So what I'm seeing here is.........
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
12
Let me guess, the baby was in CPS custody
Perhaps they took the baby from the hospital without paying the bill?
The hospital doesn't get to keep the baby as collateral like a title loan place.
Nah, this looks like CPS took the baby away from the mother right after he was born, and so the parents took the baby back and ran.
CPS loves to take White babies because they can sell them. Nobody will buy the black or brown ones.
Nah, this looks like CPS took the baby away from the mother right after he was born, and so the parents took the baby back and ran.
CPS loves to take White babies because they can sell them. Nobody will buy the black or brown ones.
My first thought also.
They're only interested in family unification when illegal aliens are involved.
So the child is with his father and mother - yet it's an abduction? From whom, the state? I have to stop here, or I will get too angry from what the hospital did to my wife and I with our youngest.
@tyler @MCMLXVIIOTG @Verfassungsschmutz @tiddlywinkler hospitals get no benefit of the doubt anymore. Until proven otherwise, it's some faggots on a power trip. I'm willing to believe the parents have the best interest of the child and the hospitals only care that you do what they say, and money.
This is a direct attack on the sovereignty of the family unit and I want the heads of all those who would attack it on pikes.
> You have a right to determine the course of your child's medical treatment unless the hospital, who is not a court, orders otherwise.
Is there actually any legal basis for any of this or is this just a new form of tyranny? Actually asking considering how much Talmudic nonsense our laws have become.
It happened to my wife and I two out of three deliveries. They threatened to call cps. In one instance when I went lawyer, they isolated my wife to ask her if I was abusive. She told them to fuck off. (I'm nice af to my wife btw).
I then went lawyer about their tactics and got my child and wife discharged immediately. I'm just glad my wife is savvy enough to play the game. I acquired discharge in the other case as well.
Nonetheless, this is common. I feel bad for laymen who don't know how to bait the doctors into fucking up, so you can make them sweat. Doctors are deathly afraid of malpractice, losing their licenses, etc as covid showed.
I then went lawyer about their tactics and got my child and wife discharged immediately. I'm just glad my wife is savvy enough to play the game. I acquired discharge in the other case as well.
Nonetheless, this is common. I feel bad for laymen who don't know how to bait the doctors into fucking up, so you can make them sweat. Doctors are deathly afraid of malpractice, losing their licenses, etc as covid showed.
And they will do what they can to bring in the money. In one instance the goal was definitely to get extra money for room time. They claimed they didn't have a doctor on staff at to discharge. I was like.... wtf do you mean you don't have a doctor on staff? You're a hospital. Who's care are my wife and child under at this moment should something happen?
Replies
10
In that case, they charged us for 3 days worth of rooms when we were there less than 24 hours.
> 1 day delivery room
> 1 day post delivery room
> 1 day recovery room
> Total: $10k
I offered them $5k. They said "no." I never paid, and they never did shit about it.
> 1 day delivery room
> 1 day post delivery room
> 1 day recovery room
> Total: $10k
I offered them $5k. They said "no." I never paid, and they never did shit about it.
Interesting, though I am more interested in whether or not any of that could actually legally justify law enforcement involvement.
It's easy to legally involve law enforcement. You call them and say "Something happened." They show up and get involved.
It pays to at least know your rights whenever you are going to interact with any sort of authority. I'm not a lawyer, but I've dealt with cops and had to hire lawyers to navigate the system, and picked up a few things that you'll also see on Youtube. It can be hard to actually do the things if you don't have a lawyer who is YOUR lawyer telling you not to, because we get trained from an early age to be susceptible to the very manipulations they use.
One thing to know about CPS involvement is that they are generally not "officers" and can't simply take your child away from you in a lot of instances, but they'll act official and say "I'm going to take your child," and people will say "oh, okay" and let them, instead of saying, "Get off my property."
You'll notice in that picture it says the parents were "detained." That simply means that the police took them into temporary custody (not arrest) while figuring out if a crime had been committed. Since it doesn't say "arrested," it sounds like the cops took them into investigative custody long enough to decide that a crime had NOT been committed and let them go.
I would like to know if they maintained custody of their child after that happened or if the government thugs took the baby again.
It pays to at least know your rights whenever you are going to interact with any sort of authority. I'm not a lawyer, but I've dealt with cops and had to hire lawyers to navigate the system, and picked up a few things that you'll also see on Youtube. It can be hard to actually do the things if you don't have a lawyer who is YOUR lawyer telling you not to, because we get trained from an early age to be susceptible to the very manipulations they use.
One thing to know about CPS involvement is that they are generally not "officers" and can't simply take your child away from you in a lot of instances, but they'll act official and say "I'm going to take your child," and people will say "oh, okay" and let them, instead of saying, "Get off my property."
You'll notice in that picture it says the parents were "detained." That simply means that the police took them into temporary custody (not arrest) while figuring out if a crime had been committed. Since it doesn't say "arrested," it sounds like the cops took them into investigative custody long enough to decide that a crime had NOT been committed and let them go.
I would like to know if they maintained custody of their child after that happened or if the government thugs took the baby again.
Another thing to pay close attention to is "Hospital policy" is not "law." There may be laws that you and the hospital both need to follow regarding how and when a patient under care is allowed to leave, but the hospital can't just make up their own "law" and have it enforced by the government. They can make policy and then say, "this is how we do things here," and you can say, "I'm not going to do that."
I just find it kind of telling that it's not illegal to have a child at home and no hospitalization is required by law, but if you deliver at a hospital, you can't just walk out with the baby. Why? It can't be about child safety or we would have outlawed home birth, plus the result is not any different. In both cases someone had a baby and it is at home at some point in time. It can only be about billing.
I think it might be a broader issue in that hospitals generally want to claim some "custody" of any person who falls under their care, and those people are often unable to speak for themselves. Either it's an unconscious or altered adult, or a child who doesn't have legal standing to make their own decisions.
It makes sense in a way to give hospitals some leeway here, because you get somebody who'd got six broken bones and is knocked out from an accident, you can't really wake them up and have them direct their own care in sound mind. So the staff has to make executive decisions on their behalf.
The problem arises when they've built up such a bureaucracy around that idea that they hospital staff start to think they're in a little kingdom where what they say goes.
It makes sense in a way to give hospitals some leeway here, because you get somebody who'd got six broken bones and is knocked out from an accident, you can't really wake them up and have them direct their own care in sound mind. So the staff has to make executive decisions on their behalf.
The problem arises when they've built up such a bureaucracy around that idea that they hospital staff start to think they're in a little kingdom where what they say goes.
This is one particular case though, and both Tyler and I have experienced it. Holding a healthy child from discharge without reason and nearly immediately threatening to call cps if the parents attenpt to exercise their and their child's rights to self-determination.
@Humpleupagus @MCMLXVIIOTG @Verfassungsschmutz @tiddlywinkler @tyler @EnnaComa @WhitestTemplar
Hospital administrators have names and addresses.
Hospital administrators have names and addresses.
1. Our entire medical system is fucked. Don't get me started. I won't sleep.
2. I hate doctors. See 1
2. I hate doctors. See 1
It could. If the child was taken without discharge, they will call cps. That's why I forced discharge both times.
I think the law is bullshit, because it allows doctors to create the conditions of a crime, and even legally kidnap children under an un-adjudicated interested "expert' opinion. But I don't write the laws. ๐
I think the law is bullshit, because it allows doctors to create the conditions of a crime, and even legally kidnap children under an un-adjudicated interested "expert' opinion. But I don't write the laws. ๐