NH - Couple: the state took our baby

[Missizzy]

Alwaysonmymind--Do you happen to know if they are receiving SSI due to disability or SS benefits due to survivorship? The rules concerning SSI and SS benefits are so complicated. Hopefully, the following will clear some issues up. I'm still not sure what happens while you are awaiting trial on a charge. Was this man or this woman awaiting trial or had they already been convicted of a crime? Termination of parental rights doesn't constitute a crime. With so much of the affivadit redacted, it's hard for me to know just what charges are pending.

http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-eligibility-ussi.htm

SOMEONE WHO IS A FUGITIVE FELON

An individual is ineligible to receive SSI benefits for any month during which he or she has an unsatisfied arrest warrant for:


a felony crime;

avoiding custody or confinement after conviction for a felony crime; or

violating a condition of parole or probation imposed under Federal or State law.

SSA will continue to pay an individual's benefit if a court of competent jurisdiction has found the individual not guilty, dismissed the charges, vacated the warrant for arrest, or issued any similar exonerating order or taken similar exonerating action. SSA also will continue to pay an individual's benefit if the individual was erroneously implicated in connection with the criminal offense by reason of identity fraud.

Also, SSA may continue to pay an individual's benefit if the individual establishes that the offense underlying the warrant or imposition of the probation or parole (as well as the violation of probation or parole) was both nonviolent and not drug–related and there were mitigating circumstances for not satisfying the warrant."

 

[Missizzy]

Irish does have a charge for possession of a concealed weapon without a permit. I agree that this is where the issue of the militia came up. So, most likely he would NOT be receiving his SSI payment pending resolution of that matter.

Interesting that someone would have the physical ability to be active in a militia and handle firearms but still qualify for SSI. I can think of some possible scenarios but it's still a stretch. Is there any word on the street as to how this couple was found eligible for SSI?

 

[alwaysonmymind]

Irish does have a charge for possession of a concealed weapon without a permit. I agree that this is where the issue of the militia came up. So, most likely he would NOT be receiving his SSI payment pending resolution of that matter.

Interesting that someone would have the physical ability to be active in a militia and handle firearms but still qualify for SSI. I can think of some possible scenarios but it's still a stretch. Is there any word on the street as to how this couple was found eligible for SSI?

Irish, 24, said in an interview yesterday that he had never abused his fiancee or her other children. He said he was unemployed and collected disability because he is blind in his left eye from a childhood accident. He said that Taylor suffers from "stress-induced seizure disorder" and that complications during her pregnancy required him to tend to her almost constantly. He said he has no lawyer, though a hearing in the matter has been scheduled for next week.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby

From the article in the first post.

 

[Missizzy]

One thing to keep in mind is that SSI is a means based program and one cannot have over $1500-2000 in assets to qualify. I wonder how much those guns are worth?

And plenty of fine parents get SSI payments and raise their children with love and kindness. It's tough and pennies must be watched. IMO, though, this has nothing to do with disabilities or militia membership and everything to do with poor choices and poorer parenting.

 

[Missizzy]

Obviously, the state is taking an extremely cautious approach to this case. Anyone who has cared for newborn babies knows that a small amount of blood in the diaper (usually in the urine) is extremely common. I have a 18 day old granddaughter and she had a tiny bit of blood in her diaper on her 8th day (Baby C was 7 days old when this happened). The doctor was called and the parents were advised to watch her but that it was normal. My guess is that Baby C's foster family had already noted it as it typically happens two or three times IME.

I'm happy that the State is erring on the side of caution but I can see where this is going. It's great to see the parents having visits but I still worry about reprisal from the father as I don't think he's stable. I don't want to see a repeat of what happened with the Christine family here in Oregon. They attended their visit and the father, Brian Christine, secretly followed the social worker's car back to the foster home. Along the way, he took the children at gunpoint and the family fled to Montana. It wasn't pretty. The Christine's also mounted a massive politicized protest. The couple lost all five of their daughters and did time.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/220349/baby-in-foster-care-sent-to-hospital

Baby in foster care sent to hospital


"The newborn taken from an Epsom couple last week by state social workers was sent to the hospital yesterday but is fine, officials said last night.

Parents Johnathon Irish and Stephanie Taylor had a supervised visit with their daughter and a state social worker yesterday at a Strafford County administration building and during the visit "there was some concern about the possibility of some blood that was seen in a diaper.

As a "precautionary measure," DiGregorio said, the sheriff's office decided to have the baby examined at Exeter Hospital. But there was "no indication of any abuse," he said. "Zero. Nothing." The baby was back in foster care last night..."

and

".... Several websites and blogs reported yesterday that the child, "Baby C," had been taken to the hospital to be treated for sexual abuse, generating outrage among the couple's supporters......"

more at link


Also:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/220139/dcyf-clubs-rarely-factor

"The head of the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families said allegations that the state seized a newborn girl over her father's political affiliations don't reflect the division's policies.

"That's what people seem to be focusing on, but it's not what I'm focusing on," said Maggie Bishop, director of DCYF. "To think that we would remove a child because of a person's affiliation with a club - that's not what we do....."

more at link

 

[Tuffy]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=215537

A tiny baby girl snatched from her parents' custody a week ago when her father was accused of being an "Oath Keeper" was returned to her parents today.

According to WND sources close to the case, the accusations against the father, Johnathon Irish, whose fiancée, Stephanie Taylor, is the mother of Cheyenne, have been dropped.

 

[mikeysmommom]

I do hope they keep watch on this baby.I ave a feeling we will be hearing of this family again.

 

[Missizzy]

FWIW, the photo shown above was taken shortly after the infant's birth, BEFORE the state stepped in and took the child.

This case really and truly worries me.

 

[Missizzy]

Another article on the return of the baby. IMO, the link listed above (while probably one of the first to report) is quite biased:

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/12002484479183/baby-returned-to-nh-couple/

"...The couple was unable to comment because the judge issued a gag order...."

more at link


Let's think about this for a minute. IMO, the state is caving as they seem to be well within protocol to take the infant, given what was in the complaint. I think they erred, however, by stating that the man was a member of a certain group. Had that one line not been in the complaint, I doubt that they'd have their baby with them today.

Possibly this man will turn his life around. We can hope. However, this mother just had her rights terminated to two other children and according to her fiancée, required round the clock care during her pregnancy. From the details in the complaint, we learned that Irish has been violent towards his fiancée and her two former children.

Given this set of circumstances wouldn't most citizens demand that this infant be monitored? The couple states that there are no further court dates. We'll have to see. That seems unusual to me. Usually there is a status check within a certain number of days or weeks anytime a child has been removed from a parents' custody.

A lesson was learned here and I hope to high heaven that a child's safety does not hang by a slender thread because of that lesson. JMO. My prayers are with that little girl.

 

[Tuffy]

I do hope they keep watch on this baby.I ave a feeling we will be hearing of this family again.

I really do hope that we don't hear about them in the news again, also. Sadly, I don't think sending that baby back to the parents was in her best interest.

FWIW, the photo shown above was taken shortly after the infant's birth, BEFORE the state stepped in and took the child.

This case really and truly worries me.

This case really worries me too.

 

[Missizzy]

I want to make something totally clear. Regardless of my personal beliefs and how they surely differ from the Oath Keepers, I strongly believe that people have rights to belong to whatever group they choose. I personally can't condone any groups based on hate but Oath Keepers doesn't fall into that category IMO. I feel it is unsafe to raise a child in a house full of guns but that's not my choice to make. I respect others' rights to do just that.

If the State made false statements and did take the child "pro-actively" due to this father's membership in the Oath Keepers AND trumped up charges against him to do that, I would find that reprehensible. However, if this mother's rights have truly been terminated to two other children and this man has shown violent behavior to her and her former children, there is plenty of cause to remove the child and to set about a plan of action to return the child only when the parents have met a list of requirements set out by the court.

This same scenario plays out every day, across the land, with issues of domestic violence, drug use, criminal behavior, and neglect. Sadly, often times mental illness and disability can also play a factor.

So, if the complaint was a fair and true representation of the facts, the State has erred in returning that child IMO. I understand all about bonding and the importance of breast-feeding (all that is part of who I am) but a child's physical safety must always come first. A parent's needs and wishes are trumped by child safety, every time.

This child is not a political hot ticket or a cause celebre. She's a child and she is entitled to safety. Her parents are not entitled to her if they cannot keep her safe. There is no law ensuring us entitlement to our children if we fail to meet the minimum standards of child safety and follow all state/federal laws. If the State does not ensure her safety, they have made an egregious mistake.

 

[sfbaynancydrew]

Does anyone else find it ironic (and this is NOT a slam against people on SSI) that someone who is militantly anti-government gets 100% of their income from government entitlements?

I, too, think the state was only doing their job and that this had nothing to do with his political affiliation. Prayers for that baby that her return doesn't result in her death and/or abuse.

 

[Angels_Not_Forgotten]

ok i'm reallllly slow apparently. IF you have two children, your rights as their parent(s) are terminated, it's kosher to just go have another?! that alone is what I find strange.