Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerek
*snip*
While I agree the child custody document should not have mentioned the association with Oath Keepers, it seems pretty obvious it is just mentioned more as an aside than anything else. There are PLENTY of LEGITIMATE reasons regarding both parents to justify Social Services stepping in to take custody of this child as well until the other investigations are concluded.
|
Areful-cay on the etails-day, Cerek. The child custody document does *NOT* mention the association with Oath Keepers. The second document, the affidavit, does. Affidavit of what? Who knows...
My thought is that there is a lot more to this story. The only words I'm seeing are from those who claim that someone done 'em wrong...
Hmmm... I finally found something from someone else... a
news story about police being called to the hospital in question during a protest. Interesting last line in that news article...
Quote:
|
While state officials cannot talk about this case, Lorraine Bartlett with the Division For Children Youth And Families said a child cannot be removed based on a parent's affiliation with an organization.
|
I am now convinced that a newborn child was taken into protective custody... but not of why that has happened. I await further information...