Whoa. They never showed the kids were abused. The first hearing was a pass-over because they didn't have time to do it right. Now they are arguing that they don't need to do a real hearing because they already did it?
And now they are arguing that, contrary to what a lot of people have said here, the reason the kids were taken was because of the beliefs of their parents, and not because of their actions?
So, if I believe something that would be illegal if practiced, the state can take my children? If I write a column that marijuana should be legal, the state can say I am pro-drugs and take my kids because I'm a threat?
No. In fact, the argument most have made here at FR is that it isn't what they believe, it's that they were practicing what they believed.
And those of us on the other side have said we don't see sufficient evidence that EACH family got a fair hearing to dispute whether they had practiced anything untoward.
And those against us say that the state IS giving people a fair hearing -- but now this article says they aren't getting a hearing at all.
Instead, the next hearings are about the children and foster care, not about the families and whether there was any evidence of abuse.
At some point, I hope that even those who are certain every parent is guilty will realise that the state still has to actually provide evidence in court that each parent is guilty before we take their kids away for good.
“that each parent is guilty before we take their kids away for good. “
The children are in ‘temporary custody’.
You should at least get your facts straight.
“They never showed the kids were abused. “
Who didn’t show the kids were abused, and to whom?