Justice Watch Discussion Board "7 Children Ordered Taken from Parents" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... 7 Children Ordered Taken from Parents, Ginja, 16:22:44, 8/18/2000 The Ramseys "out", Ginja, 16:40:29, 8/18/2000, (#1) ah, Ginja, Edie Pratt, 17:00:17, 8/18/2000, (#2) Ginja..., PegB, 18:08:08, 8/18/2000, (#3) Ginja..., szundi, 18:54:43, 8/18/2000, (#4) Ginja, Tricia, 21:01:38, 8/18/2000, (#6) Ginja..., filomena, 20:51:40, 8/18/2000, (#5) I could never figure out..., Ginja, 21:21:40, 8/18/2000, (#7) Good for you!, Anton, 00:32:29, 8/19/2000, (#8) Ginja, Tricia, 08:16:21, 8/19/2000, (#9) Pet rights vs people rights, mary99, 10:36:12, 8/19/2000, (#11) Kids, fish heads and fences, Ginja, 10:17:33, 8/19/2000, (#10) Ginja, mary99, 10:42:13, 8/19/2000, (#12) Mary, Ginja, 13:01:10, 8/19/2000, (#13) a crime must take place..., mary99, 01:28:07, 8/20/2000, (#14) ................................................................... "7 Children Ordered Taken from Parents" Posted by Ginja on 16:22:44 8/18/2000 This is an update of a case I have posted about previously. I originally posted this to open discussion and draw parallels (if any) to the Ramsey situation, most especially, Burke. This religios sect has not cooperated with police or the courts (sound familiar?). In the sect case, they haven't even got a body! Posters asked that I keep them abreast of the case's progress. Background on the case: A small religious sect out of Attleboro, MA (just across the RI state line) hit the news when the police were tipped off that the infant son of its leader was dead and buried by the sect in the woods. Police have been digging up woods in MA, RI and NH searching for the boy's body. A grand jury was convened to investigate, and the father was subpoenaed. Refusing to answer questions about his son or the son's whereabouts, the father was jailed on contempt charges. On numerous occasions, he and other members of his family and sect have been brought before the court to answer to the health and well-being of this child. All members have refused to talk, and as noted, the father has been kept behind bars until this week's actions. Following is the latest action the courts took this week: Sect parents must give up 7 children A judge rules that four members of an Attleboro religious sect are unfit parents and grants custody of two of their children to biological fathers and five of them to the state. By PAUL EDWARD PARKER Journal Staff Writer ATTLEBORO -- A Juvenile Court judge yesterday ruled that four members of an Attleboro religious sect are unfit to be parents and permanently took their seven children away. Judge Kenneth P. Nasif awarded custody of two of the children to their biological fathers, who are not members of the sect. The judge gave the state Department of Social Services permanent custody of the other five children, two sets of siblings. That clears the way for them to be adopted. Custody of the six other children of sect members is expected to be decided during hearings scheduled for today. [In a ruling late this week, those six children were likewise ordered taken from their parents, for a total of 13 children removed from their homes and eligible for adoption.] The sect has been under investigation since November, when a former member showed the police diaries that raised questions about the well-being of Samuel Robidoux, the 10-month-old son of sect members Jacques Robidoux and Karen Daneau Robidoux. The police were unable to locate Samuel and now believe he died of malnutrition in 1999 after being placed on a diet of only breast milk. The separation of the children from their parents is not directly related to the suspected death of Samuel Robidoux. Rather, it is because the Department of Social Services, in what is known as a care and protection petition, has alleged the sect members are unfit as parents. The department cited reasons such as not sending the children to school, not obtaining medical care for them and not feeding infants properly. As part of sorting out who should have custody of the children, Judge Nasif yesterday declared that Samuel is presumed dead, strictly for purposes of the care and protection case. "I am convinced that he is dead," the judge said. Because of that ruling, Nasif also was required to clear Jacques Robidoux of contempt charges. Robidoux had been held since Nov. 10 for refusing, in six separate hearings over the last nine months, to tell Nasif where Samuel is. State law requires parents to give the court access to children in care and protection cases. But, when the child is presumed dead, the Juvenile Court no longer has jurisdiction. Though Robidoux is now clear of the Juvenile Court contempt charges, he is still being jailed for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating Samuel's death. Before dismissing Robidoux from his courtroom for the final time, Judge Nasif chastised the 27-year-old sect member. Nasif read a passage from the Bible's Book of Jeremiah, which warned against false prophets who mislead people by saying they have received messages from God in dreams. "I feel very bad for you, sir, I truly do, and for the people you've led down your road," Nasif told Robidoux. "You are not a prophet, sir. You are a false prophet." And the judge rebuked him: "Your actions, in my judgment, have caused the death of an innocent child, who suffered before he died. I am convinced of that." The Department of Social Services proposed that the five children cleared for adoption be placed with two aunts, though the recommendation could change as the adoption process progresses. The aunts, who are not members of the sect, have been caring for the children since November, when they were taken into state custody. Besides Karen Robidoux's four children, two of which were fathered by Jacques Robidoux, the court yesterday also ruled on the three children of David Corneau and Rebecca Robidoux Corneau. The children range in age from infancy to about 10 years. Though none of the parents showed emotion in the courtroom, courthouse workers said that Karen Robidoux and David Corneau wept in the hallways after their children were taken from them. [emphasis mine] Two things didn't work for Robidoux: (1) not cooperating with the courts has kept him behind bars for nine months; and (2) his "good Christian background" didn't keep a judge from rebuking him. I have a feeling that if they had balls in Boulder and placed Burke under some kind of protection, e.g., took him from his parents, the Ramseys might have cooperated instead of whining. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "The Ramseys "out"" Posted by Ginja on 16:42:33 8/18/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:42:33, 8/18/2000 The department cited reasons such as not sending the children to school, not obtaining medical care for them and not feeding infants properly. When I lived in the city, my yard abutted a neighbor's yard, separated by a chain link fence (which the neighbors put up). Against that fence was hitched a couple of boards connected by a board across the top. They called this a dog house!! They had a large dog and chained him to the fence. They never let him off the chain. He only had enough length on the chain to leave the "cover" of the tilted makeshift hut to get to his water bowl and food. For food, the dog was fed fish heads. In inclement weather, the dog was soaked by either rain or snow. In the winter, he was never taken in, even when the temps were below freezing. I couldn't stand it! I would go out and give the poor thing real food and big bones to chew on. One time there was a near blizzard and the poor thing was out there crying and shaking. I hopped the fence and stole the dog. Brought him home and cleaned him up, wrapped him in a big blanket and fed him the meal of his life. The freakin' owners called the cops on me! I had to return the dog. So I called the dog officer. I wanted the dog taken away from these people. I was asked questions. Was the dog housed? I said if you could call it that and explained his "housing". They called it that! Was the dog fed? If you count being fed nothing but fish heads. They counted fish heads as food! Was the dog leashed or otherwise chained? (city law) I said if you count a leash that allows the dog to move at the most two feet. They counted it! The people got to keep their dog. So I waited. Gave it some time. And then, it the middle of the night, I went back, unchained the dog and took him to my uncle's farm where he lived happily ever after! My point here is that I think under the Robidoux ruling as to why the children were taken from their families, the Ramseys not only are getting away with murder, but they're getting away with claiming that they're caring for Burke...he's fed, getting medical attention and going to school. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "ah, Ginja" Posted by Edie Pratt on 17:00:17 8/18/2000 you are so dear:-) You saved someone's life, I hope you realize. Cool! Did the neighbors ever ask you if you'd seen their dog? You also got me thinking about Burke, and how the R's were arranging for him to live with JR's bro, Jeff, in the event of an indictment. Isn't that interesting in light of the fact that it was PR's family they went running to, PR's family that did all the yapping on their behalf, and PR's family the children dealt with most? Why him? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Ginja..." Posted by PegB on 18:08:08 8/18/2000 ...I love you for taking care of that dog...Peg [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Ginja..." Posted by szundi on 18:54:43 8/18/2000 ...you are an angel in disguise--mayby St. Francis of Assisi (sp) in disguise. You certainly have balls and I admire that in a woman. But you know that. You are one in a million. szundi [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Ginja" Posted by Tricia on 21:01:38 8/18/2000 You are a true hero. Most people just talk. You take action. Your good karma will come around 10 fold. I work closly with my local Humane Society and I will ask our Animal Cruelty Officer what he would have done with the dog and the owners. I think our laws would allow him to remove the animal. We have one Cruelty Officer, for our whole state. Very frustrating. Injustice against children and animals. We all must to our part to prevent it and you did Ginja. Way to go! Take Care Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Ginja..." Posted by filomena on 20:51:40 8/18/2000 You, are my hero. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "I could never figure out..." Posted by Ginja on 21:21:40 8/18/2000 ...why the hell these people had a dog! When you see an defenseless animal in distress, you can steal it away in the night and bring it to safety. It's too bad we can't do the same for defenseless kids! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Good for you!" Posted by Anton on 00:32:29 8/19/2000 Did those folks have kids? I can't imagine why they had a dog . . . or where they got fish heads to feed him. Obviously, I don't live in New England. Maybe y'all have fish heads lined up on the grocery shelves. Sometimes I think the Child Protection Service and Humane Society ought to switch places. At least as far as how they seem to care about their charges. I'm really glad you took care of that dog. I think I'd have been really tempted to move away from those folks, as well. My next act in climbing over their fence might have been less helpful. LOL Anton [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Ginja" Posted by Tricia on 08:16:21 8/19/2000 It's so sad isn't it? You know if those people had kids, the kids weren't treated much better. Children and pets, the most innocent,yet vunerable part of our society. Lets keep our fingers crossed and hope the interviews in Atlanta bring justice for one little girl. Take Care Tricia. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Tricia ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Pet rights vs people rights" Posted by mary99 on 10:36:12 8/19/2000 Ginja, Thanks for the update on that 'sect'. Apparently the court decided that since a child was missing and presumed dead, it met the threshold for abuse or neglect of the other children too. In this particular case, the parents religious affiliation must have played a part in the decision to remove the 13 children. After Waco and Koresh, authorities are reluctant to live and let live when a group of people related by marriage band together and start 'homeschooling' children in a 'cult' atmosphere. Apparently, the leader of the group was also given supreme authority to make decisions for the individual group members and their children as to diet, education, and isolated the members from outside friendships and family. That is probably why these children were removed and Burke Ramsey wasn't. Even though it could be argued that the parents being the main suspects in the death of Burke's sister would constitute just cause for the issuance of a care and protection motion, the fact that there was no 'religious cult' membership on the Ramseys part, and Burke was well fed and clothed, attending scool regularly, and not overtly physically abused would have made it difficult if not impossible for such a motion to succeed. Yes, it's ironic that a child can't be taken away from emotionally abusive parents if there is no physical proof of abuse, and the child is fed, schooled and clothed. Have you ever heard of or read the book, 'A boy called IT'? It's a heart-wrenching first person account of a boy's horrific abuse, at the hands of his mother, while the father, brother and sisters looked on, yet nothing was done for the longest time. He wasn't fed, he was unwashed and clothed in rags, and it want on for YEARS. Finally a school nurse succeeded in having him removed from the home, but only after many complaints and much suffering on the boy's part. He was covered in bruises and scars, underweight, filthy and totally traumatized. Why couldn't the authories have done more to act quickly? Because the rights of parents to raise their children (or keep their pets) as they see fit is sacrosanct in this country. Only the most egregious examples where there is no doubt in anyone's mind of abuse are deemed worthy of intervention. Even as the dog's owners neglected the poor dog, as long as some semblence of food and shelter was provided, and he was kept 'leashed', the owners were considered to be compliant with the laws. Those who would see the laws changed to allow more intervention sooner are met with the argument that if we begin to judge the quality of a parents care based on how well the child is cared for we will soon find ourselves on a slippery slope where a child who has less material goodies than another child could be taken away to be placed in a 'better' home where the parents are better equipped to provide those all-important material goodies. I see flaws in both sides of the issue. True, some children who are born into a family in a low income bracket may go without new clothes, lessons, sports, vacations, etc., but that is no indicator of abuse or neglect per se. They may be surrounded with love and grow up to do well in school and overcome a difficult early environment. However, that may be the exception, not the rule. A larger number of children in impoverished situations will not grow up and do well, and their early environment is the sole determining factor in their success or failure in life. Yet we as a society have chosen not to meddle with the fitness of parents based on how much they GIVE their children. Where does one draw the line? If we determine that a child who wears hand-me-downs is not being adquately cared for, or whose mother may not have a car to shuttle the child to soccer and piano lessons, is that cause to remove the child from the home? Sure, the kid would be better off with parents who could provide all that, but to put a child into foster care or up for adoption based on that would be wrong. It amounts to socio-economic discrimination. On the other hand, how long must a child (or a pet) remain at risk or be abused before authorities determine there is sufficient 'proof' to warrant removal? Too often abuse goes on and nothing is done before it's too late. Either the child is dead or permanently scarred, emotionally, psychologically and/or physically before intervention occurs. I guess it comes down to the simple fact that a lot of people don't deserve to be parents or pet owners (guardians?)and aren't adequately prepared to do the job. Yet there is no law against procreation and no standardized 'test' given to expectant parents to judge their fitness or lack of fitness before taking their new baby home to raise as they see fit. If the dog's owners had declared that G-d was directing them to feed the dog fish heads and keep him outdoors at all times, I bet the dog would have been removed. If the Ramseys had belonged to a religious 'sect' which homeschooled the children in a fundamentalist 'cult' atmosphere, I bet he would have been removed. I think the government steps in and decides that anytime a person claims to be directed by a higher authority, which supercedes or subverts the law of the land, red warning lights start flashing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Kids, fish heads and fences" Posted by Ginja on 10:17:33 8/19/2000 Yes, this family had kids. Young kids who didn't bother with their "pet"...which was why I questioned why the H-E-double hockey sticks this family had a dog. It wasn't a family pet, and it certainly wasn't there for security. RI's nickname is the "Ocean State". It's 50 miles wide but has more than 140 miles of coastline. So it's not a stretch to say you're usually not more than a mile or two from the docks where fish are hauled in to the markets before the sun rises. It's also a mecca for immigrants, and this family were Portuguese immigrants right off the boat. I don't mean that in a negative or discriminatory sense. Their mainstay diet was fish and they'd go to the docks and get fresh fish everyday. The wife would gut and filet the fish and throw the scraps out to the dog. I would get disgusted because, fish is okay, but she could have at least cut those heads up! (Not to mention the smell!) As regards the fence. It was quite high, above my head. My father (god rest his soul, I miss him so much) was as crazy as me. It didn't take much to talk him into helping me that night. Actually, all I said was, Dad, help me steal the dog! :-) The reason I said this dog wasn't for security was because the place was locked and lit like Fort Knox! I'm surprised they didn't electrify the damn fence! But because of the lights, I used to have to wait til the wee hours of morning to help my little buddy (usu around 3 a.m.). When anyone tried to go to the dog during the day, the people used to come to the window and yell to get away. One time the old man came out and started yelling at me in Portuguese, telling me to leave the dog alone (I think!). Climbing the fence and getting over it was no problem. It was getting the dog over the fence which was the funniest and craziest thing I've ever done. Which is where Dad came in. But that dog knew he was being sprung and was sooooo cooperative! As I was lifting him, he was actually grabbing onto the links in the fence and pulling himself up. I finally got him up high enough where I was able to push him up by his ass. He somehow propelled himself off the top of the fence with his front paws and jumped into my father's waiting arms, knocking them both to the ground. I honestly don't know how the two of us pulled that off that night. We couldn't stop laughing, and you know how silly you can get when you loose control...and how weak. Suddenly, you have no strength! I'm ever so grateful that while the poor dog's ass was stuck in my face he didn't pass fish head gas! LOLOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Ginja" Posted by mary99 on 10:42:13 8/19/2000 I love your vigilante leanings! If you can't change the world, change what you can, right? You did the right thing and that dog was better off. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Mary" Posted by Ginja on 13:01:10 8/19/2000 I think you hit the nail on the head as regards parents (and pet owners) rights. You also hit the target when talking about how the government isn't going to step in, no matter how 'abused' or neglected the child might be, when weighing the parents rights over the child's. A paralell I'd like to draw here (thank you for the opening) is how many people, in hindsight, will say something to the effect that the police should have done this, or the government should have interceded, or -- in Thomas' case -- they should have just locked Patsy up to see how fast she'd crumble. The Ramsey case is rife with hindsight jibberish of Orwellian rule. But U.S. law governs, not Orwell...so we must honor individual's rights to privacy and free speech and expression -- even if that expression is incestuous or even diabolical. Unless one can show how those rights have a direct and harmful affect on other's rights (e.g., the child/victim), one must accept our Constitutional right to live life the way we see fit. Unfortunately, it's only after the fact that we wish Orwell had more of an impact on government intervention. JonBenet was abused. But she was also fed, clothed, schooled and pampered. Perhaps many of us would not have schooled her in such things as to how to look sexy or be seductive. But the laws are such that this kind of 'upbringing' isn't illegal. By the time the law can intervene, it's almost always too late, and the judicial process is relegated to meting out punishment for the real crime...which isn't the way the parents brought this child up, but rather, the fact she died at their hands. BTW, once again, your posting is brilliant! :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "a crime must take place..." Posted by mary99 on 01:28:07 8/20/2000 That simple clause is WHY so many kids remain in homes where the care is inadequate, where the parents are clearly not doing their job, where the child is exploited or abused...because UNTIL it can be proven a crime has occurred, all the suspicions and raised eyebrows don't make a whit of difference. IF the dog had died out there on a cold night, then and only then would abuse be 'confirmed', too late to save the dog, but not too late to punish the owners/guardians of the dog. The law really goes into effect, iow, after it's TOO LATE! Unfortunately, this is the case with so many abused and neglected kids...neighbors and teachers complain, but nothing is done until it's too late. The rights of parents supercede the rights of the child. Proper care is assumed until proven otherwise. Every opportunity is given for the parents to effect a transformation for the better before usurping the parental rights. Even convicted molesters/rapists are sent back to the children they raped and/or molested when their jail term is over. (I'm talking about men who abused their own children or step-children). They may be put on probation or parole, but they aren't barred from contact with their victims if their victims are their own biological children. It's a self-perpetuating problem; abuse begets abuse...our prisons are full, what will become of the children when the convicted felon comes home? If Patsy OR John were ever convicted of murder, I bet Burke would be allowed to live with the non-incarcerated parent. And a plea would be entered on his behalf to keep one parent out of prison to care for him. How ironic. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE