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

Mon Jul 26 17:32:01 UTC 2010

Jim and all other readers, When you are reading Jim's review of the facts in this case you should know that this is how all the cases read, Until Lawyers get involved. In almost all cases the parents can not afford the $10,000 plus retainer it takes to get Legal help in these cases. 

This is an eshew that like many others did not sound like a blind issue until it bit a blind couple in the a**.  It is my hope that the blind community will join the rest of us and demand that these government officials and workers be held accountable. In this case you have yo start with a Nurse who committed malpractice and child endangerment by not instructing and helping when asked to. Then there were court officers who did not record the judges orders, (so they would not have to be fallowed them). Then there are the case workers who heard the Judges orders and chose not to fallow them, and problem even broke the law by taking the child in the first place instead of charging the nurse for child endangerment when she allowed the new born to turn blue from lack of air, instead of advising the mother to be sure the nostrils are clear in the beginning.

It is my hope that the NFB will push for the Cortes to prosecute all government officials and workers who commit frond and perjury and any of the other crimes the child protective services commit an a daily bases because they can knowing they will not be prosecuted for their crimes. This has needed to change and I believe it can be done if we make it our fight too.

America needs your help, wright your elected officials.  

Thank You 
Floyd

--- On Sun, 7/25/10, James H. "Jim" Canaday M.A. N6YR <n6yr at sunflower.com> wrote:

From: James H. "Jim" Canaday M.A. N6YR <n6yr at sunflower.com>
Subject: [Home-on-the-range] baby makayla and her parents, from Missouri
To: jayhawk-chapter at nfbnet.org
Cc: home-on-the-range at nfbnet.org
Date: Sunday, July 25, 2010, 12:57 PM

>         "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

_______________________________________________
Home-on-the-range mailing list
Home-on-the-range at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/home-on-the-range_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Home-on-the-range:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/home-on-the-range_nfbnet.org/floydray1%40yahoo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/home-on-the-range_nfbnet.org/attachments/20100726/8db60bde/attachment.html>