[Nfbmo] Setting the record straight about Baby Mikaela and herparents
DanFlasar at aol.com
DanFlasar at aol.com
Sun Jul 25 14:06:42 UTC 2010
Gary,
If there's one thing the struggle for Civil Rights has made
painfully clear again and again - no one will
ever give us our rights - we have to stake them out and relentlessly defend
them. The inertia of the well-meaning (and not-so-well-meaning) ignorant
functions as a relentless friction on the forward motion of our mission.
To let this pass not only leaves the possibility that it will happen again
but also a precedent that there will be no repercussions for doing so.
It's not vengeance - it's bringing a wrong to public viewing which,
given th eweight of public optoin and the NFB's legal actions, can identify
how this travesty took place and how it can be effectively prevented.
I caught the very tail end of a local FOX news story about this case
Friday evening but haven't been able
to see the whole story.
Thanks for your persistence in making the facts of this case kown,
Gary. I can tell you that when I manned the Missouri table at the convention
I spent most of the time talking to NFB members (and some
vendors) about this case. I heard the same fears you described, expressed
with outrage, dismay and an evident resolve to right this wrong.
Dan
In a message dated 7/25/2010 6:42:46 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
johnsusanford at earthlink.net writes:
Gary:
You have done a tremendous job of stating the NFB position on this
position.
As a member of the state Board I support the position you have reiterated
and what we still must do about it. What was done is nothing less than a
threat to every blind couple who has or plans to have children or to adopt
them. We must insist that our civil rights are not violated.
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Wunder" <gwunder at earthlink.net>
To: "'NFB Chapter Presidents discussion list'"
<chapter-presidents at nfbnet.org>; "nfbmo list" <nfbmo at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 9:29 PM
Subject: [Nfbmo] Setting the record straight about Baby Mikaela and
herparents
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nfbmo mailing list
> Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmo_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Nfbmo:
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmo_nfbnet.org/johnsusanford%40earthlink.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3026 - Release Date: 07/24/10
18:36:00
_______________________________________________
Nfbmo mailing list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmo_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Nfbmo:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmo_nfbnet.org/danflasar%40aol.com
More information about the NFBMO
mailing list