4 ms·

Am I the only one that thinks that taking a baby away from their mother one day after birth because of a domestic violence accusation by a third party against t

Am I the only one that thinks that taking a baby away from their mother one day after birth because of a domestic violence accusation by a third party against the father (and denied by him) is over the top?

DanBC 10y ago
That might be over the top. Does the US publish these court cases? It would be interesting to see what the case actually is. Don't forget that infanticide is a leading cause of death of children under one Accidental death is another, and some of those are because the parents need help and support.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  We have a situation where a third party has made an accusation of domestic violence, nobody has yet been convicted, the father denies it, and CPS takes one day to take the baby away from its mother? I would hope it would take more than an accusation from a potentially disgruntled ex-partner to cause this trauma on a mother and a baby.
watwut 10y ago
No. Babies should be taken out of dangerous situation, but third party accusation should not be enough. Likely to harm the kid on itself.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  I agree that that babies should be taken out of dangerous situations, but was there any evidence that the baby was in harm? How could this possibly be determined by CPS one day after the birth? How much damage is done to the baby and mother by removing the baby from its mother. If this is SOP for CPS imagine how much damage a vindictive ex could cause?
  - caltelt 10y ago
    Looks like you're both on the same page. "...but third party accusation should not be enough."
mod 10y ago
Normally I would assume they had followed up and ensured they were not just accusations, but a confirmed history. But, this is CPS we're talking about. They take a lot of kids out of a lot of homes for a lot of sub-par reasons.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  I can’t imagine much investigation could have been done in one day.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    You don't know if they already have a file on him. EDIT: Don't they have to go in front of a judge and persuade the court that nothing else will do?
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      Assuming the accusation was made in the past then yes they would have a file on him, but he appears to not have been convicted of the offence. I can’t see how it would have been possible to have had the case heard in court given CPS was unaware of the situation until the live streaming and took the baby one day later. As someone with children I would hope it would take a little more than an accusation from a potentially disgruntled ex-partner to have CPS to swoop in and remove my children from their mother.
      - DanBC 10y ago
        First of all this is likely to be a temporary removal to address immediate risk while an investigation and court case is ongoing. In England this could be voluntary, but would need to go in front of a judge if the parents did not agree to it. There's a reasonably high bar to do this, because of the child's convention rights. Also, I can't speak much about the US system, but in the UK it's possible to not be convicted of a crime and still have your children removed for that crime. (I'll find an English case that illustrates this later). This is because criminal courts use "beyond all reasonable doubt" and family courts use "balance of probabilities". (Yes, it's weird. There are some extra protections in place because of this. Removing children is a measure of last resort and should only happen when nothing else will do.) > I can’t see how it would have been possible to have had the case heard in court given CPS was unaware of the situation until the live streaming and took the baby one day later. In the UK there are emergency applications for temporary removals, and long drawn out cases for other removals. Judges are happy to refuse unless the standards have been met, even if the parents are difficult people. EDIT: very roughly: here's a case where the father was accused of sexually abusing his children; he was prosecuted for it and acquitted; the family court had a "finding of fact" session and said that he did in fact do it and child protection followed on. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B95.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B95.html
Dove 10y ago
I find it horrifying. Newborns need to bond with their mothers. Keep them both under observation if you must. Separating them is cruel.

DanBC 10y ago

That might be over the top. Does the US publish these court cases? It would be interesting to see what the case actually is. Don't forget that infanticide is a leading cause of death of children under one Accidental death is another, and some of those are because the parents need help and support.

danieltillett 10y ago
We have a situation where a third party has made an accusation of domestic violence, nobody has yet been convicted, the father denies it, and CPS takes one day to take the baby away from its mother? I would hope it would take more than an accusation from a potentially disgruntled ex-partner to cause this trauma on a mother and a baby.

watwut 10y ago

No. Babies should be taken out of dangerous situation, but third party accusation should not be enough. Likely to harm the kid on itself.

danieltillett 10y ago
I agree that that babies should be taken out of dangerous situations, but was there any evidence that the baby was in harm? How could this possibly be determined by CPS one day after the birth? How much damage is done to the baby and mother by removing the baby from its mother. If this is SOP for CPS imagine how much damage a vindictive ex could cause?
- caltelt 10y ago
  Looks like you're both on the same page. "...but third party accusation should not be enough."

mod 10y ago

Normally I would assume they had followed up and ensured they were not just accusations, but a confirmed history. But, this is CPS we're talking about. They take a lot of kids out of a lot of homes for a lot of sub-par reasons.

danieltillett 10y ago
I can’t imagine much investigation could have been done in one day.
- DanBC 10y ago
  You don't know if they already have a file on him. EDIT: Don't they have to go in front of a judge and persuade the court that nothing else will do?
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    Assuming the accusation was made in the past then yes they would have a file on him, but he appears to not have been convicted of the offence. I can’t see how it would have been possible to have had the case heard in court given CPS was unaware of the situation until the live streaming and took the baby one day later. As someone with children I would hope it would take a little more than an accusation from a potentially disgruntled ex-partner to have CPS to swoop in and remove my children from their mother.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      First of all this is likely to be a temporary removal to address immediate risk while an investigation and court case is ongoing. In England this could be voluntary, but would need to go in front of a judge if the parents did not agree to it. There's a reasonably high bar to do this, because of the child's convention rights. Also, I can't speak much about the US system, but in the UK it's possible to not be convicted of a crime and still have your children removed for that crime. (I'll find an English case that illustrates this later). This is because criminal courts use "beyond all reasonable doubt" and family courts use "balance of probabilities". (Yes, it's weird. There are some extra protections in place because of this. Removing children is a measure of last resort and should only happen when nothing else will do.) > I can’t see how it would have been possible to have had the case heard in court given CPS was unaware of the situation until the live streaming and took the baby one day later. In the UK there are emergency applications for temporary removals, and long drawn out cases for other removals. Judges are happy to refuse unless the standards have been met, even if the parents are difficult people. EDIT: very roughly: here's a case where the father was accused of sexually abusing his children; he was prosecuted for it and acquitted; the family court had a "finding of fact" session and said that he did in fact do it and child protection followed on. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B95.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B95.html

Dove 10y ago

I find it horrifying. Newborns need to bond with their mothers. Keep them both under observation if you must. Separating them is cruel.