Government Seizes Newborn Baby Over Political Beliefs Of Parents

irishdocPaul Joseph Watson for PrisonPlanet:

A newborn baby was ripped from its mother’s arms by officials from the New Hampshire Division of Family Child Services accompanied by police after authorities cited the parents’ association with the Oath Keepers organization as one of the primary reasons for the snatch, heralding a shocking new level of persecution where Americans’ political beliefs are now being used by the state to kidnap children.

[more at PrisonPlanet]

, , , , , ,

  • Other Mr. T

    I think the keywords in that last sentence are “militia” and “rifle, shotgun and taser”, in a household with a baby. Surprising, I don’t know much about “oath keepers”, but according to their own webpages it’s not a “militia”, but a political organizing group for Bill of Rights and civil liberties issues for active military and law enforcement. Even more surprisingly, there’s a C.P.S. type agency “Family Child Services” in N.H.?!? The “live free or die” state, who knew? Could it be an over-reaction of delusionally paranoid social workers power-tripping to delusionally paranoid “patriot” type who may have missed an anger management class titled “Ending the Violence with Scott Hampton” – read the order, 3rd paragraph ? The only remotely political thing about this matter seems to be a misrepresentation of the “oath keepers” as a “militia” in an official document/order. Am I missing something here ? Hope that baby is ok and a good foster home.

  • Other Mr. T

    I think the keywords in that last sentence are “militia” and “rifle, shotgun and taser”, in a household with a baby. Surprising, I don’t know much about “oath keepers”, but according to their own webpages it’s not a “militia”, but a political organizing group for Bill of Rights and civil liberties issues for active military and law enforcement. Even more surprisingly, there’s a C.P.S. type agency “Family Child Services” in N.H.?!? The “live free or die” state, who knew? Could it be an over-reaction of delusionally paranoid social workers power-tripping to delusionally paranoid “patriot” type who may have missed an anger management class titled “Ending the Violence with Scott Hampton” – read the order, 3rd paragraph ? The only remotely political thing about this matter seems to be a misrepresentation of the “oath keepers” as a “militia” in an official document/order. Am I missing something here ? Hope that baby is ok and a good foster home.

  • Nano Thermite Bitches

    Other Mr. T.
    So you believe the state has a right to steal the children of people acting within their constitutional rights? The right to bear arms is still on the books last time I checked. All of your made up ad hominem assumptions are sourced where again? Nowhere? Thought so. So I guess anyone who wants to protect their homestead should not be allowed to safeguard themselves or the most vulnerable of their family from any intruders on their property? This will enable them to pass their “anger management” classes that YOU brought up (and having originated from your asshole). I just don’t understand some people in this world.

    I pity the fool Other Mr. T. I pity the fool.

    • Other Mr. T

      Dear Nano Thermite Bitches, I brought this matter up with my wife, who is a social work post grad here in NYC, who bounced it off her classmates who are agency caseworkers and practicing therapists and we’re waiting to hear back from her professors for additional comments. She is very suspicious of the vaguely wordered document (order / afadavit ) posted online. It refers to ‘neglect petitions’, (who filed those ?, ordinarily parties are named in such documents) ‘termination of parental rights trial that recently concluded’ in regards to Ms. Taylor’s other 2 children, (see point 5 in doc) it concludes that ‘they are awaiting orders on the matter’. In other words, it’s unclear whether Ms. Taylor has been judged ‘unfit’ by the court. The reason this matters is because no one we asked has ever heard of a case where a newborn has been forcibly removed from parents custody at the hospital, so soon after birth (a highly traumatic action) without going through all points of something called ‘advocacy process protocol’, an elaborate checklist where taking the child by force is the very last step. The only time, one case worker remembers a similar action had been taken, is when the mother was incarcerated while giving birth and a suitable foster family couldn’t be found at the time.

      There are a lot of things still unclear to us: is there a warrant for Mr. Irish’s arrest currently, has he ever been convicted of violent felony crime(s). Was Ms. Taylor incarcerated at the time she gave birth, have either of them been judged ‘unfit’? Are Ms. Taylor’s other 2 children still in her custody?

      Having stated all this, I’ll conclude by admitting that it does look suspiciously like a breach of advocacy process protocol, so far. Especially, if the baby was removed from their custody, while the older kids remained in her custody.

      We are making the social workers union reps aware of this matter to inquire on behalf of Cheyenne (baby) Taylor with the national union reps.

      New Hampshire was up to this point reputed as a state with least intrusive state government, what exactly prompted this is still unclear. I hope this isn’t a ‘test case’ of the recent Supreme Court Case ruling pertaining to 1st or 2nd amendments. We will be consulting with union lawyers regarding the matter.

      In the meanwhile I hope Ms. Cheyenne Taylor is PROMPTLY placed in custody of ‘fit’ family members or relations to Mr. Irish or Ms. Taylor.

  • Nano Thermite Bitches

    Other Mr. T.
    So you believe the state has a right to steal the children of people acting within their constitutional rights? The right to bear arms is still on the books last time I checked. All of your made up ad hominem assumptions are sourced where again? Nowhere? Thought so. So I guess anyone who wants to protect their homestead should not be allowed to safeguard themselves or the most vulnerable of their family from any intruders on their property? This will enable them to pass their “anger management” classes that YOU brought up (and having originated from your asshole). I just don’t understand some people in this world.

    I pity the fool Other Mr. T. I pity the fool.

  • Andrew

    One the one hand I totally support children being taken from their parents for psychological reasons at an exponentially larger rate than they are now, but on the other hand I seriously doubt the government’s going to teach them to be either compassionate or critical thinkers.

    • russ

      Oh yeah, let’s take children from their parents. And do what with them? Send them to you so that you can raise them? Or send them to an organization that you approve of, but funded by the rest of us?

      • Andrew

        Money is a legal creation, the sole value of which is subjective, so the organization–either a psychologically healthy foster family or an orphanage run by psychologists–wouldn’t need to be paid for by tax dollars. A young human being’s right to a healthy and safe environment to grow in far supersedes their parents’ “rights” to do whatever they want to them.

  • Andrew

    One the one hand I totally support children being taken from their parents for psychological reasons at an exponentially larger rate than they are now, but on the other hand I seriously doubt the government’s going to teach them to be either compassionate or critical thinkers.

  • russ

    Oh yeah, let’s take children from their parents. And do what with them? Send them to you so that you can raise them? Or send them to an organization that you approve of, but funded by the rest of us?

  • Andrew

    Money is a legal creation, the sole value of which is subjective, so the organization–either a psychologically healthy foster family or an orphanage run by psychologists–wouldn’t need to be paid for by tax dollars. A young human being’s right to a healthy and safe environment to grow in far supersedes their parents’ “rights” to do whatever they want to them.

  • nick__nick

    i seriously doubt that PRISON PLANET is an unbalanced source put up by mentally stable individuals…story seems like it’s missing a few things. not buying the hype

  • Anonymous

    i seriously doubt that PRISON PLANET is an unbalanced source put up by mentally stable individuals…story seems like it’s missing a few things. not buying the hype

  • Other Mr. T

    Dear Nano Thermite Bitches, I brought this matter up with my wife, who is a social work post grad here in NYC, who bounced it off her classmates who are agency caseworkers and practicing therapists and we’re waiting to hear back from her professors for additional comments. She is very suspicious of the vaguely wordered document (order / afadavit ) posted online. It refers to ‘neglect petitions’, (who filed those ?, ordinarily parties are named in such documents) ‘termination of parental rights trial that recently concluded’ in regards to Ms. Taylor’s other 2 children, (see point 5 in doc) it concludes that ‘they are awaiting orders on the matter’. In other words, it’s unclear whether Ms. Taylor has been judged ‘unfit’ by the court. The reason this matters is because no one we asked has ever heard of a case where a newborn has been forcibly removed from parents custody at the hospital, so soon after birth (a highly traumatic action) without going through all points of something called ‘advocacy process protocol’, an elaborate checklist where taking the child by force is the very last step. The only time, one case worker remembers a similar action had been taken, is when the mother was incarcerated while giving birth and a suitable foster family couldn’t be found at the time.

    There are a lot of things still unclear to us: is there a warrant for Mr. Irish’s arrest currently, has he ever been convicted of violent felony crime(s). Was Ms. Taylor incarcerated at the time she gave birth, have either of them been judged ‘unfit’? Are Ms. Taylor’s other 2 children still in her custody?

    Having stated all this, I’ll conclude by admitting that it does look suspiciously like a breach of advocacy process protocol, so far. Especially, if the baby was removed from their custody, while the older kids remained in her custody.

    We are making the social workers union reps aware of this matter to inquire on behalf of Cheyenne (baby) Taylor with the national union reps.

    New Hampshire was up to this point reputed as a state with least intrusive state government, what exactly prompted this is still unclear. I hope this isn’t a ‘test case’ of the recent Supreme Court Case ruling pertaining to 1st or 2nd amendments. We will be consulting with union lawyers regarding the matter.

    In the meanwhile I hope Ms. Cheyenne Taylor is PROMPTLY placed in custody of ‘fit’ family members or relations to Mr. Irish or Ms. Taylor.

21