Child Protective Services

[David S]

http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3434010
AGUA DULCE-- The father of a twelve year old Agua Dulce girl who was allegedly abducted by her mother, says his wife was only trying to protect their daughter. Authorities arrested Michele Wernecke last night after she was found at a family ranch near Freer with her daughter Katie, who had been missing since Wednesday. Investigators say the abduction occurred after a judge ordered Katie and her three siblings be turned over to CPS because the child's parents refused to give Katie the required radiation treatment for her cancer. But Katie's father Edward Wernecke says the allegations aren't true.
"We don't have a lot of hope, I mean I'm devastated, my wife is devastated, we haven't been able to get any help, and this is all going to happen around us and we can't stop it, and we're scared," he said. Wernecke says fear drove his wife to run off with their Katie, who had been undergoing treatment for Hodgkin's Disease. Katie has undergone four chemotherapy treatments which have caused her to lose her hair. After a second opinion, a doctor said Katie would need to undergo radiation to kill cancer cells found in her chest.
"The doctor is forcing us to do this radiation treatment when there is no evidence there is a live cancer there right now, so why injure a child this way?" Edward Wernecke said. Edward says he's worried radiation treatments will stunt Katie's growth and lead to more health problems. The family had hoped to seek an alternative treatment for Katie, but they weren't given a chance to get a third opinion. Edward claims the doctor who ordered radiation treatment contacted Child Protective Services, and CPS received a court order to have the kids removed.
Edward Wernecke now hopes and prays a judge will give them a chance to find another doctor and alternative treatment to eventually give Katie a normal life. Edward says Katie is currently staying at the foster home of a licensed nurse. Her three other siblings are also in foster care. Michele Wernecke was arrested on the charge of interfering with child custody.
Online Reporter: Roxanne Carrillo

[John Dibble]

The doctor sounds rather suspicious, seems he wants money more than to heal his patients honestly.

Now, further, I have to wonder what the hell the girl's siblings have to do with it - they don't have cancer, they aren't even involved, so why the hell would CPS need to take them away too?

[David S]

The doctor sounds rather suspicious, seems he wants money more than to heal his patients honestly.

Now, further, I have to wonder what the hell the girl's siblings have to do with it - they don't have cancer, they aren't even involved, so why the hell would CPS need to take them away too?

My answer would be " another case of big government out of control" and yet another reason why I'm a Libertarian.

[Jake]

Seems like the parents are acting like jackasses and not doing what parents should.

[John Dibble]

Seems like the parents are acting like jackasses and not doing what parents should.

You mean parents shouldn't look for alternative treatments that won't potentially damage their child's body?

[David S]

Seems like the parents are acting like jackasses and not doing what parents should.

If the parents were contemplating something totally nuts like cobra venom injections or something equally insane then the CPS would have a legitimate case for putting the daughter in protectective custody. But there doesn't seem to be any such indication here. Chemo and radiation are not always successful and sometimes have serious consequences. The parents only want to decide what's right for their daughter. Also there is no rationale for putting the sons in foster care. The CPS is acting like the gestapo in my opinion.

[opebo]

The girl of course.  We need to greatly curtail 'parental power' as it interferes with the rights and freedoms of youths.

[A18]

The girl of course.  We need to greatly curtail 'parental power' as it interferes with the rights and freedoms of youths.

So the parents should be able to throw her out, right? After all, any requirement that they take care of her would interfere with the rights and freedoms of parents.

[opebo]

The girl of course.  We need to greatly curtail 'parental power' as it interferes with the rights and freedoms of youths.

So the parents should be able to throw her out, right? After all, any requirement that they take care of her would interfere with the rights and freedoms of parents.

Sure, but she should get a generous welfare which will enable her to live comfortably, attent university for free, etc.

[Q]

It seems to me that the government acting to protect the child from parents that have some mental issues.  That seems reasonable, as no other person or entity seems willing to intervene there.

[??????????]

It seems to me that the government acting to protect the child from parents that have some mental issues.  That seems reasonable, as no other person or entity seems willing to intervene there.

So it's not the right of the parents to raise their children how they see fit? Even if treatment would violate their religious beliefs you would approve?

[A18]

The girl of course.  We need to greatly curtail 'parental power' as it interferes with the rights and freedoms of youths.

So the parents should be able to throw her out, right? After all, any requirement that they take care of her would interfere with the rights and freedoms of parents.

Sure, but she should get a generous welfare which will enable her to live comfortably, attent university for free, etc.

Who exactly is going to work if this becomes a reality?

[Q]

It seems to me that the government acting to protect the child from parents that have some mental issues.  That seems reasonable, as no other person or entity seems willing to intervene there.

So it's not the right of the parents to raise their children how they see fit? Even if treatment would violate their religious beliefs you would approve?

I would.  Medical science must come before personal beliefs.  Parents denying medical treatment to their children on supposedly religious grounds has been ruled a crime.  What benevolent religion would deny a child the right to live?

[??????????]

It seems to me that the government acting to protect the child from parents that have some mental issues.  That seems reasonable, as no other person or entity seems willing to intervene there.

So it's not the right of the parents to raise their children how they see fit? Even if treatment would violate their religious beliefs you would approve?

I would.  Medical science must come before personal beliefs.  Parents denying medical treatment to their children on supposedly religious grounds has been ruled a crime.  What benevolent religion would deny a child the right to live?

So much for "pro choice" liberals. ha

[Q]

It seems to me that the government acting to protect the child from parents that have some mental issues.  That seems reasonable, as no other person or entity seems willing to intervene there.

So it's not the right of the parents to raise their children how they see fit? Even if treatment would violate their religious beliefs you would approve?

I would.  Medical science must come before personal beliefs.  Parents denying medical treatment to their children on supposedly religious grounds has been ruled a crime.  What benevolent religion would deny a child the right to live?

So much for "pro choice" liberals. ha

I actually took that into account.  No religion would advocate abortion, just as no compassionate individual would.  Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion.  I believe that a woman considering having an abortion, having done the soul-searching to arrive at her decision, would know better than a politician in Washington whether that decision is right.  But I still think it is unfortunate that the situation existed in which a woman came to the conclusion that an abortion would be her best option, and I feel sympathy for the loss of a potential life.

[opebo]

The girl of course.  We need to greatly curtail 'parental power' as it interferes with the rights and freedoms of youths.

So the parents should be able to throw her out, right? After all, any requirement that they take care of her would interfere with the rights and freedoms of parents.

Sure, but she should get a generous welfare which will enable her to live comfortably, attent university for free, etc.

Who exactly is going to work if this becomes a reality?

People could easily be lured off welfare with decently paid jobs.  Better to make $15/hour than live on $1,000 or so a month stipend.

[David S]

Happliy only one nut said the government should decide.

Whether the parents or the child should have the right to decide should depend on the age of the child. This girl being only 12 is too young to make this decision, at least in the eyes of the law. I don't think I would argue with that.

[opebo]

Happliy only one nut said the government should decide.

Whether the parents or the child should have the right to decide should depend on the age of the child. This girl being only 12 is too young to make this decision, at least in the eyes of the law. I don't think I would argue with that.

Well certainly I would prefer the government to decide over the parents.  We all know how abusive many parents can be.  The government - frightening as it is - by comparison is fairly benign.

[David S]

OK now there are two nuts who said the government.

[A18]

OK now there are two nuts who said the government.

LOL to Libertarians calling people nuts

[Citizen James]

follow up

That's really a tough call.   I think most people beyond the most hardcore of libertarians would agree that the courts need to step in in at least some cases (such as physical abuse severe enough to warrant ER visits).   The question is where to step in.   I know some faiths (most notably Christian Science) don't believe in doctors at all, and though I am willing to let adults die because they refuse treatment, I am not so sure about minors.

What I do know is that I lack enough details on the case to make an absolute judgement of right or wrong.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hmm, no idea.

[David S]

OK now there are two nuts who said the government.

LOL to Libertarians calling people nuts

That must mean you were the other heretofore unidentified nut.

[Jake]

I was one but only because the child is too young and the parents aren't providing her with treatment.

[A18]

OK now there are two nuts who said the government.

LOL to Libertarians calling people nuts

That must mean you were the other heretofore unidentified nut.

Didn't vote, actually