It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Baby Taken From Occupy Miami Residents

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by assspeaker
 


I would agree if we were talking about a set tribe of people, but we aren't. The Occupy camps are continually raided by police and they are also raided by some not so nice people occasionally and not being a tribe with tribal laws the campers have absolutely zero means of keeping such people out, nor is this a stable community in the sense that people will come and go and eventually everyone will go home. This movement is not meant to become permanent tribes it has specific goals, becoming tribal isn't one of them.




posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


The Dingo's took the BABY!!!!
Great!, I sure feel better now that the kid is in the system.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

Out of fear of the unknown (I've not attended any of the OWS protesting) I would totally agree with you but regardless of what I think about them or what I've heard or seen, I know the baby would be just fine.

There are too many people there who would protect her and give her what she needs.

This doesn't dismiss the selfish occupiers who are clearly using the baby for their nefarious reasons but I can't see how the baby would be better off with the state. I'm torn but I would side with the community, not the state.
Your concerns of the community being temporary is certainly warranted though. .
What then would become of the baby once their time is up? I would imagine the more dominate care takers would assume long term responsibility.
I guess my argument is that the state is never in the best interest of anyone but the state.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by sweetliberty
 


I agree in general the state is no place for a child, but these particular parents didn't even bother to show up to court to fight for their newborn daughter, no one from the camp showed up to claim the child either at least according to the article. Normally I'm pro-occupy everything and I would be here too if the parents were more stable. If it had been me who made the choice to have a baby at the camp and then the state took my baby, I would not leave the hospital nor stop calling agents involved and fighting tooth and nail to get her back. Not showing up for the 1st court date, says too much and that baby needs a home.
edit on 7-12-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
What struck me about this story is the public defenders and social workers have no contact information for the couple and do not know about their tent, yet the couple was available for a media interview.

Seems to me if they can be available for the media on Tuesday, they could have been available for court on Monday. That part bothers me & makes me lean more toward this was a publicity stunt.

OiO



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Oh, so nowadays it is illegal to decide where to have ones child? Well, that is what you would expect if the population was trained to one day in the not so distant future live their lives in total slavery.

I would never have a child in a hospital. It is a so unnatural environment. Home birth all the way.
edit on 7-12-2011 by varikonniemi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 




I think more information is needed before we condemn these people as bad parents.


Good parent would have shown up at their newborn child's court hearing, if they care about the child that is. It would take an act of "GOD" to keep me away, that's for sure.
edit on 7-12-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by seachange
 


I also was questioning the fact that the baby got taken away. I would have defended their choice to have the baby anywhere they want as long as it's not harmful to the baby. I'm not aware of all the details of the camp conditions so I can't say whether or not the camp was a tolerable place to have a baby. What makes me think the authorities made the right decision is that the parents didn't even show up to the hearing.

As i said, I hope it's all a misunderstanding and after a thorough non biased investigation occurs the parents should get their kid back as long as it's decided to be a good option after the investigation I mentioned.
edit on 7-12-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 



Exactly CE. Good moral upbringing begins in the home. This creates a close knit family structure. something MANY families are lacking now a days. Family is first period. We must never forget this lest we fall from our humanity.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Typical...



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by PrimalRed
 


May I please ask what's typical? I'm assuming your referring to the couple in the OP, but even then I'm not sure of which context it's being used in. An elaboration would be awesome.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
To all the people defending the parents, do you support them after they didn't show up to the hearing?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by PrimalRed
 


May I please ask what's typical? I'm assuming your referring to the couple in the OP, but even then I'm not sure of which context it's being used in. An elaboration would be awesome.


Homeless people latching onto the Occupy movement, its typical.
People thinking its wrong that their child got taken away, its typical.
The said homeless people protesting the very system that is going to raise their child and provide her with the free medical service, its typical.
edit on 7-12-2011 by PrimalRed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by PrimalRed
 


I don't agree with some of your points, but thanks for clarifying. In my opinion these aren't typical people. The authorities probably know something that we don't that hasn't been released to the press.

This is just speculation but I'm guessing there was a reason to take the baby away. One easy conclusion to jump to would be mental illness or drug abuse. Only drug addicted or mentally ill parents wouldn't have shown up to the hearing which is what led me to believe there is more to the story.

I could be wrong and these could be good parents, but the facts presented so far don't support that theory.
edit on 7-12-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 




This is just speculation but I'm guessing there was a reason to take the baby away. One easy conclusion to jump to would be mental illness or drug abuse. Only drug addicted or mentally ill parents wouldn't have shown up to the hearing which is what led me to believe there is more to the story.


I think an easier conclusion that you would not have to jump to is the fact that they are homeless.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Smh. Before you judge the parents on not going to the first court hearing, first learn how cps "works"

for example, in texas, they are required by law to have a court date set up 3 buisness days after removal, so they can "justify" the removal. And they will claim "attempts to notify parents" were unsuccessful. So judge basiclly says "fine, parents not here, department keeps custody temporary"

The "department" already said in the articale, they didnt know where to find parents. The above is very common. I'm not pulling it from my butt.

fightcps.com...

www.floridadcf.org...

Links to the states process are pdf, so you can dig that on your own.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

edit on 12/7/2011 by iforget because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by iforget
 



you didn't read the story


Shannon Welch was ultimately rushed by ambulance to Jackson Memorial Hospital, where she gave birth Nov. 15.

edit on 7-12-2011 by PrimalRed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I don't see what the problem is here.
She can have the baby wherever she wants to have it.

How many women in third world countries have babies in fields and the kids turn out just fine.

I've seen that show "I was pregnant and didn't know."
You know how many women don't know they are pregnant and have the kid in the toilet? Or taxi cabs.

You don't need a hospital to have a kid.
Of course it would be better to have a child in a hospital in case something goes wrong.
That the kid was born and is doing fine in foster care is proof that Miami-Dade County officials should of kept their big noses where they didn't belong.

But we've been having kids for thousands of years without access to hospitals.

I think that MDC needs to butt out of peoples business.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by showintail
 


Are you saying that it's common practice not to take down contact information for the parents when they take a child away?

It's possible that they have no way of contacting the parents, but it's the parent's responsibility to contact the authorities in order to find out when the hearing would be. It seems that they may have neglected to do this.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join