Obese NM girl removed frm home CPS still overweight

Even after CPS, CFYD, basically accused her family of overfeeding her junk
food, and removed this poor child from her home, they found out she was still
overweight.

Did the family receive an apology from CPS New Mexico? Lawsuit? Was there a
settelment involved?

Subject: NM: Annemarie's parents should sue CFYD for removal
From: (Fern5827)
Date: 7/8/2004 9:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

New Mexico. It seems as if CPS in New Mexico acted capriciously and
arbitrarily when they removed Annemarie from her loving home.

You see, even though she sticks to a stringent diet, she is still gaining
weight.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/L..._040707-1.html

DESCRIPTORS; NEW MEXICO, CPS, OBESITY, DIET, OFFICIAL ABUSE, TRAUMATIC REMOVAL,
SOCIAL WORK, LAWSUIT, ALBUQUERQUE, CHILD PROTECTIVE, DISCRIMINATION, PREJUDICE,
SETTLEMENT, METABOLISM, CHILDREN FAMILY YOUTH, MEXICAN AMERICAN, HISPANIC,
LATINO, POVERTY, FOSTER CARE

Fern5827 wrote:

You see, even though she sticks to a stringent diet, she
is still
gaining weight.

Apparently she is the universe's only known exception to the
laws of thermodynamics. Wow!.

--
CBI, MD

"CBI" wrote in message
link.net...
Fern5827 wrote:

You see, even though she sticks to a stringent diet, she
is still
gaining weight.

Apparently she is the universe's only known exception to the
laws of thermodynamics. Wow!.

I wonder if they lock the cabinets and fridge at night. Sounds like that
might help.

BTW, I am not joking. Some people have been to go to the fridge and eat
while sleeping. And she might be so hungry that she gets up in the middle of
the night and eats. You'd think the parents would notice, but not always.

Jeff


--
CBI, MD

On 08 Jul 2004 20:45:42 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

Even after CPS, CFYD, basically accused her family of overfeeding her junk
food, and removed this poor child from her home, they found out she was still
overweight.

Did the family receive an apology from CPS New Mexico?

Maybe they did. Do you know the answer?

Lawsuit? Was there a settelment involved?

It may be hard to believe, but not everyone (yet) in the country
believes that when something unfortunate happens to you, even if it
involved someone else's judgment that later proved incorrect, you
aren't necessarily entitled to a jackpot.

Perhaps the CPS investigation was marked by mutual respect and
cooperation, and the removal was mutually agreed upon as a test method
for ruling out family dynamics as a cause for her potentially deadly
condition. I have seen parents voluntarily allow such things for this
very reason.

PF

Apparently she was placed in a foster home, and still gained weight on a
restricted diet.

Perhaps she was examined by CYFD retained personnel; perhaps they do not
utilize state of the art testing to probe what is evidently wrong with the
child.

No one thinks it is unacceptable for the state to intrude upon the family in
the case of supposed overweight?

Looks as if we'll have many children then taken into state custody on the
weight of their BMI.

Let's hope the state coffers can continue to fund such unconstitutionalities.

"Fern5827" wrote in message
...
Apparently she was placed in a foster home, and still gained weight on a
restricted diet.

Perhaps she was examined by CYFD retained personnel; perhaps they do not
utilize state of the art testing to probe what is evidently wrong with the
child.

No one thinks it is unacceptable for the state to intrude upon the family
in
the case of supposed overweight?

Supposed overweight? Surely you joke. This kid is sick and it appears that
the parents are incapable of handling it.

Looks as if we'll have many children then taken into state custody on the
weight of their BMI.

Strawman argument.

Next thing you will say is the the state would have been wrong to remove
Lisa from the "care" Joel was giving her.

Let's hope the state coffers can continue to fund such
unconstitutionalities.

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

While you are at it, can you also answer those questions I have been asking
for over a year?

I suppose, PF, it may be easy for you to gloss over the heartbreak this 3 yo
endured, having been ripped from the only home she ever knew.

Needlessly.

I can still remember my separation trauma at age 4 when I had my tonsils
removed and was away from home for days.

Perhaps you feel that it alright. Perhaps you feel that the state should take
precedence over family's stated protestations, and perhaps you feel that it is
fine that the child is still obese.

John Stossel profiled the state of FL with DCF attempting to take a chubby 7 yo
from his home, where 2 generations of

his forebears were also overweight.

His segment was "Gimmee a break." And this same aphorism applies here. Aren't
there far more serious and pressing concerns to appeal to CPS than accusing
families of overfeeding?



unfortunate happens to you, even if it
involved someone else's judgment that later proved incorrect, you
aren't necessarily entitled to a jackpot.


No one spoke about jackpot. How about an APOLOGY?

Perhaps the CPS investigation was marked by mutual respect and
cooperation, and the removal was mutually agreed upon as a test method
for ruling out family dynamics as a cause for her potentially deadly
condition. I have seen parents

It was marked by stenuous protest on the family's part (and well should they
have).

Would you have your child taken from you for NO VERIFIABLE REASON?

It was characterized by attorneys appearing on all the Morning network shows,
genuinly baffled as to why CFYD felt that they had to take such precipitious,
and dangerous, unfounded actions.

She is still alive and CPS has not satisfactorily answered for her kidnapping,
nor have they presented an adequate medical diagnois for her condition.

It was all supposition, lies, and conjecture..

Easy to do when a family is poor, Latino, and subject to discrimination,
prejudice and disbelief.

PF Riley excuses the state for venturing into an old, protected liberty
interest naturally vested in families, and superseding that authority for a
flawed state intervention:

From: PF Riley
Date: 7/8/2004 9:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 08 Jul 2004 20:45:42 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

Even after CPS, CFYD, basically accused her family of overfeeding her junk
food, and removed this poor child from her home, they found out she was
still
overweight.

Did the family receive an apology from CPS New Mexico?

Maybe they did. Do you know the answer?

Lawsuit? Was there a settelment involved?

It may be hard to believe, but not everyone (yet) in the country
believes that when something unfortunate happens to you, even if it
involved someone else's judgment that later proved incorrect, you
aren't necessarily entitled to a jackpot.

Perhaps the CPS investigation was marked by mutual respect and
cooperation, and the removal was mutually agreed upon as a test method
for ruling out family dynamics as a cause for her potentially deadly
condition. I have seen parents voluntarily allow such things for this
very reason.

PF







http://www.familyrightsassociation.com

If you do not like what the state thinks they can do without proof ,adequate
diagnosis, nor consent.

Yes, I am convinced that Fern would have objected to Lisa Steinberg being
taken away from Joel Steinberg while her little heart was still beating.



"Fern5827" wrote in message
...
I suppose, PF, it may be easy for you to gloss over the heartbreak this 3
yo
endured, having been ripped from the only home she ever knew.

Needlessly.

I can still remember my separation trauma at age 4 when I had my tonsils
removed and was away from home for days.

Perhaps you feel that it alright. Perhaps you feel that the state should
take
precedence over family's stated protestations, and perhaps you feel that
it is
fine that the child is still obese.

John Stossel profiled the state of FL with DCF attempting to take a chubby
7 yo
from his home, where 2 generations of

his forebears were also overweight.

His segment was "Gimmee a break." And this same aphorism applies here.
Aren't
there far more serious and pressing concerns to appeal to CPS than
accusing
families of overfeeding?



unfortunate happens to you, even if it
involved someone else's judgment that later proved incorrect, you
aren't necessarily entitled to a jackpot.


No one spoke about jackpot. How about an APOLOGY?

Perhaps the CPS investigation was marked by mutual respect and
cooperation, and the removal was mutually agreed upon as a test method
for ruling out family dynamics as a cause for her potentially deadly
condition. I have seen parents

It was marked by stenuous protest on the family's part (and well should
they
have).

Would you have your child taken from you for NO VERIFIABLE REASON?

It was characterized by attorneys appearing on all the Morning network
shows,
genuinly baffled as to why CFYD felt that they had to take such
precipitious,
and dangerous, unfounded actions.

She is still alive and CPS has not satisfactorily answered for her
kidnapping,
nor have they presented an adequate medical diagnois for her condition.

It was all supposition, lies, and conjecture..

Easy to do when a family is poor, Latino, and subject to discrimination,
prejudice and disbelief.

PF Riley excuses the state for venturing into an old, protected liberty
interest naturally vested in families, and superseding that authority for
a
flawed state intervention:

From: PF Riley
Date: 7/8/2004 9:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 08 Jul 2004 20:45:42 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

Even after CPS, CFYD, basically accused her family of overfeeding her
junk
food, and removed this poor child from her home, they found out she was
still
overweight.

Did the family receive an apology from CPS New Mexico?

Maybe they did. Do you know the answer?

Lawsuit? Was there a settelment involved?

It may be hard to believe, but not everyone (yet) in the country
believes that when something unfortunate happens to you, even if it
involved someone else's judgment that later proved incorrect, you
aren't necessarily entitled to a jackpot.

Perhaps the CPS investigation was marked by mutual respect and
cooperation, and the removal was mutually agreed upon as a test method
for ruling out family dynamics as a cause for her potentially deadly
condition. I have seen parents voluntarily allow such things for this
very reason.

PF







http://www.familyrightsassociation.com

If you do not like what the state thinks they can do without proof
,adequate
diagnosis, nor consent.

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?

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.

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

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

As they are often.


Mark brays:

"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.