Baby taken from parents who wanted 2nd doctor's opinion

[IndyDave1776]

Im with you on this one, but, im not sure how illegal my actions would be. Dont indiana have a law on the books that states anyone without a warrent entering your home is a subject of home invasion, leo or not?

Yes it does. Still, there are times that practically beg for excess.

 

[rambone]

CPS Takes Baby After Parents Seek Second Medical Opinion

 

[rambone]

Remember the story of Maryanne Godboldo? She held SWAT teams off for 10 hours before they kidnapped her child for the same reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IGZOGmsQc4

 

[dross]

You want nothing to do with CPS.

Again. You want nothing to do with CPS.

A good friend of mine got out of the Army and his first job was as a child abuse investigator for CPS in Texas. He told me things that would keep you up at night. All his fellow investigators were nutjobs. He said one woman there had NEVER gone on an investigation an not recommended removal. Her assumption was that all accusations are true, period.

He told me that the judges ALWAYS follow CPS recommendations. I'm sure that's not true everywhere, but in his experience they always did whatever CPS said should be done.

Basically, he told me that that if someone from CPS wants to take your child, your child is taken, and you have a very hard road to travel to win and get your child back, and it won't happen quickly.

Be very, very afraid of CPS. They have defacto powers that should frighten any parent.

 

[steveh_131]

Remember the story of Maryanne Godboldo? She held SWAT teams off for 10 hours before they kidnapped her child for the same reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IGZOGmsQc4

This woman simply ran out of ***** to give. Amazing story.

 

[Lex Concord]

I would be dead before i let some thugs take my children!!

I understand the sentiment, but realize that the thugs would still get your children, with the added benefit of never having to worry about your corrupting influence.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I understand the sentiment, but realize that the thugs would still get your children, with the added benefit of never having to worry about your corrupting influence.

Done right, the blood would flow like a river and there would be no such theft completed.

 

[Lex Concord]

Done right, the blood would flow like a river and there would be no such theft completed.

'twas a continuation of his supposition of ending up dead.

Still, the odds of doing it and getting away with it (i.e. not later being found and killed or imprisoned for life) would likely be akin to winning lotto, unless the circumstances were very, shall we say, "special".

 

[Bill of Rights]

Im with you on this one, but, im not sure how illegal my actions would be. Dont indiana have a law on the books that states anyone without a warrent entering your home is a subject of home invasion, leo or not?

You got that exactly backwards. You are NOT allowed to forcibly resist an LEO entering your home on official business, even for improper reasons. You must submit and let the court sort it out.

Incorrect. This WAS the case, briefly, however now, here's the current law. Please note (a), (b), (i), (j), and (k), specifically:

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
(b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in IC 35-41-1-17, IC 35-31.5-2-129, or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:

(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
​

(d) A person:

(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
​

(e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:

(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (c).
​

(f) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:

(1) on the ground in Indiana:

(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
​

(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:

(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
​

(g) Notwithstanding subsections (c) through (e), a person is not justified in using force if:

(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
​

(h) Notwithstanding subsection (f), a person is not justified in using force if the person:

(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
​

(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:

(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass
on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
​

(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:

(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action; or
(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:

(A) acting lawfully; or
(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.
​

(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:

(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:

(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
​

(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
​

As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1; P.L.161-2012, SEC.1.

The General Assembly at the beginning of 2012 reversed the decision of the IN Supreme Court by writing a specific protection for the citizen resisting UNLAWFUL entry by LEOs.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[IndyDave1776]

The General Assembly at the beginning of 2012 reversed the decision of the IN Supreme Court by writing a specific protection for the citizen resisting UNLAWFUL entry by LEOs.

Blessings,
Bill

Well stated. Regardless of one's position and stake in the matter, it would be wise to understand the 'unlawful' part of this. It is absolutely not the open seasons on cops that was the grist of much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

[horsehaulin]

Sorry, they would have had to come through the door.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Sorry, they would have had to come through the door.

You never know. Roaches like that may try the windows.

 

[Double T]

Well, it's their story against the hospital/CPS. If a parent leaves with a child AMA they have to call CPS. It's exacerbated by the child's heart condition.

While I agree with their position on a 2nd opinion, there are ways to get one without going AMA. Request a transfer.

It's a pretty stupid argument about etiquette really. There's no reason the kid should have been taken away unless it would die from refusing a procedure (like a tear in the liver, or bleeding out, or something).

Hospitals are good and bad. The bad parts are usually policy that won't be ignored due to all the frivolous law suits.

ETA: copied and pasted from a duplicate thread

 

[88GT]

Well, it's their story against the hospital/CPS. If a parent leaves with a child AMA they have to call CPS. It's exacerbated by the child's heart condition.

While I agree with their position on a 2nd opinion, there are ways to get one without going AMA. Request a transfer.

It's a pretty stupid argument about etiquette really. There's no reason the kid should have been taken away unless it would die from refusing a procedure (like a tear in the liver, or bleeding out, or something).

Hospitals are good and bad. The bad parts are usually policy that won't be ignored due to all the frivolous law suits.

ETA: copied and pasted from a duplicate thread

Did you just say that it was acceptable for a hospital to sic the police on a family because they chose to change their medical decisions for their children?

 

[tyrajam]

Thank you for the correction Bill, I don't want to spread misinformation! I don't know how I missed this change, what with all the wailing and gnashing of teeth surrounding the whole topic.

 

[steveh_131]

Did you just say that it was acceptable for a hospital to sic the police on a family because they chose to change their medical decisions for their children?

Only if the all-knowing doctor really disagrees with the parents!

 

[traderdan]

Look, folks ... the time to fight is NOT when they are kicking in your doors. You will lose at that moment. THEY have chosen the time and place when they're kicking in your doors, and they have all the advantages. Fighting back comes later. At times and places of YOUR choosing, so that all of the advantages you can possibly get are with YOU instead of THEM.

I'll just leave it at that.

I understand...Secure the other beloved, and then respond to those who have declared war...

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, it's their story against the hospital/CPS. If a parent leaves with a child AMA they have to call CPS. It's exacerbated by the child's heart condition.

While I agree with their position on a 2nd opinion, there are ways to get one without going AMA. Request a transfer.

It's a pretty stupid argument about etiquette really. There's no reason the kid should have been taken away unless it would die from refusing a procedure (like a tear in the liver, or bleeding out, or something).

Hospitals are good and bad. The bad parts are usually policy that won't be ignored due to all the frivolous law suits.

ETA: copied and pasted from a duplicate thread

Request? You appear to be implying that the doctor has the rightful authority to make your decisions for you unless he chooses to allow you to make another choice.

 

[JettaKnight]

Look, folks ... the time to fight is NOT when they are kicking in your doors. You will lose at that moment. THEY have chosen the time and place when they're kicking in your doors, and they have all the advantages. Fighting back comes later. At times and places of YOUR choosing, so that all of the advantages you can possibly get are with YOU instead of THEM.

I'll just leave it at that.

Some people here need to read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War".

 

[IndyDave1776]

Some people here need to read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War".

Good point. It has been too long since I have read it. Reading Musashi is also a good idea (again, way too long since I have read it).