I was referring to the claims the family made about the reasons the children were removed. Generally low vitamin D levels and most of the claims the family made that were listed in the petition are not reasons for removal.Seems confusing to me as you said you were glad for the arrests, but feeling they could be dropped. I understand your writing to imply, that not only the DA who complied & submitted the charges is just playing a game of some kind, but also a judge in a manner of speaking since he accepted the filing & arraignment. What case have you experienced or seen to take the personal stance of randomly "Not trusting the DA?" with no follow up except "you lived there?"!
@MsBetsy
Comment of "It would not surprise me either. If what the family says is true, DSS did not have sufficient proof that the children were in imminent danger." IMO is not equivalent: DA is not involved with Dss regulations/decisions & that is not a trial. Our children are vulnerable & what" proof" you speak of is about hearings to decide whether to continue holding children away is in their best interest or whether services can be provided to give the children back-
The family is also not helping their case by continually breaking the terms of the Nondisclosure agreement.
We've only heard one side of the story. We have no idea what evidence LE has. The family claims they did not interview the witnesses who were there but that doesn't mean they haven't interviewed other people who knew the family or saw Evanna during the time she was sick.
Since five other adults have now been charged, investigators likely have much more evidence than we've heard from the family, and possibly some that they weren't even aware of themselves.
Imo