It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Criminal Charges Dropped Against Mother In Police Confrontation

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 02:52 PM
Maryanne Godboldo Challenging State On 13-Year-Old Daughter's Care

DETROIT -- Criminal charges have been dropped against a mother who was arrested and charged after a confrontation with Detroit police over the custody of her daughter. Maryanne Godboldo lost custody of her 13-year-old daughter after an incident with March where she allegedly fired shots at officers who had come to her home with a writ to take her daughter.

She had been charged with discharge of a weapon, three counts of felonious assault, resisting and obstructing an officer and felony firearm. But 36th District Court Judge Ronald Giles dismissed the charges Monday because there was insufficient evidence to show she fired a gun at police. The prosecutor's office said it will appeal the dismissal.

However, a jury in Juvenile Court found her guilty of child neglect earlier this month. According to the Department of Human Services, there were claims of neglect against Godboldo for not giving her daughter prescribed medications. Godboldo has said the anti-psychotic medications prescribed for her daughter would do more harm than good and refuses to administer them. Godboldo failed to regain custody of her teenage daughter in April.

In May, Child Protective Services workers listed 17 allegations that were in a petition to remove the child from the home. Those allegations included the child not showing up for therapy and not taking prescribed medication. During the course of Godboldo's trial, the girl was turned over first to a state facility and then her aunt.

Continued police state. With all the disgusting things parents do to a child, she was trying to give her daughter a "normal" life and help her through the troubles rather than alter the child's reality.

Past Story is referenced below at:





edit on 29-8-2011 by plewis51 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-8-2011 by plewis51 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:04 PM
Maybe the Judge is on her side? Amazing that you can be chaged for NOT giving your child a dangerous drug.

And who made the claims of neglect? I dont see that any where in the story.
edit on 29-8-2011 by type0civ because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:06 PM
reply to post by plewis51

I think the Judge just recognised the fact that a mother has the right to defend her daughter from kidnapping, even if its at the hands of goons with badges. Sure, he used some legal mumbo-jumbo about no evidence that she shot AT the officers but, something tells me he doesn't agree with the taking of the child in the first place.

We need more good judges like this on the bench.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:34 PM
reply to post by type0civ

I made the comment of "so many parents doing disgusting things to their children" in terms that there are parents who neglect their kids considerably but the state looks the other way.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:25 PM
The sad part is, that people have no clue how the state can legally remove a child from the parents at their discretion. Because of peoples ignorance they unwittingly gave the state this right. Your first error was getting the states permission to marry (not required). This marriage license (not required) makes the state a party to the union and the state looks at it as a business of which they are a part. The state also is privy to any fruits of the business (children) which it claims ownership. Second error was when you registered your child (fruits of business) with the state via a birth certificate. Third error was when you registered your child with the IMF via the SSN to be traded as a commodity.

Now you wonder why they can remove a child from the parents for not giving the proscribed medication. It's a simple fact that the state is looking after its property and deems the parent as damaging the states property and interests. Just like any good business partner would look after the best interest of the business to gain a profit.

the judge merely understood the maternal instinct to protect the child from an outside threat but notice the child was not returned to the parent. All this comes under contract law. You signed the contract but failed to read the fine print. I am not siding with the judge nor the police, just pointing out facts.

top topics

log in