Indeed, in September 2011, Mindi, who was in another relationship, gave birth again, to a boy named Jace, whom she's now raising capably on her own. Citing Mindi's pending case over Q.A.H., Kansas authorities took Jace at birth and placed him in foster care. But they soon returned him after finding no evidence that Mindi posed any risk to her son.
That part is really fucked up. Either she's capable of raising both of them or neither of them.
No, but a past mental health episode should mean that a 22 year old kid should lose his right to own firearms.
Wouldn't it depend what kind of episode? I mean, a brief depression might not demand the same caution as a murderous rampage.
Isn't the headline asking the wrong question?
Shouldn't we be asking "What's in the best interests of the child?"
How can we predict that one psychotic episode makes a mother a danger to her child, but can't figure out the warning signs that say a teenager is likely to go ballistic at a mall with a rifle?
The nutty thing is that the system is enforced in such a way that she's still considered unfit to raise her first child but not her second. That kind of situation happens surprisingly often—you'd think the authorities would at least try to be consistent on the "is this parent fit to raise a child or not" question.
I think that it is jurisdictional. The first kid is in Missouri (Kansas City) and she had the second, and now lives in, Kansas. She had problems in Kansas as well, but they acted more reasonably:
Citing Mindi's pending case over Q.A.H., Kansas authorities took Jace at birth and placed him in foster care. But they soon returned him after finding no evidence that Mindi posed any risk to her son. As a family therapist testified, Mindi has provided a "nurturing, loving environment and had met all of [Jace's] needs."
It doesn't seem like Missouri really ever gave her a second chance.
Because one already happened proving the concept but the other involves an Ouija board and parental involvement/oversight/criticism and only the Ouija board actually exists.
By that logic, the entire government should be fired.
Mod note: This is not about firearms. Stay on topic.
Because -we- are the peanut gallery, trusting our guts and circling our wagons at the first sign of our own fear, which is always uniquely justified, unlike 'their' fear, which exists only as a rhetorical tool to manipulate us.
Or something like that.
Before removing a child from her mother, shouldn't the state be required to prove there is a danger to the child?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.