Child Services Can't Remove Kids for Parental Medical Marijuana Use, Court Says

[terminalc]

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/12/court_child_services_cant_remo.php

I can't believe this happened to begin with. The government is on a slippery slope getting involved in families like that. You have the right to defend you and yours. If someone entered a house intending to take a cared for and loved child from its parents, i would consider that terrorism. We all know what A-merica does to terrorists!

 

[Sat X RB]

America is the biggest terrorist of all. ask Nicaragua for example.

but just goes to show how up themselves some people in authority are.

we got busted small time when we had kids and the local primary school teacher reported our kids living in an unsafe environment.

fuck off do gooders!

 

[Rainman]

Keep it real gents. As a social worker for a county I can tell that you have no clue what a terrorist is. I have seen parents who have put out their cigs on the babys backs or havent changed the kids diaper for days, etc. Who is protecting the kids when the parents are the monsters?? Growing pot with small children does pose many unsafe challenges but counties are not going to remove a child unless substantiated neglect or abuse is confirmed by more than one person. Reason being is most counties have adopted some form of MMJ acknowledgment. All cps issues are county based just like the MMJ laws currently. Most times a social worker wont ask about MMJ unless there is clear evidence of danger to the child. ie lighters/bongs laying around, chems easily accessible to a child, herb within reach of the child, is your grow room locked, etc.

The teacher is a mandated reporter and had to report anything she feels was cause for concern as it could have cost her her job and much more if the child in question ended up hurt or dead. Has nothing to do with authority and everything to do with protecting children. But please keep reeling against the evil government and its lazy minions.

 

[dddaver]

Uh..wait..or not. Whatever. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Do you really believe the state should have this judgmental power that you seem to think is good? I can site just as many abuses by the state, probably more actually, way more, than you can site of verifiable parental abuse. But that is NOT the issue presented. Hijacking to voice your own opinion should be a violation, actually I think it does violate the TOU.

 

[SeaMaiden]

Keep it real gents. As a social worker for a county I can tell that you have no clue what a terrorist is. I have seen parents who have put out their cigs on the babys backs or havent changed the kids diaper for days, etc. Who is protecting the kids when the parents are the monsters?? Growing pot with small children does pose many unsafe challenges but counties are not going to remove a child unless substantiated neglect or abuse is confirmed by more than one person. Reason being is most counties have adopted some form of MMJ acknowledgment. All cps issues are county based just like the MMJ laws currently. Most times a social worker wont ask about MMJ unless there is clear evidence of danger to the child. ie lighters/bongs laying around, chems easily accessible to a child, herb within reach of the child, is your grow room locked, etc.

I just read this article and they're stating very clearly that DCFS's claims were unsubstantiated, that they went after the father and based their claims solely on his status as a medical cannabis user. They drug tested him, guess what he came up positive for.

The teacher is a mandated reporter and had to report anything she feels was cause for concern as it could have cost her her job and much more if the child in question ended up hurt or dead. Has nothing to do with authority and everything to do with protecting children. But please keep reeling against the evil government and its lazy minions.

This child, at the time of the reporting, was 14mo. Far too young to be under the supervision of a teacher. The article stated that the report against Paul M. was made anonymously, and supposes that perhaps this person didn't like his marijuana use at all. This jives 100% with what I've come up against where I currently live.

DCFS failed in this case, completely and totally. Let's make the article easier for everyone to access and read. I'm reposting here.

A toddler is back in the unsupervised care of his Southern California father after an appeals court ruled that the state cannot remove a child from their home because the parent uses medical marijuana.

The boy, who was 14 months old at the time, became a ward of the court in 2011 after the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services -- acting on an anonymous tip -- discovered his father is a medical marijuana user.

Despite testifying that the boy, Drake M. (last names in family law cases are redacted) was fed and well-cared for and the father, Paul M., was gainfully employed, the local DFCS argued that Paul's medical marijuana use meant he was caring for his child while stoned and that Drake was at serious risk of harm.

A lower court agreed. Only after appealing his case -- in which no record of drug abuse or neglect to the child was presented -- to a higher court did Paul M. get his son back.

Drake, who turned 2 in August 2010, was referred to DFCS in May 2011 by someone who disliked his dad's marijuana habits. It should be noted that only Drake's mother had a history of drug abuse and run-ins with DFCS, not his father.

However, that initially did not work in his favor. Social workers who visited the home noted that Paul M. used marijuana to alleviate knee pain, which helped him work as a concrete mason. He did not smoke in front of his child, and waited at least four hours after using marijuana to pick Drake up from day care.

Paul had a valid recommendation from a physician for his marijuana, and submitted to DFCS drug testing. Not surprisingly, the testing came up positive for marijuana.

Although there was no evidence of harm or wrongdoing to Drake, a trial court ruled in October 2011 that Paul needed to undergo substance abuse and parental classes in addition to drug testing. He would also have to submit to further DFCS supervision to determine if he'd be able to keep his child.

Had DCFS been able to prove that Drake was at risk of harm or had suffered any harm, or that Paul "abused" -- not "used" -- drugs, the ruling would have stood. But on appeal, the lower court's findings on Paul's parental ability were tossed.

First, the difference between "use" and "abuse." Simply put, drug abuse is use that interferes with life or work or causes harm to others, like a child. A bad hangover that causes someone to miss work? That's drug abuse that's not illegal -- and possibly not quite enough for DFCS to get involved.

"DCFS needed only to provide sufficient evidence that father was a substance abuser in order for dependency jurisdiction to be properly found," the court wrote. "DCFS failed to do so."

Second, Paul testified that he never used marijuana in front of Drake, and that while he was smoking in his garage, Drake was in care of another parent or sibling or at day care. The appeals court also noted that there's no impairment limit for marijuana in the Vehicle Code; ergo, merely having used marijuana sometime in the day is not proof of impairment (in contrast to states like Washington, which thanks to legalization measure I-502 now has a controversial impairment statute on the books). Therefore, last week the court ruled Paul does not need DFCS supervision and does not need drug and parental counseling.

What may prove most worrisome to medical marijuana users and advocates was that a complaint was initiated at all -- and that a lower court took DFCS's claims, which were not supported by data or fact, that Drake was at risk solely because his father had a recommendation to use cannabis.

That Paul stood up and fought back is the only reason why DFCS is not looking over his shoulder.

I'm sure, based on direct experience, both in LA and adjacent counties as well as where I locally reside, that DCFS can't have too difficult a time finding real abuse and neglect to fill their time, instead of going after Prop215 patients based solely on their status as a patient.

 

[OneTokeOver]

If we hadn't been conned into giving up our rights to our children when we register the birth certificate we would be able to defned them. As it stands, they come to get their children.

 

[dddaver]

Thanks Maiden. Cooler heads prevail once again. Toughmudder is one lucky dude (I think he knows it too).

 

[Rainman]

All of the notions based in the posts are of a single incident out of how many that each county handles on a daily basis. The child should not have been removed to begin was not what im talking about here. It is the overranging idea that your government is out to get you. Each county handles thousands of reports each month and all are "anonymous" for obvious reasons to the person being accused. So how did the paper know this pot using dads accuser didnt like his lifestyle? If it determined that the accusation was done out of spite then the accuser can face charges since their information is always collected during the initial call and it cost the county alot of money to investigate bogus allegations.

ddaver - I dare you to show us anywhere close the numbers of abuses of powers by the countys/state vs what parents do to their children each day. You have no idea what you are talking about, so yeah prolly better if you dont try to hijak the thread. Cooler heads?


sea maidn - The child was old enuff to be in a daycare and guess what, they are mandated reporters as well. Also based on the CPS parental record, of which the father is tied to, the dcs had to be as thorough as possible. The mother was a conformed drug user and had a history of cps referrals, this means that cps was concerned with what is called "failure to protect". Is the father protecting the child from the mother's behaviors or part of the environment that produced the referrals. In doing the investigation do you leave the child in the home? Where are investigations done this way. Do we leave rape victims with rapists while evidence is being gathered?

Onetoke - Dont even know how to respond to that rambling soooooo......

All I know is if the article had been about the child dying then everyone of you would be screaming how DCS isnt doin shit to help the kids and all us lazy government workers are just stealin tax dollars! Cant have it both ways people.

Love your kids dont beat them and the mean old big government wont coma a knockin folks.

 

[SeaMaiden]

Rainman, are you asserting that the daycare was who was responsible for reporting this man's "abuse" or "neglect" of his child? There was nothing in the article or anything associated that I can find that indicates as much. CPS didn't remove the child from mother's care, they removed him from father's care. There is nothing that's saying that DCFS's issue was with father's "failure to protect", nothing at all.

Chances are there is a transcript of the originating report, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is in court records. That is my assumption of how the reporting agency(ies) came to the conclusion that the person who reported this man didn't like his cannabis use.

I have known of many, many instances where an investigation is being performed and children are left in the home. I'm not directly involved in CPS or DCFS, but I have been involved in many childrens' lives, not just those of my own children. I have a wee bit of experience from another side, a slightly different perspective, in that my husband and I have taken in children (outside the foster system, on our own or in agreement with their parents) who DCFS or CPS should have been (more) interested in, especially when you have other adults confirming abuses or neglect.

Comparing a medical cannabis user to a rapist goes beyond the pale, the notion is ridiculous and frankly borders on insulting. Children are left in the home with alcoholic and neglectful parents all the time, they're not automatically removed during an investigation, and I know this from direct experience. Just as often, if they're removed they may be returned, you know this is true just as I know this is true. Either way, they should not be removed unless evidence is found, and none was in this case.

I get what you're saying about the general anti-government consensus, but I'm talking about this specific instance. I have good reason to pay attention to these legal issues, and they colored how I handled my cannabis use and my kids when they were children. Now that I'm a grandmother I still have very good reason to pay attention--what if someone decides that just because I took a few hits off my joint that I'm a danger to my grandchild? The child I cared for, for almost a full year, as though it were my own child? What would have happened to that child, and our family, then?

With regards to my own kids (one is a Touretter whose tics are clearly, noticeably diminished after just one hit), had I known what it had to offer, many things would have been different in our lives. But, I wasn't just afraid, I was petrified. Just as anywhere else, there are good and bad within the governmental architecture and in my opinion whoever went after this man qualifies as 'the bad.'

 

[dddaver]

I'm not about to argue with some guy so brainwashed he thinks he knows all the answers to everything in life, while meanwhile missing the forest in spite of the trees. If you want to argue I suggest you find as mirror. Audi 5000. Have fun creeper!

 

[Harry Gypsna]

A friend of mine has just had to test clean for months to get custody of his son from an abusive mother...Months in foster care, and he still hasn't got full custody, only an interim arrangement. If he fails a hair test(not totally clean but must be below a certain level) between now and the court date, then his lad goes back to the foster mum(who is a lovely person and cared for the baby brilliantly)
Over here a couple of weeks ago, a couple had their foster child removed because they were members of a political party(UKIP).

 

[Hydro-Soil]

Keep it real gents. As a social worker for a county I can tell that you have no clue what a terrorist is. I have seen parents who have put out their cigs on the babys backs or havent changed the kids diaper for days, etc. Who is protecting the kids when the parents are the monsters?? Growing pot with small children does pose many unsafe challenges but counties are not going to remove a child unless substantiated neglect or abuse is confirmed by more than one person.

Great... have you also seen the 10:1 ratio of families wrongly destroyed by social workers? In the name of "protecting the kids".

I have.

Not saying all social workers in the child protective system are morons... but I'm saying I've run into more than my share and MOST of them really have no idea what consequences their actions are causing.

Can't even count the number times I've seen families destroyed. Not mostly over cannabis either... just stupid crap.

Yes... I've seen a few situations where it was great that someone stepped in. Not enough to warrant the current system though. Education programs would do much better in the long run. Wow.

Stay AWAY from socialists!

Stay Safe!

 

[Rainman]

Seamaiden - What im saying is the article doesnt have the facts since it is always confidential information when the agency gets the call. Especially since it came from a blogr named "tha Snitch!!"!! Not even a real story I would assume.That information never leaves the agency and does not even make it into court reports/police reports. Only way to make people feel secure about reporting what they see without fear of retribution. If it is found that a case is based off lies and false information the info is then passed on to police to have the say so in going after the accuser.

Again SM you have experience in the system but not as part of it. Any chilc left in the home during an investigsation is done so after the social worker has determined that the child is not in any immediate danger. The reason is that the level of neglect does not go to such a level to remove. This is done in cases where a child has missed weeks of school, lives in a dirty/filthy home, there are some parenting issues that need to be worked on, etc... In those types of cases the neglect is not so severe as to remove and parents are offered support in fixing what is going on. I did not compare rapists and MMJ users although good try in trying to go there. I was comparing victims. In this case kids and rape victims. As someone involved in the system on some level you there are times when it absolutely is comparable since many of the kids in question are actually rape victims! Now when it comes to children being removed and the returned again it is at the level where the child is in immediate danger, right now. If the parent corrects the defeciency then the child is given back. A parents who has 200 dogs living in their doublewide creates a immediate and direct danger to the child and would need to be removed. Remove the dogs and clean up a bit and yes the child would be returned. I personally handled a case like this a few weeks ago. Yes it was over 200 dogs!

If you are paying attention then you also know that 99% of those in the field are doing a job they love cause they love kids, they dont make shit($), and rarely have authority issues. They simply want to help kids be safe. You also know that they are horribly overworked and abuses being directed at kids are only resolved if people stay involved and paying attention. And lastly you and I both know that 98% of those with MMJ cards have no medical need for it at all and simply want to avoid prosecution by leo.

I would ask you this though, say you hit that joint and then(heaven forbid) you dropped you grandbaby or gave him the wrong meds?? Are you not a danger to the child? What if you just took a nap and let the kid run around unsupervised for a lil while? So many grey areas with all this and most have not been resolved by entities involved in making the laws on both sides.

ddave - Still here? Since I have over 20 years in the field of social work and advanced degrees to go with that exp, i wouldnt say I know everything in life, just more than you on this subject. Audi 500 and creeper?? Who are you? Young MC? One of the fatboys?

Harry - I would presume that there is history with the dad as well that may not be known to you. Hair testing is usually done when there is history of drug test tampering/diluted urine since the hair test is so much more expensive to countys. It sounds like from what you have given me(could be wrong) that both parents in this situation are having issues. So who decides? Does the child go to drug using dad or abusive mom or proven foster parent? Tough choices for anyone to make. Now as for UKIP it is basically the Tea party for Great B. They dont believe in same sex marriage, want to expel foreigners, increase military, ban gay adoptions, etc... Dont know why anyone would be threatened by party affiliation except for just having bad taste!! Just kidding!!! Dont get the knickers in a bunch!!


Hydo - 10 to 1 in destoying families? You know not what you speak of my friend. Sorry but you know that isnt true like most people reading that post. But way to stoke the illogical fire of bad cps workers out to get your kids. Cause you know we social workers are always in a hurry to get involved in families over "stupid crap". If you have cps at your door man, its not for stupid crap. You have no idea how the system works or how hard it is to actually remove a child if that is truely were your head is at. Your obvious dislike for Obama has corrupted your logical thinking on this and prolly many other issues. Education programs? Unfornately anyone can have a baby and you dont need a class to do it. Maybe some folks do but most people that we deal with have the education to keep making abys even when they dont have the resources or tools to care for said children. How do you fix that with a class?

Im off today guys so I can do this all day!! Lovin the discussion!!

 

[greenmatter]

nothing is as simple as it should be is it? CPS (like anyone or anything) is gonna drop the ball on occasion and when they do it will be public knowledge.

IMHO this is a case of pure political fuckery and a perfect example of the misuse of power, but the "we were looking out for the kid" card will be pulled ......... which naturally will lead to doubting CPS even more. now IMHO they could have admitted to fucking up, given the kid back and learned from the mistake ......... but that is usually not the case with government agencies is it? ....... and they wonder why we don't trust them

THERE ARE CASES WHERE CPS IS NEEDED ........ and in those cases i am glad they are there, but when you do good things in this country it does not make the front page.

gotta be a fucked up job to do every day Rainman .......... there is no way i could handle it.

that said ......... don't you think what was done in this case was truly fucked up? this is like the cop giving you a ticket for bald tires a bad blinker and a dirty windshield because you DON'T have any weed in your car

showing someone "who is in charge" because you can is not the way to earn trust or respect ......... and IMHO that is what went on here

 

[Rainman]

GM - You are right on most of what you say here. Yes there are times when a huge statewide entity fucks up. I assume everyone here has a job and at one point did something they shouldnt have. Is it 10 to 1? Hell no? The story is made to charge up the reader and get people mad. Problem is that the source is just a guy on his computer. I have helped kids my whole life and love the job. Not because someone is gonna write a story about a kid I pulled from a home where their mom was selling the 4 year old for sex so she could get high, but because that kid isnt in that hell anymore. Of course you go into the job knowing that your mistakes will always be front page news and your only gage for real success will come from kids who are grown and write you a letter of thanks for what you did for them. That is why we do this. Making a diff one child at a time.

As for the cops, I have gotten a ticket in the county I work for from cops I have sat in court with on the same team. So got nuthin for ya on that front.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

Love your kids dont beat them and the mean old big government wont coma a knockin folks.

You live in a fairy-land.

Stay Safe!

 

[Hydro-Soil]

Cause you know we social workers are always in a hurry to get involved in families over "stupid crap".

Uhmm... no, but the difference between reality and life as they see it has been staggering. Way too many times that I've seen.

If you have cps at your door man, its not for stupid crap.

LOL... Has been, nearly every time in the experience of my family. The only time it wasn't was due to outright fabrications by a family member... for reasons I still have yet to figure out. *shrug* I'm still persecuted to this day for it though.

You must live in white-collar america.

Stay Safe!

 

[Rainman]

I was gonna tear apart each of your seperate responses but since you seem to medicated, ill just refer you to any number of my responses where I said I was a social worker. No white collar and no fairy tale land here. If you have had this happen or seen this happen to your friends so many times to count, it might be time to change your lifestyle buddy. Maybe get a better class of friends and push away from the bong for a few weeks and re-evaluate some things. Im pretty old and can count on one hand the number of times cps has shown up at my door or my friends(all over the usa). Just sayin.

You try to stay safe I will try to stay employed.

 

[Banefoul]

real simple state county fed needs to keep the fuck out of family as long as no one is being harmed! and growing cannabis is NOT harm!

 

[Rainman]

Baneful - Very informative and precise argument you got goin there. Albeit one persons very narrow opinion on a wide ranging and complicated issue. Never mind about you being banned, ima big boy ;-)

Makes me wonder what your definition of harmed is.