“Even after a judge required ACS to reunite Ms. Rivers with her baby, ACS continued to subject Ms. Rivers to needless court proceedings and a litany of conditions that interfered with her parenting of TW for months, while the unlawful removal of her baby was ratified by senior ACS leadership,” the complaint reads. “This was not because ACS was trying to protect TW; this was because Ms. Rivers is Black.”
People who work in Child Protection aren’t doing it because they’re power hungry sociopaths. They’re people who do an absolutely horrible job for shit pay because they feel compelled to protect children.
I’m not in NY, but I have a friend who works in Child Protection. The shit her and her friends see is fucked up.
In the case here, the baby was born with measurable levels of THC in their system. It’s not illegal to smoke weed while pregnant, just like it’s not illegal to drink alcohol while pregnant - but both can fuck up a child for life before they’re even born.
If it’s not illegal to drink alcohol and smoke marijuana, I’d like to understand why she and the baby were tested for pot in the first place.
Because legal or not smoking pot WHILE PREGNANT is bad. Alcohol is legal, would you have a problem with them testing the mother or babies BAC?
Is it? Do you have some documentation of that?
Of course.
The government should not punish ‘bad’ behavior.
The government does punish when you purposefully harm someone though.
in a liberal, enlightened country, the State does not ‘punish’ as such behaviour is strictly against the values of enlightenment.
the consequences for a crime aren’t a ‘punishment’ in order to create ‘justice’, but instead a ‘deterrent’ designed to deter you from doing whatever the society agreed was undesired.
i recommend ‘enlightenment now’ by steven pinker as a great read about the ideology of enlightenment and why it’s important to keep for the future.
LMFAO no it doesnt. It punishes you when you illegally harm someone
Lots of people raise their kids to be dipshits every single day
No, the government does not punish people, at least not legally, who purposefully harm someone, unless said harm is illegal.
Child endangerment is explicitly a crime.
Yes, it is illegal.
Elaborate please. Are you saying there should be no laws, or no punishment for breaking laws, or something else?
The government should punish lawbreaking behavior. The government should not punish behavior deemed ‘bad’ by you or by me, unless that behavior is illegal.
It sounds like you’re just not familiar with how CPS works, no offense. If a child is being subjected to an unsafe situation they can legally remove a child, whether the conduct rises to the level of illegal conduct or not.
Medical professionals are mandatory reporters (I’m not sure if that’s the same legal term in NY, my experiences with CPS have been with several other states). That means they are legally required to notify CPS if they see or THINK they see evidence of abuse. Allegations must be investigated before being acted upon.
I can certainly see why you don’t like the fact that the hospital tested the baby for marijuana but if it means they need to modify treatment of the baby they absolutely can do that. Testing the mother may be different, like I said I don’t have experience with the NY system.
In short it sounds like you are just not familiar with the standard processes of CPS and are actively interpreting everything in a negative way.
You don’t get to randomly drug test random individuals who have no broken the law. That’s a violation of human rights. The mother would not have consented to a drug test of her or her baby. Even if they get reported, that isn’t probable cause.
Imagine if that were the case. One racist nurse could say that every ethnic mother that comes in smelled like weed, and both mother and child get forcibly drug tested based on that? Do you want to live in that world?
Guilty as charged. I am ignorant of how CPS works, except that I used to watch Judging Amy. I’m operating solely on instinct here — I don’t trust cops, and this news item has the odor of cops.
That said, most of what you say makes sense, and the concept of mandatory reporters hadn’t popped into my head at all, thanks. Assuming it’s illegal for children to have cannabis in their blood, I can almost see mandatory reporting coming into play.
Except, we’re in New York, where marijuana is legal. Are all hospitals testing all newborns, and seizing them for CPS/APS if they test positive for marijuana? They’d be seizing an awful lot of newborns.
My guess — still utterly uninformed, I’ll admit — is that New York newborns are only tested for marijuana if Mom is black and has pissed off the hospital staff.
The cops can’t arrest you for being a shitty person, only for breaking laws decided by Congress.
Are you from Russia or something?
No they can’t, but CPS can remove a child for all kinds of abuse that doesn’t rise to the level of illegality, it’s like that in every state in the US.
You’re good at explaining stuff, and I’d like to understand please. What abuse that “doesn’t rise to the level of illegality” gets kids seized by child protective agencies?
I don’t know the details and I don’t want to judge, but if what op says is correct (the baby had measurable level of thc), the government is not punishing the mum, it is trying to protect the child. Thc while growing has been proven to affect brain development.
If the government is actually able to help… That I don’t know. I hope they are funded and competent enough
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
They do a workup on every child born in a hospital. That shit is going to come up on a blood test. Please stop defending someone who gave brain damaged to their child.
Those first two sentences make sense.
The recommended maximum amount of alcohol while pregnant isn’t zero. 12g a day is what I’m seeing in a quick search. I’m sure Marijuana can be safe for the child below a certain level. This article doesn’t state any levels besides above zero, and it also doesn’t stare any defects caused by it. It does seem to imply no complications though.
I would love to meet these pregnant women responsibly consuming 12g of alcohol and nothing more. Wouldn’t be surprised if it was some dumbass religious “but it’s communion so it’s ok” bullshit.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2043426/
Keep in mind, 12g of alcohol is not 12g of alcohol containing substance. Somewhere around 120-240g of beer should be perfectly fine, depending on the beer. About 1/4 to 1/2 pints per day. If you make that weekly it’s about a pint every other day or so.
The people who work in child protection don’t necessarily need to be power hungry in order to be racist. There are tons of people in shit jobs getting shit pay who are as racist as it gets. In fact I would argue that most people who are racist are working shit jobs for shit pay. And just because the person you know in that job position is a good human being doesn’t absolve others of being racist pieces of shit who look down on black women and use whatever excuse they can use to take their kids from them.
Please cite a single piece of evidence on the negative effects of fetal exposure to THC. Fetal alcohol syndrome is well documented, but I’ve never heard anything comparable regarding marijuana.
deleted by creator
Child was born with measurable levels of THC in its system. So all of you outraged folks are ok with women who smoke cigarettes, drink and cheef up while pregnant right? Smoking weed when you have a kid, whatever fine. Even if it’s illegal. This kid is damaged because the mother couldn’t quit smoking weed when pregnant. That’s not something you should be defending.
deleted by creator
Yes, they do…
Feel like providing a source that NYC is doing that? Because it appears to not be true as far as I can see.
Let’s use some common sense real quick here. You think CPS cases are public information someone can just look up? No, right? Why is this in the news? Because it’s a civil suit.
Impairment as a result of the inadequate guardianship of the unborn child would get a CPS case started and then under observation, if not have the child removed. This particular case has a news article because of the civil case. If a child is born with a defect due to the mothers substance abuse, how would that normally make the news? The mother isn’t running to the papers about it. The CPS workers see it all too often and would lose their jobs if they did. Anyway, I’m going to block you now. You clearly want to argue about something that’s common knowledge because you want to prove some bullshit point. I’m not interested in interacting with you further.
tldr; “No I can’t I made it up but I’ll block you for pointing it out”.
Even children born with opiods in their system can have corrections taken. Its not ideal, and disorders are real, but I think shaming people for “this isn’t something you should be defending” is coming off in a bad way.
Lmao, dumbass loser can’t find sources. Why do you idiots even bother? Do you like being wrong?
Rule 1 reminder: Real-life decorum is expected. Please don’t say things only a child or a jackass would say in person.
You can expect anything you want. Doesn’t mean I give a shit.
There is a recommended maximum amount of alcohol to be consumed whole pregnant. It isn’t zero. I’m sure the same should be true for almost any other substance, but as far as I’m aware the guidelines for Marijuana don’t exist, though they may. I don’t really know. The article does not state how much she used or if it was above or below any recommendations, or that the child had any birth defects related to Marijuana use. In fact, it seems to imply that there wasn’t any complications besides legal ones.
Research on using marijuana during pregnancy is limited, but to noone’s surprise, it’s assumed to be harmful and recommended against.
Using drugs during pregnancy is not okay. Nice to hear this child apparently was lucky.
Again, alcohol consumption has been shown to be safe below a certain level. Yes, “drug” use can be bad if abused, but that goes for all drugs, not just what people typically call drugs which are substances we’ve decided to regulate for usually no good reason. Caffeine can have negative side effects, but no one is taking people’s children away because they drank too much coffee.
According to the CDC, you’re wrong.
There is no known safe amount of alcohol use during pregnancy or while trying to get pregnant. There is also no safe time for alcohol use during pregnancy. All types of alcohol are equally harmful, including all wines and beer.
The reason caffeine is not as much of a problem is because according to the CDC it has little to no effect on a baby. The worst effect linked to very high caffeine consumption is poor sleep, which is unsurprising.
Caffeine […] does not adversely affect the infant when the mother consumes low to moderate amounts (about 300 milligrams or less per day, which is about 2 to 3 cups of coffee). Irritability, poor sleeping patterns, fussiness, and jitteriness have been reported in infants of mothers with very high intakes of caffeine, about 10 cups of coffee or more per day.
Also according to LactMed, which is referred to by the CDC:
Studies in mothers taking 5 cups of coffee daily found no stimulation in breastfed infants 3 weeks of age and older.
We conclude: Alcohol does not have a safe level of consumption and is always bad for your child. Caffeine on the other hand is usually completely harmless and in the worst case only causes the normal effects of caffeine, not long term damage. They are not comparable.
Now, is marijuana consumption more similar to alcohol, as in it causes long term damage to the child, or is it more similar to caffeine, as in it only has small and temporary effects on the child?
According to the CDC, marijuana consumption is assumed to cause long term damage to the child.
Some research shows that using marijuana while you are pregnant can cause […] abnormal neurological development.
[S]tudies suggest that marijuana use by persons during pregnancy could be linked to problems with attention, memory, problem-solving skills, and behavior in their children later in life.
It seems like marijuana is not just part of some “substances we’ve decided to regulate for usually no good reason”, but actually a harmful substance with reason to be regulated.
An opinion piece, published 15 years ago? Let’s look at current recommendations by renown organisations:
HHS (USA: Department of Health & Human Services)
It is not safe for women to drink any type or amount of alcohol during pregnancy.
DHAC (Australia: Department of Health and Aged Care)
No safe level of alcohol consumption during pregnancy or while breastfeeding has been identified.
Even a small amount of alcohol can harm a baby’s development and may have lifelong effects.
DHV (Germany: Deutscher Hebammenverband)
Im Gegensatz zum Koffein gibt es bei Alkohol keine Menge, die für das ungeborene Kind unbedenklich ist. Es wird sogar empfohlen, bereits bei der Planung einer Schwangerschaft auf Alkohol zu verzichten. Selbst in geringen Mengen kann Alkohol zu Fehlbildungen, Wachstumsstörungen und einer Schädigung des Gewebes inklusive der Nervenzellen führen.
Translation using DeepL:
Unlike caffeine, there is no amount of alcohol that is safe for the unborn child. It is even recommended to avoid alcohol already when planning a pregnancy. Even in small amounts, alcohol can lead to malformations, growth disorders and damage to the tissue including the nerve cells.
RCOG (UK: Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists)
Although the risk of harm to the baby is low with small amounts of alcohol before becoming aware of the pregnancy, there is no ‘safe’ level of alcohol to drink when you are pregnant.
There is no proven safe amount of alcohol a woman can drink during pregnancy.
Women are therefore strongly advised to not drink alcohol at all at any stage during pregnancy because there may be an increased risk of miscarriage. The current advice is to avoid alcohol completely.
CDC (USA: Center for Disease Control and Prevention
There is no known safe amount of alcohol use during pregnancy
Sound medical advice for pregnant women is always a good idea.
Following sound medical advice is usually a good idea, too, at least since leeches went out of fashion.
It’s not the law, though.
If you don’t have the fucking self control to stop smoking, drinking or taking any potentially harmful substances during pregnancy, you shouldn’t have kids. There shouldn’t even be a debate here.
I’m always happy when we can find agreement in a conversation like this, and I certainly agree that there shouldn’t even be a debate — about enforcing your morality on every woman who may have smoked tobacco, imbibed alcohol, or taken any potentially harmful substance during pregnancy, by having the government seize her child/children. Enforced uniformly, most American children would be wards of the state.
I am not trying to say take away every child from their mother because they smoked one blunt, I am saying don’t smoke a blunt. Stop being an irresponsible dumb fuck. That shit is never GOOD for your child, and if that’s not your priority, maybe you should think on your own morality.
I am not trying to say take away every child from their mother because they smoked one blunt, I am saying don’t smoke a blunt.
Sound medical advice.
deleted by creator
Oh, piffle. This kid was damaged by being taken from his mother. That’s not something you should be defending.
Both of these statements are true and should be evaluated separately.
You’re a fucking idiot.
Indeed.
THC? so what. We all have microplastics in us and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. I bet the air quality in NYC is hurting that baby vastly more than a little pot smoke.
You are saying to ignore one problem because of another problem, which is stupid. The first problem still need to be fixed as well.
“The woman, Chanetto Rivers, will receive more than $75,000 and payment for legal fees after she accused New York City and its child welfare agency of separating her from her son when he and Rivers tested positive for marijuana in August 2021.”
Newborn tested positive for marijuana. Looks like the agency originally believed there to be an abuse issue. Makes sense. Alcohol is legal, but if a child is being exposed to alcoholic abuse, best to take them away from the environment.
And it appears the settlement was more about the difficulties in getting her child back due to systemic racism in the courts.
In her lawsuit, Rivers claimed that hospital staff tested her for drugs without her consent in August 2021, when she was “overwhelmed with happiness and drained by the birth” of her son, TW.
Rivers and her newborn tested positive for marijuana, and the agency told hospital staff to hold the child “indefinitely,” according to the federal lawsuit.
I see nothing in the article indicating any problem except racism.
And the article is omitting information such as why there was a drug test to begin with and if it was breach in privacy, why is the hospital not being sued?
Here’s why: “claims from a hospital worker that she smoked marijuana in the hospital room”. Mother also had previous interactions with the agency in regards to her older children.
So, hospital has cause to run a drug tests, drug test comes back positive on mother and newborn. Hospital reports to ACS who tell hospital to hold baby. Mother goes to court to get baby released, but this whole issue greatly affects an existing case she has with ACS in getting her older children back.
The lawsuit claims racism and falls flat when evidence suggests she is a neglectful parent and willingly endangering the unborn child by smoking marijuana while pregnant.
This is not a hill to die on when it comes to police problems. Not when there are more clear cut examples of systemic issues than this.
I’m old and fat, and would die climbing any hill.
Always I’ve been told that there’s confidentiality when dealing with doctors, hospitals, clinics, even blood and urine samples, so when you say, “hospital has cause to run a drug test,” that startles me. A hospital giving drug test results to ACS startles me. If this is OK, it establishes that doctors, hospitals, clinics, and medical labs are agents of law enforcement, which startles me.
And it should because thanks to democrats we are moving towards a world where no one has any privacy or any fundamental liberties and is a slave to the state
This is not the country I want for my children
Lmao!!!
Good! we don’t want you here either… so leave… oh wait that’s right, you can’t leave, even if you wanted too.
You’re a peasant like the rest of us… yet you think eating the boot is a better resource than lining up with your fellow countryen for perceived us, against them mentality…
You’re not very bright, are you?
Every year since Biden became President you fake leftists are acting more and more like conservatives and it’s starting to get real annoying. You’re the ones now destroying the environment, you’re the ones attacking environmental protesters, you’re the ones racially attacking black people 24/7, you’re the ones violating peoples basic rights and destroying peoples right to privacy, increasing the police budget, attacking peaceful protesters.
Congrats, you’re now the Neo-Cons of 2004
Self aware wolf moment - “western democracy paints a false dichotomy of choice when really all it offers are flavours of neolib”
Asking nicely. Knock it off and talk about the police, please.
Am I reading it wrong or does it imply she smoked it while pregnant?
Even heavy weed smokers would agree you don’t take that shit while pregnant. Most people try to avoid shit like Tylenol, let alone weed.
That’s advice, possibly even good advice. It’s not the law.
Ignoring advice, even good advice, should not be grounds to lose a child.
I don’t know the law in NY, but where I am something does not have to be against the law in order to trigger child safety services.
I’d like to know more about this, but I know Googling it would sour my stomach and ruin my evening. Can you tell me (briefly please) what not-illegal acts can trigger action or an investigation by child safety services?
Other than substance use (don’t smoke around kids, don’t be drunk/high and incapacitated when taking care of kids), having a disgusting house (e.g. things like uncleaned animal feces and urine everywhere) is a good one. It’s not illegal to live like that, but can rise to level of being unsafe for children.
That’s not a good example. Child endangerment is illegal, which is what your examples are.
Makes sense, thanks.
Who the fuck is even testing babies for drugs?
An un-named New York hospital, apparently, and then they turn the results over to ACS. I’d like to know which hospital did this, in case I ever need medical care in NYC.
Most hospitals do if the mother discloses any kind of drug use. Likely a bit antiquated if testing for thc but laws are slow to catch up to things
So, not necessarily a police problem as much as a systemically racist ACS problem?
Different flavors of the same poison. Cops, prison guards, probation officers, agencies like this, shitty judges, etc — they all have the authority to fuck over people’s lives with minimal or no oversight.
There’s a great book that highlights the systemic nature of these enforcement systems called The Poverty Industry.
This was clearly racial discrimination
Shame on NYC, CPS is for real cases of abuse, not when a mother loves her child
I’m curious about the wording here? Was her skin color a factor?
Read the article maybe?
It seems to be that only black people are having issues like this. While race isn’t specifically stated as a reason, race is one of the correlating factors between all people this has happened to in NY.
deleted by creator
Yeah, it’s never ‘only’ black people being mistreated by cops. Blacks get it worse and more often, but there’s plenty for everyone.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
REEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
before opening your duck holes and spewing out garbage.
Removed by mod
