/6-Month-Old-Taken-From-Parents-With Video

[bobandtorey]

Do you believe that all 20 of those children were taken without "good reason"? 

 

I do not.  I believe some might have been.

 

I did not like the judges wording when he took Bree last Friday.  I did not like the reasons he stated.  (regarding safety issues and break in's etc.)   But I do not have ALL the facts in this case either. 

 

For my own knowledge trying to understand peoples belief regarding this issue.  Do you feel a child is "reasonably safe" in the following examples:

 

Mother and father are registered CG's, they operate a "dispensary" out of there home.  Children are in and out of the room they are "dispensing" out of.

 

Same scenario as above - but parents meeting someone at the local Burger King that they "met" on Budtrader/Craigslist.  The person online claims they are a PT. but parents have never met them in person.  A child resides in the back seat of the car while this meeting/trade/sale is taking place. 

 

Registered CG's own and operate a dispensary.  They take their child to "work" with them regularly. 

 

Now take the same scenarios and apply it to any other scheduled substance - for instance oxycontin or valium.  

 

Take the same scenarios but apply it to any illegal activity.  For instance, taking a child with you in a "getaway" car while robbing a bank.  Taking a child with you to break into a home.

 

 

Do protections of the MMMact apply to you if you are not abiding by the other parts of the MMMact??   (real question here) 

 

 Breaking the law is placing yourself in danger, if children are also "involved" in your breaking of the law - is that not endangering a child?  

 

*******I am not implying that all of the above scenarios apply to this particular case in anyway.  The Green's have not been charged in their criminal case.  Other parents in some of the referenced "20 cases" have been.  I just wonder what people think in general. ******* 

 

 

Unrelated to this scenario, but necessary to point out:

 

To those that "hate" CPS and do not believe they have a place in our "system"  - perhaps your feelings would be a bit different if you witnessed cases of true abuse/neglect.  Should children be without food for days at a time?  Should children be left to wallow in there own excrement for many hours on end?  Should parents be allowed to punish children by burning them or punching them?  Should children be subject to sexual advances/abuse by "daddy's friend"?   Should we just allow these injustices?  Just because they "own" this child/gave birth to them?  Children are innocent and if their own parents aren't protecting them or keeping them out of danger......who is responsible?  Someone has to stand up for the innocent.  (I am not claiming ALL work done by CPS is fair and just, just trying to point out that there is a need for someone to protect children when their parents are not.)  Until you witness any of the above cases, perhaps I can not convince you.  I guarantee when you see a school aged boy who can not keep shoes on his feet because of the blisters from putting out cigars daily, as punishment for wetting his bed - You will want justice served on the parent doing it!!!!!!!!  How about a 4 year old little girl who can not pee without sobbing in pain because her own parent allowed a neighbor friend to "play doctor" with her?  Do we just allow this behavior and turn the other cheek?  Legally we can't castrate people, we can't beat the crud out of them, we can't kill them......

 

On the same note, there are indeed cases that are unfair and unjust.  Children removed from homes when allegations have not been proven or things are assumed.  I am not ignoring the existence of those cases.  Not every action by CPS is truly justified.  Please do not believe I would side with a court in these scenarios, just because they are "the court".  Every case is different and each case should be dealt with accordingly.  I do not believe a child should be removed from a home in any case simply because a parent is a patient or CG!  As a parent, I would do anything in my power to get my child back (including going back on pharmaceuticals or ceasing my grow).  Once I had my child back, I would then fight for my rights!!

The Green's have not been charged in their criminal case?

Sorry but the both of them do have case's going on in Oakland County  for over 2 years ( Medical marihuana ) now i have been to many of them for support that being said i still  think most would not be guilty until the case is finished 

 

I still think this is or should be our Redline and will help if i can

[northerngal]

The Green's have not been charged in their criminal case?

Sorry but the both of them do have case's going on in Oakland County  for over 2 years ( Medical marihuana ) now i have been to many of them for support that being said i still  think most would not be guilty until the case is finished 

 

I still think this is or should be our Redline and will help if i can

 

I am sorry.  I said that improperly, I will correct it.  "The Green's have not been found guilty in the criminal charges filed against them"

 

I am unsure what else you are trying to say here or how it is applicable to my post.  

 

Taking children away from parents simply because a person is a patient or CG should be a redline, for sure.  I believe I made that clear.  You didn't read my post as it was intended and my point was apparently lost to you. 

 

 Does your red line extend to parents placing children in danger?  (not insinuating that was done in the Green's case or any other particular case) 

 

 Does being a medical marijuana patient or caregiver automatically make a person a "good parent" that would not endanger a child? 

 

Do parts of the MMMAct still protect a patient if other parts of the MMMact are proven to be violated?

 

I am asking generalized questions, these are in no way directed specifically at the Green case.  I am trying to understand the thought process in the mmj population regarding the "bigger picture" as it applies to these cases.  

Edited September 21, 2013 by northerngal

[Wild Bill]

 

 the room the drug was being grown in was not locked.

 

For this they lose their child?

[northerngal]

For this they lose their child?

 

I am not agreeing with the scenario or saying anyone should be punished for that. 

 

But let me ask you this:

 

 the room the drug was being grown in was not locked.

 

For this, I will face prosecution? 

 

 I will not be afforded the protections of section 4 if I do not follow the provisions set forth?

 

I could spend years in prison for this?

 

I may not always agree with the laws of man, but will not act stupefied when I am prosecuted for being caught choosing not to follow them. 

Edited September 22, 2013 by northerngal

[bobandtorey]

Do you believe that all 20 of those children were taken without "good reason"? 

 

I do not.  I believe some might have been.

 

I did not like the judges wording when he took Bree last Friday.  I did not like the reasons he stated.  (regarding safety issues and break in's etc.)   But I do not have ALL the facts in this case either. 

 

For my own knowledge trying to understand peoples belief regarding this issue.  Do you feel a child is "reasonably safe" in the following examples:

 

Mother and father are registered CG's, they operate a "dispensary" out of there home.  Children are in and out of the room they are "dispensing" out of.

 

Same scenario as above - but parents meeting someone at the local Burger King that they "met" on Budtrader/Craigslist.  The person online claims they are a PT. but parents have never met them in person.  A child resides in the back seat of the car while this meeting/trade/sale is taking place. 

 

Registered CG's own and operate a dispensary.  They take their child to "work" with them regularly. 

 

Now take the same scenarios and apply it to any other scheduled substance - for instance oxycontin or valium.  

 

Take the same scenarios but apply it to any illegal activity.  For instance, taking a child with you in a "getaway" car while robbing a bank.  Taking a child with you to break into a home.

 

 

Do protections of the MMMact apply to you if you are not abiding by the other parts of the MMMact??   (real question here) 

 

 Breaking the law is placing yourself in danger, if children are also "involved" in your breaking of the law - is that not endangering a child?  

 

*******I am not implying that all of the above scenarios apply to this particular case in anyway.  The Green's have not been charged in their criminal case.  Other parents in some of the referenced "20 cases" have been.  I just wonder what people think in general. ******* 

 

 

Unrelated to this scenario, but necessary to point out:

 

To those that "hate" CPS and do not believe they have a place in our "system"  - perhaps your feelings would be a bit different if you witnessed cases of true abuse/neglect.  Should children be without food for days at a time?  Should children be left to wallow in there own excrement for many hours on end?  Should parents be allowed to punish children by burning them or punching them?  Should children be subject to sexual advances/abuse by "daddy's friend"?   Should we just allow these injustices?  Just because they "own" this child/gave birth to them?  Children are innocent and if their own parents aren't protecting them or keeping them out of danger......who is responsible?  Someone has to stand up for the innocent.  (I am not claiming ALL work done by CPS is fair and just, just trying to point out that there is a need for someone to protect children when their parents are not.)  Until you witness any of the above cases, perhaps I can not convince you.  I guarantee when you see a school aged boy who can not keep shoes on his feet because of the blisters from putting out cigars daily, as punishment for wetting his bed - You will want justice served on the parent doing it!!!!!!!!  How about a 4 year old little girl who can not pee without sobbing in pain because her own parent allowed a neighbor friend to "play doctor" with her?  Do we just allow this behavior and turn the other cheek?  Legally we can't castrate people, we can't beat the crud out of them, we can't kill them......

 

On the same note, there are indeed cases that are unfair and unjust.  Children removed from homes when allegations have not been proven or things are assumed.  I am not ignoring the existence of those cases.  Not every action by CPS is truly justified.  Please do not believe I would side with a court in these scenarios, just because they are "the court".  Every case is different and each case should be dealt with accordingly.  I do not believe a child should be removed from a home in any case simply because a parent is a patient or CG!  As a parent, I would do anything in my power to get my child back (including going back on pharmaceuticals or ceasing my grow).  Once I had my child back, I would then fight for my rights!!

I agree there is a need for CPS and i do think there is more to this story that we may not know but know one should have their Kid's taken just because they grow Cannabis 

she said that CPS never gave her a choice to grow or the kid's would be removed 

[phaquetoo]

Does being a medical marijuana patient give a parent more rights as a parent, than a parent who is not a patient? 

 

Do parts of the MMMAct still protect a patient if other parts of the MMMact are proven to be violated?

 

I am asking generalized questions, these are in no way directed specifically at the Green case.  I am trying to understand the thought process in the mmj population regarding the "bigger picture" as it applies to these cases.  

being an mm pt does give the common parent more rights as far as having their allowed amount in there home!  It does not give them the right to use it or have their young children involved in any way, if that is the case cps should and will do what is needed!

 

If a pt is following part of the law, like having the right cured amount of mm, but deals it to other pts or c.gs they are not related to via the registry, they should be punished!

 

In the case with bree im sure glad one of the grand parents have custody of her and the parents get to visit them when ever they want as long as the grand ma is home!

 

In order to be legal under the mmma/lara/health dept all of the laws have to be followed, even if you have to go back to school to learn how to read to keep up with the changes!

 

when you said something about kids living in their dirty diapers, well that realy hit home for me and denise, as you know we have 2 children that she adopted and they had a miserable life, my son doesnt remember as much as my daughter but they will both be needing more therapy becuase of the life they had before denise bucked up and took the kids from their parents, I came into the picture about 2 1/2 yrs after she adopted them but I came early enough so they had a mom and a dad that love them, these kids are my kids, I could not love them any more than if we had them ourselves!  I have noticed since I popped into the picture that every one treated these kids different then the other 3 kids denise gave birth to, especialy her oldest daughter, she cant stand her lil sister, she didnt like sharing a room with her, she didnt even ask her to stand up in her wedding, me and my boy didnt go, and christine didnt have to, but she wanted to be there with her mother!  well I guess what im trying to say is I know have 2 kids, when me and denise started to date I didnt expect to be a dad to the 3 kids she still had at home, I wasnt a dad to her birth son/thief/liar/pain in my arse, he had his own dad a few miles away, and that is where he is now, as far as im concerned I have a great family, I have a wonderful woman and 2 kids that no matter what happens I always want to be in their lives!

 

Thanks N.G

 

Peace

[northerngal]

Thanks for your opinion on things Phaq!   I too have seen the results of real abuse and neglect too many times and it is something I will never forget or take lightly.  Denise adopting those children may have saved their lives.  It certainly saved them years of neglect and gave them a deserved opportunity to become productive members of society.  Thankfully they had people who cared.  Not all of them do    

    

My post came after Bob's reference to the 20 cases here in Michigan.  Not all 20 cases were unjust.  That is partially what sparked my post.   Understanding the communities general reasoning in these instances is another.

 

For clarification, if not already clear.  I DO NOT agree with the reasoning and wording the judge and previous referee used in the Green CPS case.  I understand why this wording/reasoning is important.  I stated that previously but it appears it "got lost in translation". 

Edited September 21, 2013 by northerngal

[bobandtorey]

Thank you

I guess my own post should have said you can be 100% legal in Oakland County and still get convicted thats the sad part i have been to a few of the Greens court day and they have one of the worst judge's you can have in that court house

[northerngal]

Thank you

I guess my own post should have said you can be 100% legal in Oakland County and still get convicted thats the sad part i have been to a few of the Greens court day and they have one of the worst judge's you can have in that court house

 

 The CPS case is within Ingham County.  You must be referencing the criminal proceedings in Oakland?   I am only aware of the news media's portrayal of the criminal proceedings against the Green's.  I can not personally "judge" by media reports whether a person was "100% legal" or not.  We all know how that goes. 

 

The Carruthers case was also heard in Oakland County, wasn't it?

 

I understand that the Oakland County prosecutor is also very vocal about dispensaries being illegal.  Her thoughts on this have always been clear. 

[bobandtorey]

 The CPS case is within Ingham County.  You must be referencing the criminal proceedings in Oakland?  Yes i am  I am only aware of the news media's portrayal of the criminal proceedings against the Green's.  I can not personally "judge" by media reports whether a person was "100% legal" or not.  We all know how that goes. 

 

The Carruthers case was also heard in Oakland County, wasn't it?

 

I understand that the Oakland County prosecutor is also very vocal about dispensaries being illegal.  Her thoughts on this have always been clear.

 

 

 I agree

i just think Oakland County has something to do with the CPS case because i know how they work on people to get them to plea out they will use anything they can against someone i can say for sure they did the weirdest things to us and i have prove of it not that i would or could do anything about it nor would eye 

i/we have learned many of their tricks it's all about winning at all cost believe that

Edited September 21, 2013 by mibrains
moved bobs words out of the quote box

[pic book]

Oakland

Be a crusader--live in Oakland

Go head-to-head with Jessica

Lose your life.

This battle is by those f-o-r-c-e-d to fight by the state breaking the law...wish success with that to parents. 

[Dr. Bob]

The potential to be robbed is NOT cause to remove a child.  Pending criminal charges (albeit in Oakland Co) is a very questionable reason.  Smoking in front of the kids by the parents and guests is a much more reasonable cause, depending on circumstances.  Folks might not like that, but NG makes good points. 

 

Cannabis is a very touchy situation.  Don't give them excuses.  Go to the basement.  Should you have to, perhaps not, but think about your family and the big picture.  If you are highly visible and on their radar, don't give them an excuse.  This wasn't a random event I am sure.  They were given an excuse to strike back and took it.

 

That said, make them work for it.  Expose them, make them think twice next time.  Work to raise the bar they employ to take kids.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

 

I may not always agree with the laws of man, but will not act stupefied when I am prosecuted for being caught choosing not to follow them. 

 

There is a lesson here.  Do what you KNOW is safe, not what you THINK is legal or justifiable based on YOUR reading of the law.  There is debate about the need to lock a grow room, there is justification in saying it is secured unlocked if you are home.  Too many times we have seen prosecutions based on these two beliefs, when we knew that it would be settled either way if we locked the room.  Lock the freaking room and be done with it.

 

Dr. Bob

[bobandtorey]

http://freebabybree.com