NUDE pictures of the child's genitals?? Mommy Dearest had to take pictures of the child's GENITALS??
Mommy Dearest is a petty thief, a liar, and a transient who beats her child and you think the state is out of line by putting Martha in protective custody?
Oh pulllease.
Martha was healthy before and after spanking and the hands of her mommy. Then the authorities got involved and now Martha is very, very sick. Martha can't see her mommy now.
As for Martha's genitals, you must be a pretty sick person yourself. Who, other than yourself, mentioned the kid's genitals? All accounts I heard had to do with her being nude and unbruised. Nothing more than that.
In fact there are nude pictures apparently showing Martha as intact as ever.NUDE pictures of the child's genitals?? Mommy Dearest had to take pictures of the child's GENITALS??
Mommy Dearest is a petty thief, a liar, and a transient who beats her child and you think the state is out of line by putting Martha in protective custody?
Not taking either side on this issue as I have not seen the video, nor have I heard this woman speak on any television shows. That said, your statement is absolutely ridiculous.
First of all, the first poster made no mention of genitilia. That seems to be something which you are a bit hung up on given the SHOUTING. Most healthy people have nude photos of their children, although in today's PC world, that may endanger their right to parenting. The only people who would find a parent having a nude photo of a 4 year old as remarkable would be someone who has a deep seated psychological issue with child nudity. I suggest you seek help.
Regardless of that fact, the article, as stated herein, makes no indication that the photos were taken by, or even in the possession of, the mother. A clear reading of the article actually suggests the opposite, that some authority figures took those photos and are in possession of them. While there is no way to know for certain by what is posted, given that it is stated directly after stating that the child was found perfectly healthy by doctors, one would be led to conclude that it was the doctors who took the nude photos. (Something that would be done to record the clean bill of health for legal purposes.)
Your next statement is equally distressing. Without knowing otherwise, one would get the impression from your post that petty thievery, lying and moving around are all perfectly legitimate reasons for the state to take custody of a child. Two of the three are not even legal issues. The only illegal act stated, petty theivery, has well established punishments none of which in any state of the union include loss of parenting rights. The only other issue is beating the child. Given that it is the ONLY issue in the entire post that has ANY relevancy to the case, the "Oh pulllease." that you close with seems a bit inappropriate to say the least.
Innocent until proven guilty is a founding principal of free society. The day that a video shown on national television becomes judge, jury and executioner is the day that the first dictator of the United States takes power with a little help from his friends in the digital video editing field.
Child abuse is absolutely reprehensible and deserving of strong punishment. But putting a child in state custody is far from a healthy solution as is illustrated in this case. The question of the child's health is not only valid, it should be the central issue of the case. The best policy would be to place the child in custody of close relatives. While there may be cases when that would be inappropriate, it should be sought as the first alternative. "The state" may be a fabulous nanny for your average welfare bum, but it has repeatedly proven itself terribly inadequate as a parent for young children.