Parents Lose Children over Family Photos

[Nathan F]

I am beginning to think you believe in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy...

There's no mistaking the fact that the social Right wants to make anything against their sensibilities suspicious and criminal.

And the more extreem social left thinks that anyone who wants to make anything against their sensibilities is some kind of fascist.

[Stormbringer]

I'm getting worried because I've seen pictures of myself, my cousins (from both sides), my friends and my nephews taking a bath with their parent. Perhaps I should report us all to the authorities... I fail to see what is so extraordinery about this.

It's not that extraordinary but the fact that they were taking a fair number of pictures of their kids naked probably set off alarm bells. The fact is that said pictures in the hands of some else would be illegal. The authorities clearly overreacted in taking the kids away.

[Rubberanvil]

the day some idiot interprets a picture of a kid in a bathtub as sexually suggestive is the day I've met my first pedophile.

Going by some people opinions you already a pedophile for changing your kids diapers and bathing them.

[Keevan_Colton]

Stormbringer, from a little later in the article

A photo of a mother breast-feeding, or a couple of smiling kids getting ready for a bath, or, separately, two nude consenting adults,...

Reading through all three pages...what a load of shite....some of these caught my attention...

"I viewed the photographs and had concern of possible sexual abuse, inappropriate sexual behavior and possible child pornography from nine [of them]."

So, that's nine pictures spread across 4 rolls of film....loads eh?

And also from his report to the CPS....

The four photos in which Mercado is seen with her forearm closely covering her chest, for instance, Wakefield described thusly: "Mercado is in the photograph topless and touching her breast."

Damned if you do and damned if you dont eh?

[Stormbringer]

Your point? I agree that taking her kids away is excessive and have from the first post.

What I've said is there's was a good reason to check into it further. They were justified in doing that much.

[Keevan_Colton]

Your point? I agree that taking her kids away is excessive and have from the first post.

What I've said is there's was a good reason to check into it further. They were justified in doing that much.

Only the first quote was directed at you....just to clear up about the pictures and what they contained...the rest is just general ranting and raving about the stupidity of it all....should have made it a bit clearer

[Stormbringer]

Only the first quote was directed at you....just to clear up about the pictures and what they contained...the rest is just general ranting and raving about the stupidity of it all....should have made it a bit clearer

I think they went overboard in bring criminal charges and taking the kids. I think the notion that this was investigated to begin with is reasonable enough. The pictures were certainly enough to raise eyebrows. There are sickos that get off on stuff like that. There are ample cases to prove that. But once it became clear there was nothing to it the matter should have been dropped.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And the more extreem social left thinks that anyone who wants to make anything against their sensibilities is some kind of fascist.

The classical "don't pick on my group--look at them" red herring.

What does the social left have diddly shit to do with the fact that Mike is perfectly reasonable in pointing out the almost constant drive for enforcement of their morality and censor dissenting views from their "wholesomeness" as indecent.

Furthermore, those who are socially liberal don't like people invading our personal lives for victimless "crimes"--which the Right does often and it often reeks of fascism when they want to enforce this across the whole culture, esp. legally.

[Andrew J.]

Ugh. This is an awful situation, and everyone responsible needs some common sense beaten into them.

[Stravo]

Just as devil's advocate here....but no where, not a single line in the Consitituion does it mention privacy or the right to privacy. That is solely a judicial construct. Think on that before you start talking about your god given right to privacy.

[AdmiralKanos]

Just as devil's advocate here....but no where, not a single line in the Consitituion does it mention privacy or the right to privacy. That is solely a judicial construct. Think on that before you start talking about your god given right to privacy.

You do, however, have the right to due process before penalties are levied. This family's children were taken away without anything remotely resembling due process or establishment of danger to the children.

[Stravo]

Just as devil's advocate here....but no where, not a single line in the Consitituion does it mention privacy or the right to privacy. That is solely a judicial construct. Think on that before you start talking about your god given right to privacy.

You do, however, have the right to due process before penalties are levied. This family's children were taken away without anything remotely resembling due process or establishment of danger to the children.

Absolutely correct and where any lawyer worth a damn will hang his hat. However I am not famaliar with the Texas code on child welfare. There are certain circumstances where children are taken away if there is suspicion of abuse and courts have upheld that the interests of the child out weight the rights of the parents to due process. As long as the parents have a hearing as soon as possible to clear it up. Everything about people's personal rights always involves a balancing test between the right and another opposing interest.

[Rubberanvil]

You do, however, have the right to due process before penalties are levied. This family's children were taken away without anything remotely resembling due process or establishment of danger to the children.

You're behind the times, "Due Process" doesn't exist for any crime involving children.

[MKSheppard]

Then make the point rather than flaming.

It's fun flaming

[Stormbringer]

You're behind the times, "Due Process" doesn't exist for any crime involving children.

Not true. The priority is simply to protect the children first and foremost. There's no question that parent's rights come in second in the face of that necessity. But it's legal and necessary to get kids out of abusive homes. It does screw over the chance the parents that are innocent but it's necessary when there really is abuse.

They get their day in court and lawyers and all that. That's dues process.

[Darth Wong]

You're behind the times, "Due Process" doesn't exist for any crime involving children.

Not true. The priority is simply to protect the children first and foremost. There's no question that parent's rights come in second in the face of that necessity. But it's legal and necessary to get kids out of abusive homes. It does screw over the chance the parents that are innocent but it's necessary when there really is abuse.

They get their day in court and lawyers and all that. That's dues process.

One must still establish a reasonable case for the threat of harm to the children from inaction. They did not do so, and cannot reasonably do so based on the evidence at hand. And sorry, but "most people don't do that", as you put it, is hardly evidence of threat to the children. It is a very dangerous line of reasoning when social non-conformance ITSELF, even without establishment of harmful intent or action, becomes grounds for suspicion. In many countries around the world, what they did was perfectly normal.

[Rubberanvil]

They get their day in court and lawyers and all that. That's dues process.

Even when the court declares them innocent. They still branded as sex offenders.

[Stormbringer]

One must still establish a reasonable case for the threat of harm to the children from inaction. They did not do so, and cannot reasonably do so based on the evidence at hand.

I agree that in this case they clearly didn't have a case at all once they took a look at things. Once they took a look at thing it should have been obvious that the photos were harmless. It should have been obvious to them once they talked to the family that it wasn't a case of child abuse and the matter should have been dropped.

But anyway, the post you quoted was in regard to Rubberanvil's claim that there isn't due process in child abuse cases. There is but it's defined by different standards (which have been upheld) than most kinds of crimes.

[Nathan F]

They get their day in court and lawyers and all that. That's dues process.

And sorry, but "most people don't do that", as you put it, is hardly evidence of threat to the children. It is a very dangerous line of reasoning when social non-conformance ITSELF, even without establishment of harmful intent or action, becomes grounds for suspicion. In many countries around the world, what they did was perfectly normal.

Incest and what would be considered statutory rape is also perfectly normal in many countries around the world, but does that mean it should be legal?

Again, not to say that these kids should have been taken away, but that also doesn't mean it should have been looked into a bit, and that line of reasoning you are using just doesn't work.

[AdmiralKanos]

Incest and what would be considered statutory rape is also perfectly normal in many countries around the world, but does that mean it should be legal?

You must first show that it's happening. How does "bathing with her kids" translate into incest and statutory rape? You missed the whole point, which is that nonconformance ITSELF is made into a crime.

Again, not to say that these kids should have been taken away, but that also doesn't mean it should have been looked into a bit, and that line of reasoning you are using just doesn't work.

Of course not, because you leapt on an opportunity to misinterpret it.

[Nathan F]

Incest and what would be considered statutory rape is also perfectly normal in many countries around the world, but does that mean it should be legal?

You must first show that it's happening. How does "bathing with her kids" translate into incest and statutory rape? You missed the whole point, which is that nonconformance ITSELF is made into a crime.

Ah, ok, I misinterpreted what you were saying.

[Nathan F]

Incest and what would be considered statutory rape is also perfectly normal in many countries around the world, but does that mean it should be legal?

You must first show that it's happening. How does "bathing with her kids" translate into incest and statutory rape? You missed the whole point, which is that nonconformance ITSELF is made into a crime.

Sorry for the double post, meant to hit preview the first time...

I think that you missed MY whole point. I am saying that alot of things are normal in other cultures and countries, but most, if not all, in this region of the world would consider it the lowest of sick. I was in no way saying that incest and statutory rape were happening here, simply saying that alot of things are common in other areas that aren't acceptable here, even to the most liberal minded person.

[AdmiralKanos]

I think that you missed MY whole point. I am saying that alot of things are normal in other cultures and countries, but most, if not all, in this region of the world would consider it the lowest of sick. I was in no way saying that incest and statutory rape were happening here, simply saying that alot of things are common in other areas that aren't acceptable here, even to the most liberal minded person.

Those things are irrelevant to this case, however, in which they did not occur.

[Edi]

Still, at press time, child welfare authorities continue to maintain control of the boys, even though a lawyer appointed to represent them says he believes they should go home. In its latest legal filing, the state said it would not consent to releasing the boys until the couple jumps through more hoops, including a lie-detector test they must take at their own expense.

Did the lot of you miss this too? The lawyer appointed to represent the children's interests is saying they should be returned to the parents because it would serve their (the kids') interests best, and the assholes who are responsible for this mess are refusing to do so because they have reached a preordained conclusion.

On the basis of the article, there is a willful and systematic, baseless witch hunt being perpetrated against the parents, and here I find people who defend the assholes conducting them! Nathan F, Stormy, go fuck yourselves, both of you. You seem to be very amenable to the ideas that everything can and should be taken out of context in order to reach a conclusion one desires, even if it cannot by any stretch of sensible and logical reasoning be drawn from the facts. I guess you'd be quite okay with it if it happened to you too sometime in the future when you have kids...

Over here the police officers, CPS workers and DA people responsible for this mess would likely be fired and face prosecution for a whole slew of crimes and willful and malicious dereliction of duty and abuse of power.

Edi

[Stormbringer]

Hey Edi, why don't you pull your head out of your ass and instead read what I said from the very first fucking post!!! I didn't think they were justified in taking the kids at all and I've said so. Try reading my posts before you bitching about me doing something I never did.