California CPS kidnaps Russian baby

[GQBlues]

All pertinent information? Where is the info that CPS got a court order? Earlier, I was assuming you writing down facts about this case but if you read the attorney's website, he quotes an ex-CPS investigator who said 99% of the time CPS investigators go to a house without a court order and the cops are there only for the CPS worker's protection, not because they were directed to be there by a court order.

While this may very from state-to-state, they must all fall under the federal law guidelines, which in this case DHS (not homeland security)....
 
http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,4562,7-124-7119_50648_7194-159484--,00.html
 
Court Petitions :
 
If necessary to ensure a child's safety, CPS may file a petition with the court requesting that the court order any of the following:
 

• The family to cooperate with in-home services.
• Removal of the perpetrator from the home.
• Removal of the child from the home.

CPS cannot remove a child from the home without a court order. The court may deny the petition, including the request for removal.
 
A CPS worker's presence in anyone's home doesn't necessarily mean a removal of a child. It may well be investigative work. It may well be a follow-up for the previous order of the court, etc...so yes, your Googled attorney's statement may be correct that 99% of these homes visitation doesn't mean a child removal. How much exactly, who knows...
 
Are you refuting that supporting statement from YOUR link I posted? I noticed you didn't say anything about it.

[BillyB]

If necessary to ensure a child's safety, CPS may file a petition with the court requesting that the court order any of the following:
 

• The family to cooperate with in-home services.
• Removal of the perpetrator from the home.
• Removal of the child from the home.

GQ, it says they may file a petition with the court to remove a child from a home. It doesn't say they "must" do that to remove a child from a home. Big difference.


CPS investigators may not want to take the time and trouble getting a court order so they try their luck hoping the parents volunteer giving up their kids. Most of the time parents give up their child thinking the cops are there to make sure it happens when all the cops are there for is to protect the CPS investigator as noted in the attorney's website.

[GQBlues]

GQ, it says they may file a petition with the court to remove a child from a home. It doesn't say they "must" do that to remove a child from a home. Big difference....

...CPS cannot remove a child from the home without a court order. The court may deny the petition, including the request for removal...

What the heck, fellas?!? All the parents had to do was sign a freakin' AMA that likely wouldn't have taken the toll it did for being as stubborn as you folks.

[BillyB]

 
All the parents had to do was sign a freakin' AMA that likely wouldn't have taken the toll it did for being as stubborn as you folks.

Has anybody disagreed with you? Even if parent's didn't sign, it doesn't give the authorities the right to break the law or cause trouble for people they don't like. That is still to be determined by the parents attorney. I found an article that said there was no warrant which means CPS didn't go to court and talk to a judge before taking the child. Taking a child without a warrant is not illegal unless parent's refuse, but entering their house without homeowner's permission or a warrant is illegal.
 
"Prior to abducting the baby without so much as a warrant, Alex was slammed against a wall, pushed to the ground and his house keys forcibly removed from him after meeting with officers outside."
 
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/cps-still-in-charge-after-hearing-on-gestapo-style-baby-snatching/

[GQBlues]

...
 
Has anybody disagreed with you? Even if parent's didn't sign, it doesn't give the authorities the right to break the law or cause trouble for people they don't like.

'They don't like?!? Was this in the report? So the whole chapter happened simply because of personality clash? Is this what you're saying what happened? They yank the child away from the parents because someone's personality clashed with someone else and it really wasn't about the parents' defiance not to sign the AMA prior to taking the child away?
 
You're too funny, BillyB. You previously said you read the article more than once and agreed the CPS did what was proper. Now you presented the same article (which you read more than once), except now saying what the CPS did was improper. Which is it?
 

I read the article again and that is what happened based off the husband's account.


I'm not sure the couple has much of a case against CPS after reading some more. They took their baby out of the hospital without a proper discharge and if a doctor calls CPS and says it's a matter of life and death, the CPS must react with the police to take the child away. I think the only person and organization the couple could sue is the doctor and hospital for over reacting but then again, the couple took their child from the hospital without a proper discharge alarming the medical personnel and they must follow the procedures in place to handle a situation like this. All though this situation ended bad and everybody made mistakes, in court everybody will claim they are looking out for the baby's welfare. What's a judge and jury to do? Hang everybody or nobody?

 
Is this a habit of yours? You previously bragged how great a jurist you made, LOL. I hope this is just a momentary lapse on your part, no?
 

[BillyB]

You previously said you read the article more than once and agreed the CPS did what was proper.

It was proper for the CPS to react after a call from the doctor/hospital. After reading what Mendy wrote and the article saying CPS did not have a warrant, CPS did not react properly. Understand the difference between reacting and not reacting properly? That will make a difference if the parents decide to take CPS to court. Signing a discharge document would have made everyone's life easier but that will not be a factor in court on whether or not CPS stepped over their boundaries and should be punished for it.

[GQBlues]

It was proper for the CPS to react after a call from the doctor/hospital. After reading what Mendy wrote and the article saying CPS did not have a warrant, CPS did not react properly. Understand the difference between reacting and not reacting properly? That will make a difference if the parents decide to take CPS to court. Signing a discharge document would have made everyone's life easier but that will not be a factor in court on whether or not CPS stepped over their boundaries and should be punished for it.

1. You just implied that it was wrong baby Sammy was taken because they didn't like the couple. Please show me where in any section of any article mentioned this. If this is just noise to make your case seem plausible, say so.

Mendy used a whole lot of derogatory adjectives to serve his purpose whatever they may be...kidnapping, abduction, etc...dramatic and silly bad news may sell but it doesn't make good reporting and worst, it doesn't make a good journalist.

2. Please point out exactly which article or supporting documents in this case that stated there was no court order issued to remove baby Sammy. All I read from the previous pages is Mendy declaring they did not have any warrant. I'm not sure if Mendy is still here or not, but maybe if you can't find what I ask, you can ask Mendy since you seem to have taken his post verbatim for you to turn 180 with your opinion. Otherwise, in the absence of any substantial and factual accounting of the event, not quite sure what basis you used to change your view considering Mendy's propensity for the dramatics. He's hardly an objective and non-bias journalist.

Having said all this, apparently there are special circumstances in California law that  justifies removal of a child (or minor) from its home absent of a court order ...read the following:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=00001-01000&file=300-304.7

sub-section 'b' 'g' or 'j'

 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=00001-01000&file=305-324.5

sub-section 'b'

However, it is incumbent upon any social worker to insure itself entitlement of justifiable evidences to gain any 'qualified immunity' in case a litigation ensued as a result of a child protection removal.

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY:

"I. Constitutional violation:   In assessing a claim of qualified immunity, we must first decide whether "the [official's] conduct violated a constitutional right." Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). "Parents and children have a well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference." Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1136 (9th Cir.2000). "The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that parents will not be separated from their children without due process of law except in emergencies." Mabe v. San Bernardino County, Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir.2001). Officials violate this right if they remove a child from the home absent "information at the time of the seizure that establishes `reasonable cause to believe that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury and that the scope of the intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury.'" Id. at 1106 (quoting Wallis, 202 F.3d at 1138). The Fourth Amendment also protects children from removal from their homes absent such a showing. Doe v. Lebbos, 348 F.3d 820, 827 n. 9 (9th Cir. 2003). Officials, including social workers, who remove a child from its home without a warrant must have reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to experience serious bodily harm in the time that would be required to obtain a warrant. Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1108."


From this particular case's articles:

"...Alex and Anna said they've known about Sammy's heart murmur since he was born, and he was regularly seeing a Sutter cardiologist every two to three weeks. Also, the couple reiterated on Friday, that even when doctors at Sutter began talking about surgery, this was not a surgery to take place immediately. This was something the parents understood would be scheduled two weeks later, and no one ever gave them any reason to believe Sammy's health was in any imminent danger.

The couple admitted they left Sutter Memorial without a proper discharge on Tuesday, but they said it was only because they were unhappy with Sammy's care, and they took the 5-month-old to Kaiser Permanente to get a second opinion...."

When this entire enchilada gets settled in court, and like I already stated on the onset, I do hope the family gets some sort of settlement if for nothing else just so baby Sammy can get lot's of toys!


But no. No kidnapping, no abduction, no gestapo and any other stupid attempt at bad journalism.

[BillyB]

Please point out exactly which article or supporting documents in this case that stated there was no court order issued to remove baby Sammy. All I read from the previous pages is Mendy declaring they did not have any warrant.

You recently called me and a few others stubborn. Now I learn you've been debating me and not reading what I posted. I posted an article in a link a couple of posts ago that said there was no warrant. For awhile I took your word for it that there was a warrant. You didn't repeat what you read from a legitimate news source,. you guessed that's what happened. After reading the article I linked and a quote from an ex CPS investigator, in most CPS cases there is no warrant. Look at the link below. I'm not going to help you a 3rd time if you don't start helping yourself.
 
http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/AD33/?p=article&sid=427&id=255128

[GQBlues]

I will admit posting a decree from the State of Michigan regarding their Human services by-laws was inappropriate, thus erred in presuming it also applies to the State of California. While US states' human services share a common goal, their state laws vary from one another. Having had the time to actually research California law pertaining to this matter, it became apparent California doesn't need to have a court order for the authorities to remove a child from it's home if it qualifies under exigent circumstances. If Assemblyman Donnelly didn't recognize this at the time of his statement letter, that's his to own up to. I posted the result of my research - he, Donnelly, and silly journalist/s should also follow suit. I am not a person of law, a public servant nor a member of the media with responsibility to make accurate reporting by doing a little research to get a real understanding of what happened and why. If I can do this in a short time at home - what's their excuse?

As for you, in reading your response #69, you obviously displayed that I bear no responsibility influencing you to believe me that a court order is required at all times. You confirmed this on your own and even posted a couple of links to support your point. To tell me I had you believing it is both disingenious and downright silly, LOL. Your linked attorney's site apparently is wrong, too, again, because California do in fact have a law that allows for child removal absent of a court order if a case meet the state's cited guidelines. This can be done either by CPS or by the police.

Reading the portion of the article about the couple, it reads as though they never even told anyone they were taking baby Sammy the time they took him out of the hospital - at a time when the baby was supposedly under intensive care. This obviously triggered the CPS button and prompted an exigent circumstance, which apparently in the State of California doesn't require a court order to remove a child (minor) from its home. Time is of the essence.

Which brings me back to my original point - the parents share the responsibility to this mess by removing the child without hospital discharge, and it would appear, even without notice IINM.

Lastly, you still didn't address my query - which article was it written where the CPS and/or police took baby Sammy because they didn't like the parents?

[mendeleyev]

Police officers did search the house, at least 5-6 officers and the search was video taped.

During the video portion of officers going room to room you can hear one of the police officers repeating to the mother that he is going to take the baby and if she didn't relinquish the child then he (police officer) was going to handcuff her and place her under arrest. "I'm going to grab your baby and don't resist and don't fight me, okay?" is what the POLICE OFFICER told Anna. That is far, far, far from simply being there to keep the peace.

New information: Reports are that the family was willing to have the second opinion done at Sutter Hospital but apparently were refused. So they declared their intent to take the child to a different hospital for an opinion and were again refused. The parents were under the impression from the first doctor that open heart surgery was being prepared and they were continually yelled at and told that the baby could not leave. When nurses appeared to be preparing Sammy for procedures without consulting the parents, they panicked.

The yelling and harassment by the hospital staff was a very important factor.  Were it me, I'd have done the same thing given those circumstances.



A court could easily side with the parent in that CPS:

- had full knowledge that the baby had been taken to another hospital by the parents.
- CPS had dispatched a police officer to the second hospital and that officer filed reports that the new doctors gave a positive report on the parents and the baby.
- In spite of this knowledge, CPS apparently had their thongs in a bunch so they asked a judge for orders even while knowing the outcome of the second opinion.

Facebook has shut down the parents site, twice, for some reason. However, Voice of Russia (official broadcast news organization of the Russian government) dispatched journalist Olga Kuzmina to follow the story to the end.

President Putin ordered  Pavel Astakhov, Russia's child rights ombudsman, to take over the case in coordination with the Russian Embassy in Washington and the Russian Consulate in San Francisco. Astakhov has been given the green light to file whatever actions necessary in US courts to make sure this doesn't happen again so I don't think this case has quite played out yet.

Given reported eyewitness accounts, the parents are likely to argue in any future civil suit that discharge paperwork was refused or at best delayed, and they would likely win.



Kalifornia CPS stubbornness by some power-tripping witches is now being played all over Russian media to the point that it is suggested that the baby Sammy case is somehow part of the over arching crusade against Russia that by the way, also includes framing the "innocent" Boston bombers. Thank you, Kalifornia. Your sense of timing is incredulous.

[Shadow]

GQBLues you try to make it look like the parents refused to sign the AMA which was presented. I am sure the opposite is the case.
The hopsital refused to present the AMA the parents would instantly have signed.

[Strider]

They did NOT get a discharge from Sutter. Read the darn article. That's what started the wheels in motion. Had they done so, there would not be any other activity thereafter.

They could not get what was not offered, nor was there any legal requirement that they obtain a release or sign anything before removing their infant son to seek treatment at another hospital.  Since there was no legal requirement for them to obtain the hospital's release or to otherwise sign any document, therefore there should not have been any invasion of their home, assault of their persons, or seizure of their infant son.  The problem here is that there was.  It was done without a court order or giving the couple any opportunity to be heard about the medical malpractice they claim to have witnessed (assault and battery under civil law), the quality of care at Sutter, or their prefrence that their infant son be treated at another hospital.

“Officials violate this right if they remove a child from the home absent "information at the time of the seizure that establishes `reasonable cause to believe that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury and that the scope of the intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury.'" Id. at 1106 (quoting Wallis, 202 F.3d at 1138). The Fourth Amendment also protects children from removal from their homes absent such a showing. Doe v. Lebbos, 348 F.3d 820, 827 n. 9 (9th Cir. 2003). Officials, including social workers, who remove a child from its home without a warrant must have reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to experience serious bodily harm in the time that would be required to obtain a warrant. Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1108."

It is not reasonable for CPS to presume it has better wisdom than the child's parents when two hospitals and their respective doctors come to differing professional medical opinions and CPS fails to interview the parents BEFORE  seizing the infant child.  If the parents allegations are correct, Sutter had committed medical malpractice with the child (again assault and battery in civil law).  Considering that medical malpractice has been the third leading cause of death in the U.S. in recent years, <http://www.joyfulaging.com/iatrogenic.htm>, it was not reasonable for CPS to refuse to consider the parents concerns.  By sending the child back to Sutter, it had arguably placed the child in danger of further harm.  As someone on another forum wrote, “When the people are no longer considered capable of making the proper choices for themselves and their families, then the government will be able to do anything to them and claim that it is in their 'best interest.'”  Hence, it is a police state, and Kalifornia has the highest taxes in the U.S. to pay for these incompetents.

GQBLues you try to make it look like the parents refused to sign the AMA which was presented. I am sure the opposite is the case.
The hospital refused to present the AMA the parents would instantly have signed.

Agreed.  He is trying to blame the parents for the incompetence of CPS and for its violation of their constitutional rights.  Since he apparently lives in Kalifornia, he could easily write to his elected state representatives and the governor to demand the end of this kind of abuse of authority by CPS and the police.  Instead, he makes post after post blaming the parents for simply acting like concerned parents.  I can only conclude that he has some need to feel superior to this family, which is the only explanation for his contempt for their parental and constitutional rights.

Do you actually believe this garbage? [that CPS has caused an international incident and embarrassed the entire U.S. of A ]

As Mendy has duly noted and documented, this is indeed an international incident.  Pootie is using it to play to his domestic audience.  If this couple decides to return to Russia with their child, CPS can't stop them at this point. 

Just because you got laid in Ukraine/Russia doesn't mean you need to start dream walking your life these days.

Ah, the Kalifornia coup de grāce:  An ad hominem attack that this is all somehow about sex.  No, this is about parental rights, constitutional rights, and the health and welfare of a 5 month old infant.  Sex had nothing to do with these issues.

My second opinion for you is, take a reality pill and you should be able to start putting things in proper perspective.

Unlike you looney Left Coasters, we don't do all those drugs.  Nor will we deny what we see from this story in Kalifornia.  It has become a police state.  Deal with it, and stop embarrassing the whole United States of America.

[Shadow]

  Since when did the spelling of California change to Kalifornia....it looks odd.

[Strider]

Why do they have a hospital there called Kaiser Permanente?

If it is German, the name would be Permanenten Kaiser (I think) and if it is Spanish, the name would be Rey Permanente.  (Of course, they couldn't give it an English name....) 

As we say in the rest of America "everyone has a crazy relative who moved to Kalifornia", and of course, "All lose nuts roll West."

Since when did the spelling of California change to Kalifornia....it looks odd.

[ML]

Why do they have a hospital there called Kaiser Permanente?

If it is German, the name would be Permanenten Kaiser (I think)

Kaiser has nothing to do with Germany, other than possible fact that was the nation of Henry J. Kaiser's forefathers.

Kaiser Permanente is an integrated managed care consortium, based in Oakland, California, United States, founded in 1945 by industrialist Henry J. Kaiser and physician Sidney Garfield. Kaiser Permanente is made up of three distinct groups of entities: the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and its regional operating subsidiaries; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals; and the autonomous regional Permanente Medical Groups. As of 2006, Kaiser Permanente operates in nine states and the District of Columbia, and is the largest managed care organization in the United States.

Read more here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Permanente

Permanente synonyms:estable, fijo, firme, inalterable, invariable, inmutable, duraderoestable, fijo, firme, inalterable, invariable, inmutable, duradero

[Strider]

Yes, I read about that.  The problem is that "Kaiser" is the German word for emperor, and was used as the formal title for the monarchs in Germany and Austria, and "permanete" is a Spanish adjective meaning permanent in English.  The resulting name is linguistically incongruent and quite ridiculous, especially since both the German and Austrian Kaisers abdicated after WWI, and therefore were much less than "permanent".

Kaiser has nothing to do with Germany, other than possible fact that was the nation of Henry J. Kaiser's forefathers.

Kaiser Permanente is an integrated managed care consortium, based in Oakland, California, United States, founded in 1945 by industrialist Henry J. Kaiser and physician Sidney Garfield. Kaiser Permanente is made up of three distinct groups of entities: the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and its regional operating subsidiaries; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals; and the autonomous regional Permanente Medical Groups. As of 2006, Kaiser Permanente operates in nine states and the District of Columbia, and is the largest managed care organization in the United States.

Read more here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Permanente

Permanente synonyms:estable, fijo, firme, inalterable, invariable, inmutable, duraderoestable, fijo, firme, inalterable, invariable, inmutable, duradero

[GQBlues]

GQBLues you try to make it look like the parents refused to sign the AMA which was presented. I am sure the opposite is the case. The hopsital refused to present the AMA the parents would instantly have signed.

In the quote I inserted above, the couple admitted to taking the baby and leaving the hospital without proper discharge.

"...Alex and Anna said they've known about Sammy's heart murmur since he was born, and he was regularly seeing a Sutter cardiologist every two to three weeks. Also, the couple reiterated on Friday, that even when doctors at Sutter began talking about surgery, this was not a surgery to take place immediately. This was something the parents understood would be scheduled two weeks later, and no one ever gave them any reason to believe Sammy's health was in any imminent danger.

The couple admitted they left Sutter Memorial without a proper discharge on Tuesday, but they said it was only because they were unhappy with Sammy's care, and they took the 5-month-old to Kaiser Permanente to get a second opinion...."


It is possible they didn't know what the repercussion will be taking baby Sammy away without a discharge. The shock on the day the authorities came to take cute lil Sammy away could largely be due to the fact they really were clueless about the law. I have doubts that had they known what could happen that they still would have done what they did and leave without signing a discharge.


Heck, even the RWD members reading this for a few days now still do not understand the California law regarding this matter despite human service's section codes being happily provided for them by yours truly, or, they're simply just too stupid to understand.

For instance...

They could not get what was not offered, nor was there any legal requirement that they obtain a release or sign anything before removing their infant son to seek treatment at another hospital.  Since there was no legal requirement for them to obtain the hospital's release or to otherwise sign any document, therefore there should not have been any invasion of their home, assault of their persons, or seizure of their infant son.  The problem here is that there was.  It was done without a court order or giving the couple any opportunity to be heard about the medical malpractice they claim to have witnessed (assault and battery under civil law), the quality of care at Sutter, or their prefrence that their infant son be treated at another hospital.

It is not reasonable for CPS to presume it has better wisdom than the child's parents when two hospitals and their respective doctors come to differing professional medical opinions and CPS fails to interview the parents BEFORE  seizing the infant child.  If the parents allegations are correct, Sutter had committed medical malpractice with the child (again assault and battery in civil law).  Considering that medical malpractice has been the third leading cause of death in the U.S. in recent years, <http://www.joyfulaging.com/iatrogenic.htm>, it was not reasonable for CPS to refuse to consider the parents concerns.  By sending the child back to Sutter, it had arguably placed the child in danger of further harm.  As someone on another forum wrote, “When the people are no longer considered capable of making the proper choices for themselves and their families, then the government will be able to do anything to them and claim that it is in their 'best interest.'”  Hence, it is a police state, and Kalifornia has the highest taxes in the U.S. to pay for these incompetents.

Agreed.  He is trying to blame the parents for the incompetence of CPS and for its violation of their constitutional rights.  Since he apparently lives in Kalifornia, he could easily write to his elected state representatives and the governor to demand the end of this kind of abuse of authority by CPS and the police.  Instead, he makes post after post blaming the parents for simply acting like concerned parents.  I can only conclude that he has some need to feel superior to this family, which is the only explanation for his contempt for their parental and constitutional rights....

...see what I mean?

...As Mendy has duly noted and documented, this is indeed an international incident.  Pootie is using it to play to his domestic audience.  If this couple decides to return to Russia with their child, CPS can't stop them at this point.

 
Like I said, if you're so insecure & uncomfortable believing somehow this garbage is an international incident that Putin, Mendy the the rest of the ilk is trying to promote, then follow the brown-nose trail and have at it. Don't mind those who don't follow.

Mendy is an amateur at best. If he's trying to portray himself as a journalist, he is a very crappy one. Journalists, at least the respectable ones, have a duty not only to report events but to explore all facts surrounding the matter. It is incumbent upon them to research laws of the region BEFORE making silly declarations.

It isn't unconstitutional in California for the authorities to remove a child if a case triggers an exigent circumstance. So there was no 'kidnapping', no abduction, etc...So if you'd like to subscribe to that type of 'reporting' then that's your time and dime.

...Ah, the Kalifornia coup de grāce:  An ad hominem attack that this is all somehow about sex.  No, this is about parental rights, constitutional rights, and the health and welfare of a 5 month old infant.  Sex had nothing to do with these issues...

You couldn't get laid elsewhere except in the FSU and all of the sudden you lost all semblance of objectivity and have the instant compulsion to feel alliance to the region where your blue balls came to a happy halt regardless how silly it makes you look. So yes, when all is said and done, it is about 'sex'. Heck, we have one other MOBer like you in this thread who profess it's safer to live in Ukraine than the US after he got laid in Ukraine his first trip. Even Mendy have the same affliction by declaring FSUW wear far less make-up than AWs. So yes, it is about 'sex'.

...Unlike you looney Left Coasters, we don't do all those drugs.  Nor will we deny what we see from this story in Kalifornia.  It has become a police state.  Deal with it, and stop embarrassing the whole United States of America.

There's no such thing as 'Left Coaster'. However, there's a *lower left coaster* and *up-yours*. There's a huge socio-divide between regions. The divide is just north of SLO. So, if you're going to try to 'seem' smart, at least you can refrain from looking like an idiot. When you think you know it all, you realize you really only know Jack Psyht.

[Shadow]

It is possible they didn't know what the repercussion will be taking baby Sammy away without a discharge. The shock on the day the authorities came to take cute lil Sammy away could largely be due to the fact they really were clueless about the law. I have doubts that had they known what could happen that they still would have done what they did and leave without signing a discharge.

And I have doubts that had they known what could happen the CPS would have taken away baby Sammy.

[GQBlues]

And I have doubts that had they known what could happen the CPS would have taken away baby Sammy.

I can agree with that. Thankfully there's due process, and when all is said and done, I do hope first of all baby Sammy will be well (including his heart murmur problem), and if they deemed Sutter liable for any of this that the family gets compensation for undue stress and concern and this becomes a win-win for the kid.
 
btw- I hope both you and Aloe aren't close to the train accident scene.

[Shadow]

btw- I hope both you and Aloe aren't close to the train accident scene.

On American scale we are close, on a local scale we are both very far. 

I can agree with that. Thankfully there's due process, and when all is said and done, I do hope first of all baby Sammy will be well (including his heart murmur problem), and if they deemed Sutter liable for any of this that the family gets compensation for undue stress and concern and this becomes a win-win for the kid.
 

Procedures should never rule over humanity.

[mendeleyev]

Like I said, if you're so insecure & uncomfortable believing somehow this garbage is an international incident that Putin, Mendy the the rest of the ilk is trying to promote, then follow the brown-nose trail and have at it. Don't mind those who don't follow.

Mendy is an amateur at best. If he's trying to portray himself as a journalist, he is a very crappy one. Journalists, at least the respectable ones, have a duty not only to report events but to explore all facts surrounding the matter. It is incumbent upon them to research laws of the region BEFORE making silly declarations.

Just to put your mind at ease, it wasn't me making a phone call from the Kremlin to instruct the San Francisco Consulate to get involved, it wasn't me calling from the Kremlin to the Washington Embassy to direct communication to the US State Department, nor was it me who instructed the Russian Omsbudman to coordinate the case. Finally, it wasn't me who plastered it all over VK or Russian TV.

Someday GQ perhaps you will learn to distinguish between those making an international incident of something and those simply reporting it. There is a difference.

If I'm only an amateur at least I've been able to fool two major networks to pay me quite well, just like a professional almost 4 decades.

However in the amateur notes, I've not argued with you about the facts of the case but perhaps you weren't of professional status to note that. What I have reported is that the Sutter staff appeared to withhold the paperwork that would have made it easy for this couple to comply with the law.

I generally agree with much of what you write and am disappointed that you'd attack based on what at best is a story receding from the headlines.

[GQBlues]

Hardly Mendy...
 
I'm sure you know too well nowhere is the word 'kidnapping' even apply to this case, but you, as a journalist,  didn't seem to distinguish what that word represent in your haste to report the matter. The fact is, there is a law governing that the authorities can in fact remove a child if a report is filed requiring them to do so with immediateness and without a court order. The qualification of immunity will then rest upon those authorities/enforcer to prove such action taken was 'justified' and meets the exigent circumstance guidelines..
 
Whether or not the fault lies with Sutter, CPS, the parents or all of the above, or one of the other, or two of the players, or spread evenly - will have its due course judicially. But the overlying fact is, there's a set protocol according to the laws behind these types of incidences. If the question lies in the way this protocol was carried out by irresponsible officers/enforcers of such laws, the due process will show that fact. Wherever the cause of fault may be - will be determined in the courts in due time but never sooner.
 
Prior to any of this, to conclude this case was a case of 'kidnapping', just like you did, and  considering the facts (or lack thereof) surrounding this case; is hardly a work of a professional journalist, wouldn't you say? As I often thought and believed that the primal duty of journalism is to report events with objectivity and facts void of supposition, emotional-driven biasness, and irresponsible unsubstantiated assumptionsconclusion.

[mendeleyev]

I guess we disagree on what is common sense.

If:

- The hospital had withheld and/or delayed the parents in their desire for a second opinion
- The parents had wanted a second opinion at that hospital but the doctor was indignant and refused
- CPS had dispatched a police officer to the second hospital who verified that the child was receiving treatment
- the second doctor gave a clean bill of health for the parent's ability to care and released the child pending future treatment
- the police officer who on behalf of CPS verified all the above

and then CPS waited 24 hours before barging in, and the police instead of being there to maintain order, took it upon themselves to "grab" the baby (word used by the offending policeman),

then yes, it was a kidnapping to anyone of common intelligence and common sense.

You demand that the parents follow every jot and tittle of the letter of the law but sweep over the actions of the hospital and CPS outside the law. You can't have it both ways.

[YoungBuck]

In the quote I inserted above, the couple admitted to taking the baby and leaving the hospital without proper discharge.

"...Alex and Anna said they've known about Sammy's heart murmur since he was born, and he was regularly seeing a Sutter cardiologist every two to three weeks. Also, the couple reiterated on Friday, that even when doctors at Sutter began talking about surgery, this was not a surgery to take place immediately. This was something the parents understood would be scheduled two weeks later, and no one ever gave them any reason to believe Sammy's health was in any imminent danger.

Like I said, if you're so insecure & uncomfortable believing somehow this garbage is an international incident that Putin, Mendy the the rest of the ilk is trying to promote, then follow the brown-nose trail and have at it. Don't mind those who don't follow.

It isn't unconstitutional in California for the authorities to remove a child if a case triggers an exigent circumstance. So there was no 'kidnapping', no abduction, etc...So if you'd like to subscribe to that type of 'reporting' then that's your time and dime.

I'm a "Left-Coaster", and I don't agree with a single thing you said. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and that applies to unreasonable search and seizure. This was unreasonable, because it had already been established that Baby Nikolayev had a heart murmur that didn't require immediate surgery, the family was already visited by the police, and that visit occurred at another hospital where they were getting a second opinion.

Sutter Hospital was going to lose thousands of dollars in hospital fees, the doctor was going to shown to be an incompetent fool, and they couldn't have any of that so they used CPS and the Police to strong-arm and kidnap this baby. They do these to immigrant families because they do not know their constitutional rights, they do not know the case law that protects them such as Calabretta v. Floyd.

Now, I know that many here complain about illegal immigrants and their anchor babies, but thousands of children (so called anchor babies-US Citizens) are taken from their parents as their parents are deported. This is an international incident since it affects Mexican citizens as well (those anchor babies are Mexican citizens too) yet Mexico is unwilling to act on their behalf. I'm quite pleased that Putin mobilized his staff to counter this and to pressure the US Govt into doing the legal, not to mention moral, act of returning the baby to his parents. Does anyone here remember Elian Gonzalez?

I'm not a lawyer, but I've had Govt officials try to enter my home without a warrant. First thing I do is lock everything, and politely ask them to leave as I take out my phone and begin dialing my lawyer friend. Each and every time, they intimidate, and scream, and try to forcefully enter, but I repeat the law, and without touching them, use my physical presence to move them out of my property.

Americans don't understand how important the Bill of Rights is and that it is a damn shame to hear you condone such actions that trample on those rights.

[Belvis]

But the overlying fact is, there's a set protocol according to the laws behind these types of incidences.

The worst misdeeds can happen when they follow a protocol according to the laws. There is no place for humanities in the world of protocols. Balance is broken.