Finally one of the sovcits is noticed by CPS. : insanepeoplefacebook

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 112 points 2 years ago

Oh so they recognize a lawyer’s authority.

[-] PunnyName@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago

See. This is a great point.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 97 points 2 years ago

My advice is to fucking vaccinate your children

[+] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 69 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] 69420@lemmy.world 71 points 2 years ago

So nobody knows the mother is smoking meth.

[-] BobGnarley@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

While this is true to a point it is very fucked up that for job interviews and things like that they have to extract fluids from you and test them.

That SHOULD be against our 4th amendment rights in the USA.

For childbirth it's a bit different, because a child is involved. But I can't blame them for wanting consent for something that really shouldn't even be legal to do at all.

[-] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 23 points 2 years ago

The government now have your baby's DNA for cloning.

/s

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago

There are certain religions with stigma around blood. Not saying it’s a good reason but it’s not uncommon.

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Everything should require consent. I’ve had too many medical “professionals” fuck things up.

[-] BobGnarley@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

I agree with you on this. We are supposed to have rights.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 42 points 2 years ago

Yes, that sounds like something the NICU would lie about. "We didn't like them, so we didn't get their legal consent."

[-] Xaphanos@lemmy.world 43 points 2 years ago

I read this as that they gave written, legal NON-consent, then verbally backtracked. The hospital had paperwork one way and none the other. Of course they followed the paperwork.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago

Presumably something about the Hospital having a fringe on the flag in the lobby had something to do with it.

[-] medgremlin@midwest.social 15 points 2 years ago

Medical professional giving my two cents here: physicians and healthcare providers are allowed, and in some cases even required, to disregard the expressed, voiced, or even written wishes of the parent if the parent's wishes would endanger the child's life. The classic example is with Jehovah's Witnesses: if a child of a Jehovah's Witness is getting surgery or suffered an injury with significant blood loss, the child will be given life-saving blood transfusions irrespective of the parents' religious beliefs or wishes.

This is not a breach of informed consent taken lightly, but physicians and other medical professionals will ignore what the parents did or did not consent to if it means that the child or vulnerable adult would die or suffer grievous harm otherwise.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 2 years ago

This is good news.

[-] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

Can someone help with my reading comprehension here? The person had a letter to deny healthcare for the children but said yes to healthcare for themselves?

At first I read it as the person gave them the letter saying no re healthcare for children, but when asked verbally said yes for the same.

[-] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

That's what seems to have happened yeah.

[-] braxy29@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

it looks like this person wanted to be consulted before any care/treatment was provided to their children. when asked, they agreed to suggested care.

it looks like there is an error in their post. i do not read their statement to mean they accepted care for their own self and not for their children.

[-] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

But if they agreed to the suggested care in the end, why were child protective services called?

[-] braxy29@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

the letter doesn't say, and the reporter may or may not have had good reason. we don't know based on the information provided.

the fact that a report was made does not inherently mean that abuse or neglect was taking place, only that someone reported concern. the fact that the report is being investigated does not mean that abuse or neglect was taking place, only that someone with CPS agreed to open a case based on what they were told.

i could call CPS and say that you are abusing a child or other vulnerable person, provide enough information about you and a plausible concern (in theory at least, whether it's based in fact or not), and CPS could choose to follow up on that report. i can make this report and they can investigate regardless of whether there is any actual evidence of abuse or neglect.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

It's entirely possible that the one who reported her "misunderstood" (aka lied). However if she didn't sign anything granting permission then it wouldn't be a lie.

Alternatively they may have a policy where antivaxers with other children are automatically red flagged.

[-] MehBlah@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

One consistent thing about sovcit garbage is their ability to leave out relevant things when talking about how much a victim they are. I'm sure there is more to their actions than what is described that lead the hospital staff to alert CPS.

Edit: My personal experience with a NICU makes this response no surprise at all. My son was premature and while we were there the father of a teenage girl who had a baby there came in to the NICU and started getting loud about unplugging the baby. He was quickly escorted out by Hospital security and arrested. They take no chances in that kind of environment.

InsanePeopleFacebook