it's standard protocol for hospitals and police to respond if they're expecting a sick child who never shows up. Also, why didn't the parents communicate with the police for the hours they were outside their door? Or if they did communicate (the article makes it seem like they didn't), why didn't they call an attorney? Just reading the article makes it seem like this whole situation could have been avoided. There could be more to the story. Poor children.
By the way Chris G P from England, did the article say what type of family they were? The only thing I noticed about the family in the article was the neighbor labeling the mom as a "good mother". I get your point though.
I have seen this happen before, when a godly Christian family had a baby â€śconfiscatedâ€ť simply because they took it to the doctor and decided they wanted a second opinion. The physicians are not as concerned for the welfare of the children as they are for the preservation of their own status as gods.
Perhaps what these parents should have done to avoid the SWAT team and Social Services seizing their children, is to have brought them up as Muslims, (as these seem to be a protected group that are immune from this over zealous child protectionism), or to have declared that their children were â€śtrapped in the wrong bodyâ€ť, and should be affirmed as the opposite sex, or to get their boy to be a child drag queen, or perhaps their daughter to stand outside the school on strike with a banner proclaiming support for the environment and challenging â€śclimate changeâ€ť.
This would get them acclaim and they would be lauded, no doubt, on the media. I am being facetious of course, but this shows where we have got to.
This shows the depth of depravity of our society, and how far away we are from the Lord.