State Threatens Mother to Seize Infant For Feeding Homemade Goat Milk Formula

[Dennis Hultman]

Kerri, The last time I checked the State doesn't take away your child because you decide not to put them in a car seat. Your not charged with neglect.

If your caught doing that act, you are issued a ticket which I believe is around $400 here.

You are not arrested or detained for the probable harm you may cause your child because someone heard you didn't use a car seat or you were caught not using one. At least not here. Criminal charges and child welfare react only when the child has been injured for the most part. Not that I agree with it and I'm absolutely not arguing that one should not use a car seat. I do however think it is a good analogy to the rest of what you stated when charges of neglect come into play most of the time.

However, in such circumstances as this, it's not the government overstepping and inserting themselves where they see an opportunity. It's as simple as feed your kid correctly to the best level possible, or risk being denied the privilege.

I liken it to putting the baby in a carseat. Not everybody likes the idea, but most support the science behind it, and there will always be some who refuse to honor that law and their child dies in the process of them refuting it.

Some child protection cases are flipping absurd and the social workers/practitioners who instigate them should be taken out and smacked with 2x4s. However feeding an infant shouldn't be thought of like that.

As a healthcare provider, I have seen first hand the number of problems using a "homemade recipe" as an infant formula causes. I have also witnessed countless uneducated mothers feed their babies tetra packed (the brick cube shaped) soy or almond milk because they hear or read somewhere that soy is an acceptable substitute if baby is fussy or spitty with whey/lactose. The soy milk problem has been so prevalent, it's my understanding that the boxes now even carry a warning on them that they're not to be used as an infant formula!!

In my experience, it all boils down to education. I've horror stories to tell about teen or first time parents thinking that breastfeeding is too complicated so they go out and put baby on a homogenized whole cow milk diet almost as soon as they're discharged home with baby. We don't see or know about it until baby comes in for its first checkup, which due to lack of education or poverty might be months! Or they do try and replicate a home made recipe they got from the Internet because its cheaper than a can of formula.

So very many problems result from this, sadly even death. Is it worth the risks? As a whole, absolutely no!!!! If anyone can argue that highly probable malnourishment and permanent side effects are worth it, they may very well need intervention. It's not a case of someone telling you that you have to feed your baby something commercial and against your wants... It's about telling a parent they must provide adequate, safe, and proven complete nutrition for their baby.

There are so many formulas out there for whatever you're looking for. Organic? Check. Pre and pro biotic? Check. Pre digested protein? Check. Liquid? Check. Non gmo? Check. Bpa free? Check. Comes from happy cows who have birthday parties? I'll bet you could probably find it. We even have breastmilk banks! So the excuse of breast feeding not going well, and the need to create a homemade version is pathetically weak. It's even weaker if the parent is bent on using raw milk which is such a risk for an immunologically compromised new life.


We have laws to prevent willful neglect of a minor child that cannot protect itself. This is simply one such case.


And for the record, long term breast feeding with no additional food introduced at the age a child needs more complex nutrition can be just as detrimental.

Bottom line in my book? If you cannot feed your baby in the way Mother Nature intended, it's not okay to just whip something up in the Cuisinart.

"willful neglect" what a wonderful catchall term.

My counter to your points is very simple. There are zero laws or regulations in this country to what you must feed your child. Absolutely nothing, period!

Show me one law in this country that states you must feed your child this "Insert name of any food" There is nothing period. Prove the willful neglect.

However, the government steps in when they can prove neglect . When they can show malnourishment. All accounts show that this child is healthy baby boy. Because you or I or some state agency thinks that a particular item maybe not be healthy or meeting the daily needs of the child isn't enough. You have to show the child is being neglected. That's it, period. Anything else is a overreach.

I understand the need to want to protect children. As far as I'm concern you don't have the privilege to regulate the diet, lifestyle of anyone unless you can prove harm to the individual child. Not some catchall phrase.

It's as simple as feed your kid correctly to the best level possible, or risk being denied the privilege.

Having, feeding, raising, children is a basic natural right. To supersede that right you better be able to prove the child is being neglected and show it.

Not this warm fuzzy feeling that your going to save a child that isn't having its daily approved rations from the federal or state governments. There is no law. You have to show the child is effected in someway by the diet they have to show neglect

Speaking of which, technically there is no required daily nutrition for anyone in this country including children and babies. There is no law because not a single person would vote for such. There are recommendations that federal and state agencies put out. You can't arrest, take away a child or anyone for a abstract thought that they may not be taking enough of a certain substance. You have to prove that whatever it is they are consuming isn't providing enough and causing harm.

To be honest, when I see people who spout government guidelines and nutrient information and state you should lose your privilege to raise your children in the US, kind of makes me want to vomit in my mouth. Particularly if you take into considerations other nations and theirs and our and all governments histories.

Our recommendations are laughable.

You want to say so candidly people should lose their privilege to raise their children and give them to the state you better look at the statistics of the children that end up in state hands. The government doesn't have some moral high ground to claim here. Zero.

No, I have a right, a basic human right, to raise my children. To supersede that right you better be able to show beyond any reason that I have harmed my children.

All one has to do is look at past recommendations from the government and take them for the little grain of salt they are.

That goes for everything. Is coffee in moderation good for me this week or bad? I can't keep up.

Sort of like my Doctor that just verbatim mimics whatever research paper or statistic he hears that week to tell me (as fact) how I should live my life. Or whatever shot I must get now, immediately because of "insert latest".

My opinion, bottom-line, most of it is none of yours or the government's business.

I don't need you tell my wife how long to breastfeed, what to feed my children, how to feed them, what I put in my own body.

Leave me the hell alone. This notion I have to save everybody and everyone has to conform to the same standards that some agency puts out is crap.

Particularly when the state doesn't have their own house in order. You want save some children? Go feed some starving children in this country or elsewhere in the world. they are there. Do something to stop the millions of children killed in conflict around the world. Hey, you might want to talk to the government about that one.

Let me ask you? How many children do you have?

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Not sure if it is same doctor but found this

As it turns out, Alorah’s use of fresh goat milk in her son’s infant formula is not the only beef DHHS has with the 17-year-old mother. According to reports, Alorah’s MaineCare doctor, Tasha Hoffman, had also repeatedly pressured Alorah to have Carson vaccinated, to no avail.

Childhood vaccination is pretty important. Back in the old days, children died from pertussis and the other diseases the vaccines protect against. I still remember my father, who was a doctor, describing the terrible sound of whooping cough in children.

I do not think there is anything wrong with goat's milk. On the other hand, vaccinations for childhood disease are important, and it just seems there may be more to this story than what we are seeing.

Yet, the law is that you have the right not to vaccinated your children, period. There is no federal law. There is no state law. The laws and regulation that apply have to do with children entering public school. In most states that regulation to enter school without vaccinations can simply be waived by flipping the immunization record over and writing your child in as exempt.

You can simply exempt yourself here in California on grounds personal, medical or religious beliefs. Regardless what ones positions are on vaccines in general or on a particular vaccine, the personal feelings of the doctor, state agency worker, you or I, she has the right not to vaccinate her child.

There is no mandate to do so in this country. It isn't against the law.

However, The supreme court did rule that a state could require certain vaccinations for the common good of all at certain times. So I would like to know which state vaccination law she is violating that doesn't have a legal exemption?

Just because a doctor wants her to or anyone thinks she should give them isn't good enough. They need to follow the law, no? Or can we just make it up as we go along?

 

[JColt]

No State laws for Immunization but it can keep child from attending daycare and school. I think any time you have someone who is going against the grain on most child health and preventive practices you are going to raise concern. I think if I was a doctor and I had a baby as my patient and the parents are going against known practices then you have an obligation for the child's safety that over rides parental rights. The doctor could be wrong but what if she isn't?

 

[Dennis Hultman]

No State laws for Immunization but it can keep child from attending daycare and school. I think any time you have someone who is going against the grain on most child health and preventive practices you are going to raise concern. I think if I was a doctor and I had a baby as my patient and the parents are going against known practices then you have an obligation for the child's safety that over rides parental rights. The doctor could be wrong but what if she isn't?

OK, but if I give you that point and you as a doctor report it to the appropriate agency then that agency would have to be held accountable to following the law, (That would be a safeguard if the doctor is correct or incorrect.) correct?

They reality is they really don't. They make a judgement not based on law. Mainly on feelings and what they think or believe is correct or is best interest of the child by their own determinations.

That is where bureaucrats and social workers seem to derive power over other peoples lives.

To decide as a 'agency' that you feel that it is neglect and interfere and threaten to take someones child away is to wide of a spectrum based on interpretations and feelings when not based on what is legal and illegal.

 

[Lucille]

Yet, the law is that you have the right not to vaccinated your children, period. There is no federal law. There is no state law. The laws and regulation that apply have to do with children entering public school. In most states that regulation to enter school without vaccinations can simply be waived by flipping the immunization record over and writing your child in as exempt.

You can simply exempt yourself here in California on grounds personal, medical or religious beliefs. Regardless what ones positions are on vaccines in general or on a particular vaccine, the personal feelings of the doctor, state agency worker, you or I, she has the right not to vaccinate her child.

There is no mandate to do so in this country. It isn't against the law.

However, The supreme court did rule that a state could require certain vaccinations for the common good of all at certain times. So I would like to know which state vaccination law she is violating that doesn't have a legal exemption?

Just because a doctor wants her to or anyone thinks she should give them isn't good enough. They need to follow the law, no? Or can we just make it up as we go along?

What I actually said is that
1) Vaccinations are important and
2) There may be more to this situation than meets the eye.

Setting up a debate about the law and vaccination is a straw man argument.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

What I actually said is that
1) Vaccinations are important and
2) There may be more to this situation than meets the eye.

Setting up a debate about the law and vaccination is a straw man argument.

I didn't state you said anything different.

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet nonequivalent proposition (the "straw man")

I didn't refute your position. I actually agree with your position that some vaccines are very important as well. That wasn't a straw man argument.

However, my position was nether shows "something else going on". And just because your clear on the legalities of vaccinations doesn't mean everyone else is. Matter of fact, most aren't unless they oppose vaccinations or certain ones. They are told by school that it is required and not informed of the right to exempt.

Childhood vaccination is pretty important. Back in the old days, children died from pertussis and the other diseases the vaccines protect against. I still remember my father, who was a doctor, describing the terrible sound of whooping cough in children.

I do not think there is anything wrong with goat's milk. On the other hand, vaccinations for childhood disease are important, and it just seems there may be more to this story than what we are seeing.

You stated at the end that there might be something else going on that we aren't seeing. That you had no problem with goats milk but on the other hand vaccinations are important thus it seems something else may be going on.

I merely added that because she was giving goats milk (a legal activity) and refusing vaccinations (also a legal activity) doesn't equate that there might be something else going on.

You made the inference that giving vaccinations is important followed by something else maybe going on.

Adding the comment the legality of vaccinations would hardly be a straw-man argument.

My post was a comment on the topic and subject not refuting anything you stated on vaccines. I didn't.

Besides you weren't the only one I quoted and was addressing. It was the two points about vaccinations back to back I was adding my opinion on and the law because both statements talked about the importance and/or pressure put on the woman to vaccinate. Didn't disagree with your comment on that aspect. Just pointing out that I believe it doesn't matter to the point of her doing something wrong. Neither are prohibited.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Back to the original point of this thread and why I decided to post it here.

I'm solidly at the position it is a overreach on the goats milk aspect.

I think it is a parents choice. One that I wouldn't choose myself if I was a mother and not a father. Nonetheless, I think she has a right unless one can show she has harmed her child.

I think the state threatening to take a healthy child away under the opinions expressed is wrong.

My wife breastfeed all of our children. No formula. She breastfeed longer than what the US recommends which is drastically different from the rest of the world accept for the UK, which also likes minimum time on the boob. Of course they had other foods at that point as well. They weened themselves.

Our preference. Our beliefs for a stronger and healthier child. Nobodies concern but ours.

All of our children have been vaccinated too. Except I choose not to give the flu shots. We have our reasons and I believe that is a a well educated opinion weighing the pros and the cons. My right. Not for anyone besides my wife and I to make that choice.

We get the constant disbelief from some about this. Really? Why not? Go get this year's flu shot. It's nobodies business.

 

[WebSlave]

Are you really saying that you hold your view whether it is right or wrong, or for better or worse? Are you are saying that the above examples of nonmalicious harm do not warrant interference even if they are wrong, in order to protect freedom?

Absolutely. A free society MUST make every effort to protect it's freedoms at every level. It is pure folly to expect the government to make that kind of decision, for YOUR best interests, FOR you. If you willingly give up your right to be wrong about an opinion, you also at the same time give up your right to be RIGHT about your opinion. You have lost your right to ANY opinion as to how you run your own life.

Freedom has costs to pay and sacrifices to make. Every government will eventually offer their people the free goodies and seemingly painless demands to put you on the easy road to your own enslavement. Keeping your own freedom is hard. Allowing yourself to be corralled into the slaughterhouse is supremely easy.

Their is an enormous amount of insight in this one little statement that people would be well advised to consider.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

People are voting on things with those good intentions in mind, just as politicians are claiming that good intentions are all they have in mind as they walk you down that road.

It is just that easy for America to lose it's freedom one step at a time.

 

[Magic]

Kerri, The last time I checked the State doesn't take away your child because you decide not to put them in a car seat. Your not charged with neglect.

If your caught doing that act, you are issued a ticket which I believe is around $400 here.

Dennis, if you give birth to a child in a hospital or birthing center you are REQUIRED to have a certified infant car seat in order to take baby home from the hospital. If you don't have a weight specific, NTSA (I think that's the governing body) approved carseat, you can't take baby home. The carseat is required to leave in a bus or taxi as well. If the mother is walking home, the distance can't be too long, but that is primarily a concern for the post natal mother rather than baby. (I don't know the actual parameters of distance of that, I suspect each state or hospital governs that.) If, due to poverty, the mom does not have a carseat, one is provided. I know off hand that the Salvation Army as well as a couple national "help groups" provide new carseats just for this very reason. If mom refuses to accept the free carseat or blatantly refuses to use a carseat for baby, then law enforcement is called as well as social services. Why? Simple. Until that baby and mother are adequately discharged home, they are the responsibility of that hospital and all applicable laws must be followed.

For the record, often enough, very heavily pregnant mothers are told they cannot drive any longer until delivery for the reason than they can no longer safely use a seat belt due in increased size. Can any provider legally tell a patient that its okay to break laws? No.

Is it okay that a mothers right to not have her baby in a carseat is taken away? Is it okay that a baby potentially lose its life due to their mother deciding to take a well known and documented risk because they just want to?

There you have educated willful neglect.

And I can assure you, there are many cases in which the state does terminate parental custody of this very law. Some rightfully so.

 

[Magic]

As far as nutritional requirements of feeding children, there are a lot of factors.

The state statutes are pretty similar to the federal ones. All reading close to something like keep the child warm, clean, safe, and fed. Pretty easy right? Well it should be. And if there's anyone out there, regardless of race, wealth, alien status-whatever, who needs help meeting those requirements there's 101 programs designed to educate. The education is provided to help ensure someone's not going to shake their baby or boil it in the bath water, etc. Are those programs mandatory? No, unless the "state" has good reason to make you attend.

Feeding goes something like this. We highly recommend breast feeding exclusively for the first 6months. We encourage further breast feeding for a year, with the addition of solids after 6 months. If you can't nurse, use an APPROPRIATE infant formula.

Dennis, there are no over the counter infant formulas on the market that aren't formulated with the inclusion of supplemental iron. Why? Because iron deficiency was so prevalent prior to canned formulas including it!! I know of only one formula that is sans iron, and it's a prescription parenteral! Infant formulas are fortified for a reason. They're also the only decent meal replacer for an infant not receiving breast milk. Formula isn't even a good way to feed an infant, it's only merely adequate.

As I mentioned in a prior post, there are so very many formula options out there. Way too many options for a parent to say they aren't going to use one. There is even the option of using a breast milk bank, AND! its growing in popularity to bring wet nurses back.

I get that the government is over stepping on many many things. I cannot see a downside to requiring a baby to be fed properly. They don't tell you that you have to feed Similac. They do tell you it has to be complete nutrition. Would that mom have been able to provide a nutrient analyses of her homemade formula, nobody would have said boo. I personally know mothers of multiples make homemade pediasure (think ensure for geriatrics, only this is a supplemental shake for pediatrics) that is calorie for calorie as nutrient dense as the on the shelf product for much cheaper. Perfectly ok, and even better -saves money and enables the parents to comply with recommendations. But replicating an infantile formula? No.



Dennis, I am a proud mom. I breast fed my son for almost three years. I seriously thought I was going to have to go to preschool too until he self weaned. We're working on baby number 2, and I already have my midwife secured for a home birth.

 

[Magic]

Absolutely. A free society MUST make every effort to protect it's freedoms at every level. It is pure folly to expect the government to make that kind of decision, for YOUR best interests, FOR you. If you willingly give up your right to be wrong about an opinion, you also at the same time give up your right to be RIGHT about your opinion. You have lost your right to ANY opinion as to how you run your own life.



It is just that easy for America to lose it's freedom one step at a time.

Exactly. So don't give up those rights. In this scenario, had that mother been able to prove she had made an infant formula that was adequate, I hesitate to think any interventions would have taken place. But her "formula" was truly sub par. Sometimes fighting for your rights ensures you keep them.

For years, women fought to breast feed in public. It's now a protected right. They fought to be given time and appropriate space to pump breast milk in their workplace. It's now a federally protected right.

The key to fighting for rights, IMVHO, is they have to be right (as in correct) to start with.

 

[WebSlave]

Exactly. So don't give up those rights. In this scenario, had that mother been able to prove she had made an infant formula that was adequate, I hesitate to think any interventions would have taken place. But her "formula" was truly sub par. Sometimes fighting for your rights ensures you keep them.

For years, women fought to breast feed in public. It's now a protected right. They fought to be given time and appropriate space to pump breast milk in their workplace. It's now a federally protected right.

The key to fighting for rights, IMVHO, is they have to be right (as in correct) to start with.

I would be interested to have someone show me where in the US Constitution and/or Bill of Rights, which together define what SPECIFIC powers are granted to the federal government, just WHERE the feds have any constitutionally legal jurisdiction in matters such as this.

This appears to be yet another example of road paving to Hell using good intentions. By the feds presuming the right to tell you that you CAN do something, it becomes the foot in the door setting precedent to where they presume to have the right to tell you what you CANNOT do.

 

[Lucille]

There are religions which for instance, have issues with seeking various types of medical care. Some refuse transfusions. Some do not seek medical care at all. No malicious harm is intended, but very ill children die just the same if they need medical care and don't receive it because of their parents' beliefs.

Or if the parents do not believe in childhood vaccinations for those few diseases that have historically had significant rates of mortality, the child may contract the disease and die without the protection that the vaccinations give, or with some diseases such as polio have difficulties for their entire life if they survive.

There are groups that for one reason or another really believe that sexual relations with children are OK. Again, no malice, they just see this in a different way than many of us.

The older I get, the more I see that there are no easy answers. Clearly our government has gotten to the point where it is overreaching its role. But in addressing and correcting that issue, in my opinion one must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Are you really saying that you hold your view whether it is right or wrong, or for better or worse? Are you are saying that the above examples of nonmalicious harm do not warrant interference even if they are wrong, in order to protect freedom?

Absolutely.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Do you have any insights on how to handle some of the issues I outlined, other than implying that we all do not want to head toward Hell, which I agree with?

By your answer above you seem to be saying there should be no interference, for example, from the government in child sex abuse. How would you handle that issue, or is it your opinion that a free society just has to accept such sexual abuse of children as a cost of freedom?

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Kerri,

I know all of that about the car seat and Hospital. I'm a father multiple times over. What I was stating was firsthand knowledge of someone who was stopped a couple of years ago who hadn't had a car seat. The ticket for such was around $400. No further followup from any agency. It was only treated as a driving offense. Had nothing to do with the requirement leaving the hospital after birth. It is militantly checked, I know. And Yes, I personally found it offensive for someone to come check my car to see if I was properly transporting my children.

I don't need my choices monitored. Got to protect everyone though. Infringe on everyone to protect everyone.

Nobody wants to see a child hurt. I don't think many would advocate not putting your child in a car seat. As far as losing rights under the example you gave, I know what my position is but it is 4:00 in the morning here and I think I need to to wait to try and articulate my opinion well. Going to type this quickly then I need to get some sleep.

Breastfeeding:
Three of mine made it to the three year mark as well.

The recommendation from American Academy of Pediatrics, is a year at minimum, I think. Two years and beyond from the WHO.

I don't remember the exact stats, it has been many years since I read them. I think The US was at 1 to 1.6 as the average time. I think majority of Americans was around 12 months.

What if we (your family, my family) were deemed hurting our children by breastfeeding so long? I mean if it becomes a recommendation to not feed longer than two years Would you state your rights are being violated?

Today, you have some on both sides of that fence. Doctors that are for and against longer breastfeeding times. The wind could change and we could be easily seen as unfit parents. Just as the wind on formula has shifted multiple times. You might not think it could happen but it most certainly could.

It's easy to like the recommendations when you personally agree with them.
Particularly if you also agree with the science behind them.

At one point there was science behind the unfitness of a homosexual to raise a child. There was science behind a unwed mother to raise a child and countless other examples.

Today the government recommends and has no problem with the crap Monsanto is putting in baby formulas. They say their science is correct.

I and millions like me say it isn't. Years from now who's going to be right?

Who's to say what that mother decided for herself is any different what the manufactures of baby formula are feeding children today.

The only answer that I can see is freedom of choice. Noninterference from the government. Unless malnourishment is evident and visible. Abuse is visible. The actual harm is visible. If not, then I believe the government needs to step away.

No-matter what your beliefs are, it still a dangerous proposition to give the authority to regulate everything to someone else. In that regard, I have to agree with Rich.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Kerri,

I know all of that about the car seat and Hospital. I'm a father multiple times over. What I was stating was firsthand knowledge of someone who was stopped a couple of years ago who hadn't had a car seat. The ticket for such was around $400. No further followup from any agency. It was only treated as a driving offense. Had nothing to do with the requirement leaving the hospital after birth. It is militantly checked, I know. And Yes, I personally found it offensive for someone to come check my car to see if I was properly transporting my children.

I don't need my choices monitored. Got to protect everyone though. Infringe on everyone to protect everyone.

Nobody wants to see a child hurt. I don't think many would advocate not putting your child in a car seat. As far as losing rights under the example you gave, I know what my position is but it is 4:00 in the morning here and I think I need to to wait to try and articulate my opinion well. Going to type this quickly then I need to get some sleep.

Breastfeeding:
Three of mine made it to the three year mark as well.

The recommendation from American Academy of Pediatrics, is a year at minimum, I think. Two years and beyond from the WHO.

I don't remember the exact stats, it has been many years since I read them. I think The US was at 1 to 1.6 as the average time. I think majority of Americans was around 12 months.

What if we (your family, my family) were deemed hurting our children by breastfeeding so long? I mean if it becomes a recommendation to not feed longer than two years Would you state your rights are being violated?

Today, you have some on both sides of that fence. Doctors that are for and against longer breastfeeding times. The wind could change and we could be easily seen as unfit parents. Just as the wind on formula has shifted multiple times. You might not think it could happen but it most certainly could.

It's easy to like the recommendations when you personally agree with them.
Particularly if you also agree with the science behind them.

At one point there was science behind the unfitness of a homosexual to raise a child. There was science behind a unwed mother to raise a child and countless other examples.

Today the government recommends and has no problem with the crap Monsanto is putting in baby formulas. They say their science is correct.

I and millions like me say it isn't. Years from now who's going to be right?

Who's to say what that mother decided for herself is any different what the manufactures of baby formula are feeding children today.

The only answer that I can see is freedom of choice. Noninterference from the government. Unless malnourishment is evident and visible. Abuse is visible. The actual harm is visible. If not, then I believe the government needs to step away.

No-matter what your beliefs are, it still a dangerous proposition to give the authority to regulate everything to someone else. In that regard, I have to agree with Rich.

Real quick before I'm off.

Recent news story.

Mother and father has healthy two year old girl. No abuse. All accounts great parents to the child. Probably fed a healthy dose of Monsanto GMO laced baby formula. Government approved.

Sat down after putting their child to bed. Father smokes a joint and the neighbor smells it and calls the police. Girl taken from both parents. Court places child in foster care. No abuse of child or neglect. Also, mother was not smoking.

Baby girl, abused by foster parent for a couple of months. Little girl has head smashed in. She's dead.

Not common? I beg to differ. Abuse is rampant with the children the state takes away from parents. Like I stated in my first post on it. They have no moral authority to make determinations. Their state of affairs is not in order to make judgement calls on the populace.

My opinion is your more likely to be abused at the states hands then a parent who makes wrong or different choices.