Obese NM girl removed frm home CPS still overweight

Another strawman argument. Further, can you point out where in the
Constitution the protection of a person is prohibited?

There's nothing in the Constitution to prevent the state from protecting people
from ANYTHING. The Declaration of Independence has the phrase "life liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness", but the Declaration is not the law of the land.
The Constitution is. If the government wanted to force a vegetarian diet on all
citizens, they could...and it would be constitutional. If the government wanted
to ban red meat, they could...and it would be constitutional. If the government
wanted to prohibit minors from buying anything considered junk food, they
could...and it would be constitutional (unless a federal appeals judge were to
declare it unconstitutional age discrimination).




_____

"HYAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!" - Howard Dean

The long term studies on meds for children are now being shared with researches
in the UK and other developed countries.

However, I still find it quite out of sync that the US is the primary consumer
of such meds.

I believe in a cautious approach. Children are individual creatures; their DNA
is unique.

There is no doubt that meds may be of immense help to those who NEED them.

I certainly would not be dogmatic enough to espouse a one size fits all regime
for medication, either.


ALL of your posts in this venue have
been demonstrative of your apparent stance that regardless of the
consequences, parents have the absolute right to deny treatment to children.

Did you know that Utah has now appointed a Family Czar who will independently
review DCFS cases?

Whose life is it anyway? Should a 13 yo boy be subjected to chemo if he does
not want it?

In the case of Parker Jensen, of course, the young man can resist meds actively
and passively.

Parental rights have been termed an essential liberty interest by the USSC.

Would you prefer the state micromanaging families?

Because, they certainly demonstrated with Lisa and Annemarie that their
attention, and conversely, lack of attention had disastrous consequences.

Mark wrote:

Subject: Obese NM girl removed frm home CPS still overweight
From: "M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t-July 11, 2004" M,a,r,kP,r,o,b,e,r,t

Date: 7/11/2004 9:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Fern5827" wrote in message
...
Mark, did you know that ACS had taken at least 2 reports from Lisa
Steinberg's
school and teachers and did NOTHING about the reports?

Yes, quite well. Lisa's case was the impetus for the drastic overhaul of the
system, which still needs a lot of work.

Mr. Steinberg had not even LEGALLY ADOPTED the child, and yet being an
attorney, he was well aware of the consequences of his wrong actions.

And did some time, but not enough time, for his actions.

You do conjecture quite a bit, don't you Mark? Active imagination and
such??

No, I do not. What I did was to provoke you into responding to me, since you
have steadfastly ignored me on the other issue, i.e., your position of the
use of medication to help children with psychiatric and emotional problems.

CPS was as wrong in NYC in the 80's as CFYD was in NM in the year 2000.

I will not argue with the part about them being wrong in the 1980's,
especially wrt to Lisa Steinberg. Even a cursory review of the situation
would haver revealed irregularities.

However, I will argue with your stance regarding removal of children who
would be subjected to harm by leaving them with parents who are not
adequately treating their problems. ALL of your posts in this venue have
been demonstrative of your apparent stance that regardless of the
consequences, parents have the absolute right to deny treatment to children.

As they are often.


Mark brays:

Bray? Hardly. You do not answer reasonably asked questions.

"Fern5827" wrote in message
...
The long term studies on meds for children are now being shared with
researches
in the UK and other developed countries.

Can youcite the long term studies that you are referring to?

However, I still find it quite out of sync that the US is the primary
consumer
of such meds.

You may be, but I am not. In the US, we began taking kids not learning
seriously when we passed IDEA, and that effort kicked into high gear in 1991
when the first Bush administration mandated that every child who was not
succeeding in school be evaluated to see why. No other country has an
education system that mandates that.

I believe in a cautious approach. Children are individual creatures;
their DNA
is unique.

I believe in proper diagnosis and appropriate treatment. As for DNA, I will
assume that you know what a red herring is. ADHD, for instance, has been
linked to several genetic variations.

There is no doubt that meds may be of immense help to those who NEED them.

And, of course, you can tell who needs them?

I certainly would not be dogmatic enough to espouse a one size fits all
regime
for medication, either.

And, of course, no one has. Thus, you raise a strawman.

ALL of your posts in this venue have
been demonstrative of your apparent stance that regardless of the
consequences, parents have the absolute right to deny treatment to
children.

Did you know that Utah has now appointed a Family Czar who will
independently
review DCFS cases?

Is that relevant to the issues I have raised? No.

Whose life is it anyway? Should a 13 yo boy be subjected to chemo if he
does
not want it?

Can a 13 year old make a truly independet choice? No.

In the case of Parker Jensen, of course, the young man can resist meds
actively
and passively.

And you advocate that parents of a child be allowed to withhold medical
treatment where they are actually substituting their opinions for medical
judgements.

Parental rights have been termed an essential liberty interest by the
USSC.

Fine. However, as yet, they are not a protected right that outwieghs the
child's right to live.

Would you prefer the state micromanaging families?

I would prefer that the amount of bull**** about medical treamtnet be
drastically reduced and that, whenneeded, someone be able tostep in to
provide appropriate care.

Because, they certainly demonstrated with Lisa and Annemarie that their
attention, and conversely, lack of attention had disastrous consequences.

Hopefully, the "system" wil lwork better. However, the flaws are no
justification to deny appropriate treatment, as you constantly seem to
imply.

Mark wrote:

Subject: Obese NM girl removed frm home CPS still overweight
From: "M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t-July 11, 2004" M,a,r,kP,r,o,b,e,r,t

Date: 7/11/2004 9:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Fern5827" wrote in message
...
Mark, did you know that ACS had taken at least 2 reports from Lisa
Steinberg's
school and teachers and did NOTHING about the reports?

Yes, quite well. Lisa's case was the impetus for the drastic overhaul of
the
system, which still needs a lot of work.

Mr. Steinberg had not even LEGALLY ADOPTED the child, and yet being an
attorney, he was well aware of the consequences of his wrong actions.

And did some time, but not enough time, for his actions.

You do conjecture quite a bit, don't you Mark? Active imagination and
such??

No, I do not. What I did was to provoke you into responding to me, since
you
have steadfastly ignored me on the other issue, i.e., your position of
the
use of medication to help children with psychiatric and emotional
problems.

CPS was as wrong in NYC in the 80's as CFYD was in NM in the year 2000.

I will not argue with the part about them being wrong in the 1980's,
especially wrt to Lisa Steinberg. Even a cursory review of the situation
would haver revealed irregularities.

However, I will argue with your stance regarding removal of children who
would be subjected to harm by leaving them with parents who are not
adequately treating their problems. ALL of your posts in this venue have
been demonstrative of your apparent stance that regardless of the
consequences, parents have the absolute right to deny treatment to
children.

As they are often.


Mark brays:

Bray? Hardly. You do not answer reasonably asked questions.

A civil lawsuit is currently in the works concerning the unlawful seizure of a
fat toddler from her parental home, based solely on the condition of her
physicial appearance.

Current as of 2004.

DESCRIPTORS; NEW MEXICO, CYFD, CPS, OBESITY, ANNEMARIE REGINO, CHILD PROTECTIVE