GUILTY IA - Gabriel McFarland, 4 mos, dies of head trauma, Des Moines, 22 April 2014

[tlcya]

conflicting stories about history or lack of. Hoping those get nailed down by LE down the road

 

[MyBelle]

Is it possible that, if bio-dad did have a 'run in w the law, his attorney could have requested that his records be sealed? And they were?
IDK.

I don't think so because he is still a juvenile but maybe an attorney will weigh in.

 

[K_Z]

I didn't realize Baby Gabriel's case had been featured on HLN. Here is a link to part of their video coverage. Nothing new that hasn't been discussed here, but nice to see the national exposure.

Justice for Baby Gabriel: Iowa adoption tragedy

Video is 13 min.

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/05/01/baby-gabriel-iowa-adoption-controversy?clusterId=#videoplayer

 

[K_Z]

Iowa View: Let's celebrate adoption, not stigmatize it

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...a-view/2014/05/04/iowa-view-adoption/8665221/

Opinion piece in the Des Moines Register discussing Baby Gabriel and 2 other recent adoptions.

 

[K_Z]

Interesting comment from the McFarland's attorney. The phrasing of this sentence, IMO, implies that because the birth parents did not voluntarily sign the release of custody, alternative (perhaps statutory?) methods were being used to terminate parental rights and give custody to the McFarlands.

I wonder if the McFarlands had to apply for foster parent status before, or while this was going on? I seem to remember from our adoption classes that domestic adoptive families in our state needed to go thru the foster parent training and approval, even if they didn't intend to foster parent other children, so that they were eligible to have a child placed with them while completing the adoption. Very complicated.

Rieper said Gabriel's birth parents did not sign a release of custody, and that the termination of parental rights was scheduled to be finalized on March 24th.

http://www.kwwl.com/story/25346195/...laws-explained-in-light-of-baby-gabriel-death

The video has more details (3 min). One interesting comment from an Iowa atty interviewed is that even if a birth parent signs a release of custody, the prospective adoptive parents are legally viewed as guardians for 6 months.

 

[MyBelle]

Interesting comment from the McFarland's attorney. The phrasing of this sentence, IMO, implies that because the birth parents did not voluntarily sign the release of custody, alternative (perhaps statutory?) methods were being used to terminate parental rights and give custody to the McFarlands.

I wonder if the McFarlands had to apply for foster parent status before, or while this was going on? I seem to remember from our adoption classes that domestic adoptive families in our state needed to go thru the foster parent training and approval, even if they didn't intend to foster parent other children, so that they were eligible to have a child placed with them while completing the adoption. Very complicated.



http://www.kwwl.com/story/25346195/...laws-explained-in-light-of-baby-gabriel-death

The video has more details (3 min). One interesting comment from an Iowa atty interviewed is that even if a birth parent signs a release of custody, the prospective adoptive parents are legally viewed as guardians for 6 months.

iirc, in another news interview the adoptive parents did mention that they had to undergo a home study.

There are so many pieces of information still missing. The Iowa adoption process sounds ridiculously and unnecessarily complex. I have to wonder if this has happened to other couples in Iowa.

 

[MyBelle]

BBM for focus.

The McFarlands would have had to undergo a home study as prospective adoptive parents, whether or not they had been qualified as foster parents.



https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_homstu.cfm



http://www.adoptuskids.org/for-families/how-to-foster/completing-a-foster-home-study

iirc, the parents said it in a context of there were many hoops they went through to prove themselves as having the ability to properly care for a child while the biological mother who gave him up and took him back after months wasn't put to the same degree of scrutiny. I think they raise a valid point.

JMO

 

[K_Z]

Thank you. Very interesting.
I know nothing about K2, I appreciate the link.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regarding K2 and synthetic marijuana: (Iowa was one state where raids occurred.)

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/raids-target-synthetic-drugs-sellers-across-us

The Drug Enforcement Administration on Wednesday broadened its national crackdown on synthetic drug manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers as federal agents served hundreds of search and arrest warrants in at least 25 states.

Agents served warrants at homes, warehouses and smoke shops beginning early morning, DEA spokesman Rusty Payne said. The largest single operation was a statewide effort in Alabama. Agents also were active in 28 other states.

The DEA said agents made more than 150 arrests and served about 200 warrants. Federal, state and local authorities seized hundreds of thousands of individual packets of synthetic drugs and hundreds of kilograms of synthetic products used to make the drugs.

 

[tlcya]

So K-2 is to pot what bath salts are to cocaine? kinda? maybe? and is K-2 the same things some people call "spice"?

I too am clueless to some of the new synthetic drugs. I have not heard of K-2 but "spice " was a big deal in my area til they cracked down on the head shops selling it.

 

[K_Z]

iirc, the parents said it in a context of there were many hoops they went through to prove themselves as having the ability to properly care for a child while the biological mother who gave him up and took him back after months wasn't put to the same degree of scrutiny. I think they raise a valid point.

JMO

I agree. This infant should have been under the supervision of child protective services from the moment of placement back with the birth mother, IMO. There was ample justification for CPS supervision, IMO, as the child had a serious disability that required ongoing care, the bio mother was 16 years old, unemployed, no HS diploma, living alone in an apartment, a recent arrest for abuse of the 911 system while babysitting a 2 year old, with synthetic drugs present, and the infant had spent 3/4 of his life with prospective adoptive parents.

Lots and lots of red flags where social services intervention should have been implemented, IMO. May not have made a difference in the outcome, but it sure would have been a better beginning for the safety of the baby.

I would be in favor of working to change state laws to mandate CPS involvement in all "take-back" situations, for a minimum period time after reunification-- such as the first 90 days, with a report back family court. Adoptive parents have to have oversight, often for many years, as do parents who have had their children removed to foster care, and want to work toward reunification.

There is no justifiable reason, IMO, to not mandate social services supervision as a condition of taking custody back when a bio parent changes their mind. Particularly, in the first 90 days or so of reunification with the birth parent, when the child and parent are in need of a lot of support. This kind of a policy would put the child's safety, well-being, and interests at the center of the situation, not the bio parent.

The CPS and child welfare system isn't perfect by a long shot-- in many places it is broken beyond fixing, IMO. But it is the only thing we have as a social safety net for kids. We should mandate it in these circumstances, IMO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I agree. This infant should have been under the supervision of child protective services from the moment of placement back with the birth mother, IMO. There was ample justification for CPS supervision, IMO, as the child had a serious disability that required ongoing care, the bio mother was 16 years old, unemployed, no HS diploma, living alone in an apartment, a recent arrest for abuse of the 911 system while babysitting a 2 year old, with synthetic drugs present, and the infant had spent 3/4 of his life with prospective adoptive parents.

Lots and lots of red flags where social services intervention should have been implemented, IMO. May not have made a difference in the outcome, but it sure would have been a better beginning for the safety of the baby.

I would be in favor of working to change state laws to mandate CPS involvement in all "take-back" situations, for a minimum period time after reunification-- such as the first 90 days, with a report back family court. Adoptive parents have to have oversight, often for many years, as do parents who have had their children removed to foster care, and want to work toward reunification.

There is no justifiable reason, IMO, to not mandate social services supervision as a condition of taking custody back when a bio parent changes their mind. Particularly, in the first 90 days or so of reunification with the birth parent, when the child and parent are in need of a lot of support. This kind of a policy would put the child's safety, well-being, and interests at the center of the situation, not the bio parent.

The CPS and child welfare system isn't perfect by a long shot-- in many places it is broken beyond fixing, IMO. But it is the only thing we have as a social safety net for kids. We should mandate it in these circumstances, IMO.

Why??? No other mother has to have cps watch them when they are handed their own baby. She did nothing wrong. Again.. The mother is not a threat. The mother did not kill the baby.

 

[jjenny]

Some people here seem to be confusing an arrest with a conviction.
So far the 17 year old has not been convicted.
As for prosecution having experts, we don't know what these experts say.
Furthermore, experts could have different opinions from each other, especially in cases of shaken baby syndrome.
So, until we know what these experts say and if they even agree, I sure wouldn't be claiming that we know what happened.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Some people here seem to be confusing an arrest with a conviction.
So far the 17 year old has not been convicted.
As for prosecution having experts, we don't know what these experts say.
Furthermore, experts could have different opinions from each other, especially in cases of shaken baby syndrome.
So, until we know what these experts say and if they even agree, I sure wouldn't be claiming that we know what happened.

Quite the leap to shaken baby syndrome ...please provide link to autopsy or source confirming that.

There is one suspect, one arrest. It wasn't the child's mother.

I don't understand the leap into defense attorney shoes, with fabricated suspicion thrown at this mother. STOP IT! It's not deserved!

Nor do I understand why the bashing of this baby's mother is allowed to continue here. She's a victim. Her child was killed.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

Quite the leap to shaken baby syndrome ...please provide link to autopsy or source confirming that.

There is one suspect, one arrest. It wasn't the child's mother.

I don't understand the leap into defense attorney shoes, with fabricated suspicion thrown at this mother. STOP IT! It's not deserved!

Nor do I understand why the bashing of this baby's mother is allowed to continue here. She's a victim. Her child was killed.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I posted links already that autopsy showed this baby died from abusive head trauma. And that abusive head trauma in lay terms means shaken baby syndrome. I am not sure what else you want me to provide links for.
Not everybody is going to have the same opinion as you. I hope you at least understand that.

 

[Donjeta]

The CDC definition of abusive head trauma includes blunt force trauma as well as shaking. The baby is dead either way, so I'm not sure it matters a whole lot which it was to anyone who loved him.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/pedheadtrauma-a.pdf

V. CDC Definition of Pediatric Abusive Head Trauma
Pediatric abusive head trauma is defined as an injury to the skull or intracranial contents of an infant or young
child (< 5 years of age) due to inflicted blunt impact and/or violent shaking.
The following are excluded from the case definition:
&#8226; Unintentional injuries resulting from neglectful supervision
&#8226; Gunshot wounds / stab wounds / penetrating trauma

 

[AnaTeresa]

Donjeta beat me to it. Abusive head trauma is not a "lay" definition. If anything, shaken baby syndrome is a lay term for the presence of certain findings. Abusive head trauma is a technical term which denotes certain types of injury, which are not exclusively SBS.

And honestly, even if it IS shaken baby syndrome, LE and medical experts are well aware of the timelines of such things, and if it happened when the baby was in the care of the mother, she'd be arrested and charged now, too.

Let's be honest. Based on what's been reported, this case is not going to trial. The kid arrested is in all likelihood guilty. I say this as a defense attorney. Most cases don't go to trial, and in cases like this, the person who has been arrested are very likely guilty. This case is nothing like the subset of shaken baby cases where doubt has been cast on the accuracy of the findings. There's absolutely no reason to go through such convoluted leaps to blame the mother, simply because it might be a defense raised if this case went to trial.

 

[tlcya]

Sorry Gabriel. Maybe one day this thread will be about you rather than mom's decisions

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sorry Gabriel. Maybe one day this thread will be about you rather than mom's decisions

Amen. EXACTLY.

This is about poor Gabriel. His death and his abuse. His killer is his father, sadly.

 

[Salem]

STOP VICTIM BASHING - Lay off the mom.

Salem

 

[Salem]

The mother is a victim here. Her baby was killed. She is a victim.

RIGHT, thank you.

Everybody please note - this story is not about the adoption. That is a different story.

This case is about the murder of an innocent child, by his father.

Let's stay focused here. On Websleuths, the mother is considered a victim and she shall be treated as such unless LE tells us otherwise.

Salem