[Home-on-the-range] baby makayla and her parents, from Missouri

Sun Jul 25 17:57:58 UTC 2010

>         "nfbmo list" <nfbmo at nfbnet.org>
>Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 21:29:41 -0500
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
>thread-index: Acsri405zy8q42NMQKOeOz7/qt5RpAADXu+A
>X-ELNK-Trace: 
>94bf1b6f21f56801d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f52feb9e600b70d6ef8299e7e2d09055263350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
>X-Originating-IP: 69.29.130.156
>X-NFBNet-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
>X-NFBNet-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached,
>         score=-2.599, required 5, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -2.60),
>X-Spam-Status: No, No
>Subject: [Chapter-presidents] Setting the record straight about Baby Mikaela
>         and her parents
>X-BeenThere: chapter-presidents at nfbnet.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12.cp3
>Reply-To: NFB Chapter Presidents discussion list
>         <chapter-presidents at nfbnet.org>
>List-Id: NFB Chapter Presidents discussion list
>         <chapter-presidents_nfbnet.org.nfbnet.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: 
><http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/chapter-presidents_nfbnet.org>,
>         <mailto:chapter-presidents-request at nfbnet.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: 
><http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/private/chapter-presidents_nfbnet.org>
>List-Post: <mailto:chapter-presidents at nfbnet.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:chapter-presidents-request at nfbnet.org?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: 
><http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-presidents_nfbnet.org>,
>         <mailto:chapter-presidents-request at nfbnet.org?subject=subscribe>
>Sender: chapter-presidents-bounces at nfbnet.org
>X-NFBNet-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
>X-NFBNet-MailScanner-ID: 1Ocqz1-0001Xh-0I
>X-NFBNet-MailScanner-From: chapter-presidents-bounces at nfbnet.org
>X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it 
>with any abuse report
>X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.nfbnet.org
>X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - sunflower.com
>X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
>X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - nfbnet.org
>X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100724-1, 07/24/2010), Inbound message
>X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
>
>Hello folks. I've been off the list for a couple of days, and I have to tell
>you that I'm somewhat disheartened by some of the messages. It's almost like
>the facts have gotten lost here. Let me see if I can put some of them down.
>
>When Erika first attempted to feed her baby, she was not given instruction
>as to how to do it. She was the one who reported a problem, and that problem
>was resolved simply by repositioning the baby and showing Erika how to
>ensure that the baby's nose was free for breathing. The hospital records do
>not reflect anything to indicate there was a code blue or that anyone
>besides the nurse had to become involved in the incident.
>
>Now we come to what happened afterward. You can certainly make the argument
>that the nurse, if there was any kind of question, thought of herself as a
>mandated reporter and took the safe road by calling the Children's Services
>Division. For me the biggest problem is what happened after the Children's
>Services Division became involved. Erika reports that she was asked how she
>would bathe her baby, diaper it, know where it was, and take its
>temperature. These questions she answered. That should have been sufficient.
>
>When we heard about this incident, we started by contacting Rehabilitation
>Services for the Blind, which, like the Children's Services Division, is a
>part of the Missouri Department of Social Services. They were certainly
>upset by the situation, offered services,  but told the judge they were in a
>difficult position because, while they had offered their services to educate
>The Children's Services Division about issues of blindness, they were in no
>position to see that their offer was accepted.
>
>We contacted the Children's Services Division both through in formal
>channels and through legal counsel. They were not interested in learning
>about blindness. They were not interested in talking with us.
>
>When we were involved in what was the second hearing regarding this case,
>the judge (actually she is called a commissioner) was quite concerned about
>the actions of the agency and let it be known. She observed that this most
>certainly was not the first blind couple to raise a child, and that she
>would be very surprised if the hospital in question had not seen blind
>parents before. She indicated that while she was on vacation, an attempt
>should be made to increase the number of visits which Blake and Eric got
>with Mikaela, that some of those visits should be unsupervised, and that
>there should be some overnight visits in the mix. This did not find its way
>into her written decision, however, and with the exception of one
>unsupervised visit, which took place on the Friday before Mikaela was
>returned, I know of only one unsupervised visit in the fifty-seven days in
>which Erika and Blake were prevented from caring for their child. There were
>no overnight visits, unsupervised or otherwise.
>
>Some have observed here that the Children's Services Division actually did
>the right thing by coming to its senses. May I politely respond hogwash! The
>Children's Services Division started negotiations on the day before the
>evidentiary hearing was to take place. They delivered Mikaela to her home at
>9 AM, produced papers for our lawyer at 11 AM, and all to avoid the hearing
>which was scheduled for 3 PM. They did not benevolently relent. They waited
>as long as they possibly could before having to defend their actions with
>Blake, Erika, and the national Federation of the blind being represented by
>counsel.
>
>There has been a lot of discussion about whether the actions we are now
>going to take are vengeful or punitive. The religions which many of us share
>give us no right to be vengeful. Let me ask you to consider whether we
>should let Blake and Erika's case rest now that they have custody of their
>child, or whether we should use it, as we have used so many others in the
>past, to establish some meaningful precedent. I, for one, am not satisfied
>to let the prevailing legal wisdom be that you can take a child from blind
>parents and, if you decide you've made a mistake after 57 days, can return
>them with no consequences. I respect the work that children's services
>workers do. I want children protected from abuse. I want children removed
>from homes where drug use makes the parents irresponsible. I want children
>removed from homes where they are clearly neglected. I do not wish to make
>the lives of hard-working public servants more difficult than they already
>are. Nevertheless, I don't think those of us in the National Federation of
>the Blind should be happy or comfortable with settling for anything less
>than a systemic change. What was done was against the law. The Federal
>Office for Civil Rights is extremely interested in the case. There are at
>least three motions we are prepared to file in the court system where the
>legal and constitutional rights of blind people have been violated.
>
>One of the most troubling experiences I had at the national convention this
>year was talking with young people who almost begged me to convince them
>they were hearing it wrong. Some came to talk with me and started our
>conversation by asking whether this was some urban legend which had gotten
>started on the Internet with which my name had been associated. I had to
>tell them that it was no urban legend and that its association with my name
>was no accident. Others came to ask me whether this was a past event which
>somehow had resurfaced. What they wanted to know was how long ago this had
>happened. No matter the questions with which they came, all of them left
>badly shaken. Many remarked that they were newly engaged and were planning
>to have children. Others reported being newly married and that a child was
>on the way. All of them were concerned, because they thought all of these
>issues about child custody and blindness had long since been resolved by the
>National Federation of the Blind.
>
>Sometimes government bashing takes second place only to the World Series and
>the Super Bowl in terms of a public past time, and I don't want to be a part
>of that. What I do want to see the Federation be a part of is exposing this
>behavior for exactly what it is, and for saying to everyone who has ears,
>whether they work in a social service agency, a hospital, a newspaper, or in
>some small factory down the road, that blindness is no reason to take a
>child from its parents. Should we educate? Of course we should, and no doubt
>one of the things we will be asking that the court address is education for
>the entities that are the targets of our actions.
>
>I understand, as do we all, that blindness is a terribly misunderstood
>disability, and whenever I can, I try to be compassionate about the way I
>address the issue. Even so, there is a difference between being
>compassionate and understanding about people who are ignorant when it comes
>to what we need and what we can do, and concluding that because there is
>widespread misunderstanding, we really have no right to complain or do
>anything about it. I think we have to make a firm statement. That firm
>statement has to be "You will not take our children. If you do, there will
>be consequences and they will be severe. If you will let us teach you
>through our public outreach and our seminars, will be glad to have you, but
>if you make us, we will teach you in the commissions and courts charged with
>defending the civil rights of America's citizens."
>
>As a final note, let me suggest that Missouri happens to be the state
>receiving attention now, but Missouri is no different from many other states
>when it comes to their knowledge of blind people and the speed with which
>they address issues such as this. One person several weeks ago wrote to
>inquire in what small backward town this took place, only to learn the small
>town was not a small town at all but Kansas City. Geography offers us little
>protection. We must all be vigilant and guard against the idea that this
>could never happen to us because we live in a more progressive community.
>
>Gary
>
>P.S. We have some reason to believe this will receive national coverage on
>CBS on Monday morning.
>
>GW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Chapter-presidents mailing list
>Chapter-presidents at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-presidents_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info 
>for Chapter-presidents:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/chapter-presidents_nfbnet.org/n6yr%40sunflower.com