It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
DETROIT — Frustration over her physically impaired daughter's medical care led Maryanne Godboldo to lash out at what she considered state interference and into a 12-hour standoff when Detroit police came to take the girl away.
But "to this day, there is not one court order saying give her the medication," Folmar said. "No one has recommended giving the child the medication."
DETROIT -- A Detroit mother is locked in a battle with the state of Michigan over her right to decide what medication her physically impaired 13-year-old daughter must take.
Human Services Director Maura Corrigan says for the state, it comes down to medical neglect.
DETROIT – Frustration over her physically impaired daughter's medical care led Maryanne Godboldo to lash out at what she considered state interference and into a 12-hour standoff when Detroit police came to take the girl away.
When it ended, the unemployed mother was in handcuffs; her daughter placed in a psychiatric hospital for children.
Neglect is frequently defined as the failure of a parent or other person with responsibility for the child to provide needed food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision such that the child's health, safety, and well-being are threatened with harm. Approximately 24 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands include failure to educate the child as required by law in their definition of neglect.6 Seven States specifically define medical neglect as failing to provide any special medical treatment or mental health care needed by the child.7 In addition, four States define as medical neglect the withholding of medical treatment or nutrition from disabled infants with life-threatening conditions.8
Child neglect means harm or threatened harm to a child's health or welfare by a parent, legal guardian, or any other person responsible for the child's health or welfare that occurs through either of the following:
Negligent treatment, including the failure to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical care.
Placing a child at an unreasonable risk to the child's health or welfare by failure of the parent, legal guardian, or other person responsible for the child's health or welfare to intervene to eliminate that risk when that person is able to do so and has, or should have, knowledge of the risk.
Sufficient; equal to what is required; suitable to the case or occasion.
A law that requires Public Utilities to provide adequate service does not create a right for customers to sue the electric company whenever the meat in their freezers spoils because of a power outage in the absence of Negligence. Service does not have to be perfect in order to meet a standard of adequacy.
In sum, whether we accept the version of the facts offered by the Rogerses or by Royal, there is no support at all in the record for the conclusion that the Rogers children were likely in imminent danger of serious bodily harm. Thus, we hold that, under any view of the facts, the Rogerses' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when Royal removed the children without a warrant.
Assuming Royal's version of the facts, the Rogers children were in a sorry state and suffering from neglect of a type that could, if their parents' conduct was not modified within a reasonable period of time, lead to long-term harm. Still, the conditions here did not present an imminent risk of serious bodily harm. It would have taken Royal only a few hours to obtain a warrant. In removing the Rogreasonable period of time, lead to long-term harm. Still, the conditions here did not present an imminent risk of serious bodily harm. It would have taken Royal only a few hours to obtain a warrant.
Originally posted by redrose123
reply to post by ripcontrol
Isn't anything new just getting worse. I am so glad all my children are grown. It reminds me of what happened with my grand daughter this week. There was a dentist that went around the schools checking the childrens teeth. The school sent a note home which said that she had to go to that dentist office due to a cavity in her baby tooth. Once there the dentist said that she would have to have what he called surgery at the hospital with general anethesia to fill her baby tooth. Even though she is covered under medicaid her mother had to pay $50 up front. There is no telling how much all of this is going to cost the taxpayer before its over. Her mom said she was scared to death not to do what she was told because she was afraid the school or the dentist would accuse her of medical neglect. I ask her if she told them if there were any problems with the anethesia she would sue the he$$ out of them.