Skip to comments.
Too bad, Mrs. Toogood, we're taking your kids
WorldNetDaily ^
| October 2, 2002
| Ilana Mercer
Posted on 10/04/2002 5:46:42 AM PDT by A Vast RightWing Conspirator
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
WEDNESDAY
OCTOBER 2
2002 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
Too bad, Mrs. Toogood, we're taking your kids
Posted: October 2, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
Had I been caught on camera administering an admittedly vigorous hiding to my daughter, my first instinct would be to flee much like Madelyne Gorman Toogood did.
Toogood's unflattering film debut was broadcast repeatedly nationwide. To flush her out, trumped-up charges were brought against her sister, who was taken into custody and held for three days.
Toogood relates how she was afraid to surrender because she feared, justifiably, that the law would remove the children. "I left with my other two children and flew to my mother," she explained.
Anchorwoman Paula Zahn donned an inquisitor's cap on her severe, helmet-shaped hairdo: "You obviously changed your hair color," she interrogated Toogood. "Were you trying to avoid being caught?"
Well, duh.
The power that allows the state with impunity to usurp the parents as the primary agent in the lives of children is the judicial doctrine of the state as parens patriae. Knowing that the state has the right to kidnap my child and replace me as a parent, without much ado, might also have me scampering for dear life, my daughter in tow.
Toogood is a member of the migrant community of Irish Travelers. That, and her lack of penchant for self-pity and psychobabble, did not bode well with the media. (I wonder how they would spin it if she were an undocumented Mexican migrant worker.)
When she emerged from hiding, Toogood was so obviously overcome with sorrow – for her child, not for herself: "My baby is with people she doesn't know … my little girl is probably terrified now, please give her to someone she knows," she pleaded, relating how little Martha, whom doctors have pronounced unblemished and in perfect health, is accustomed to snuggling in mom's bed nightly. Just the kind of idiosyncrasies I'd be agonizing over. (The thought of possible sexual abuse, the incidence of which is increased in state care, would have been enough to drive me to distraction.)
The assorted execrable commentators, however, nonchalantly spoke about the need to place Martha with a loving family. In most situations and despite human fallibility, children love and need their parents more than anything, and vice versa. Does the state and its intellectual bootlickers in the media and in the therapeutic community believe that a child can be jettisoned into a new family and habituate to it like a hamster or a dog? Who loves a child more than a parent?
The same anchors and experts, whose vigorous defense of child killer Andrea Yates began while Yates was still rounding up the kids for their deadly dip, and who tirelessly promoted Yates' imaginary disease – the same people who daintily avoided describing the gruesome Medea-like savagery Yates inflicted on her children – were merciless about Toogood: "What kind of a monster would do what Toogood did?" And "have we stumbled on a career criminal," they gobbled.
Pinko liberals almost always plump for the state, but get-tough-on-crime so-called conservatives are not much better.
First, they fail to understand that the law must protect people from – not subjugate them to – the formidable power of the state. Mock conservatives also ignore the vital role the family has in countervailing the power of the state, as they are oblivious to the demise of the once-implicit right of parents to raise their children free from undue intervention from the State.
Commenting on the American conservatives' embracing of the liberal "children's rights" movement, Kenneth Anderson discusses how this movement has aimed "to break down the autonomous family into children on the one hand, who are ultimately wards of the state, and parents on the other hand, who are regarded as something like low-level civil servants raising children according to the state's therapeutic directives."
The "best interest of the child" standard, notes Anderson, is simply a license for the state to substitute its own judgment for that of the parents.
The behavioral "scientists," who adjudicate the "best interest of the child" are, invariably, proponents of anti-authority, progressive, child-centered upbringing. Precisely the kind of upbringing that churns out narcissistic, indulged, ignorant, and violent youth who – thank heavens – have robust self-esteems.
With the mother now effectively removed from the family and disallowed unsupervised visits with her children, the Toogoods have been forced to reside separately. If it means getting Martha back, they say they will even consider separation. If the family breaks up, the children will be more likely to suffer poverty, delinquency, drug and alcohol abuse, academic failure and violent crime, to say nothing of commencing a life of on-and-off welfare dependence.
A now-independent family unit could, because of the actions of the state, become dependent on it. Big Bully will have rendered asunder a once intact – if imperfect – family.
To learn more about Ilana Mercer, visit her website, where she now has a special new feature for your comments.
 E-mail to a Friend |
 Printer-friendly version |
|
|
| |
|
E-MAIL ILANA MERCER | GO TO ILANA MERCER'S ARCHIVE
GO TO PAGE 1 | GO TO PAGE 2 | GO TO COMMENTARY
SEARCH WND | CONTACT WND |
|
|
| |
|
|
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
Contact WND |
|
|
TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: toogood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-38 last
To: fone
You missed the point... the pont was, instead of just offering an opinion (one that I might, in fact, agree with) he decided that baiting people was much more important...
That being said, take your "freeper number" complex, and shove it up your ass...
To: Chad Fairbanks
OOOOHHH! Such a smooth talker! Do you eat with that mouth? HAR
22
posted on
10/04/2002 7:25:00 AM PDT
by
fone
To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
Excellent article. This is the way it works, in case you don't know. There is a suspicion of abuse and Department of Children and Family Services presents information to the county prosecutor which results in the child being removed by the court from the parents and placed into "temporary" foster care through DCFS. Now the fun really starts.
DCFS is aided by a number of allied agencies motivated by the principle that it is the government's job to decide exactly how and by whom children should be raised. Child advocates. Home-makers. Psychologists. Social workers. Government bureaucrats. A service plan is drafted with "goals" established by the government, and whether the parent accomplishes these goals or not is determined by -- you guessed it -- the government and their degreed allies.
For instance: the court orders the parent to undergo "psychological testing." The psychologist diagnoses a "borderline personality disorder," which is not uncommon nor considered to be a mental illness. Nonetheless, the parent must then show "improvement" to the satisfaction of the government psychologist or the kids never come back.
Another example: the home-maker comes in and teaches parenting. She may not have any kids of her own, but she does have a degree. She will teach the 21 separate steps for changing a diaper, and woe be to the mother if she cannot recite all steps in the proper order. (It is particularly fun to cross-examine such a government agent when she doesn't have her checklist with her. Of course, she can't recite them all, either, but no matter.)
Of course, the government witnesses tell the court that there is insufficient progress, and in any case the goal posts are moved at the whim of any of the state agents. Eventually the child has been in foster care long enough that they begin to talk about the need of the child for "finality" and how much better off the child would be if the foster parents were allowed to adopt the child outright.
And the whole system is designed so the court is merely a rubber stamp on whatever the government decides. Typically, the parent cannot afford to have a lawyer fully litigate what I will laughingly call her "parental rights," much less obtain expert testimony of her own to challenge the dubious premises and practices of the government's experts.
Yes, many children would be far better off in foster care. At times in my life, I have little doubt that my OWN kids would have had a better week if they were living with someone else. Interesting, though, how we all just came to accept the idea that it is the proper function of government to rearrange family ties -- family ties -- according to that it thinks is best for children.
Oh, by the way. Putting a child in foster care is no guarantee that that child will be protected from sexual or other abuse by foster parents or other foster children.
To: fone
But of course, since I didn't vote for Harry Browne, my opinion doesn't mean a thing and I'm not a 'real conservative'...
E Pluribus Unum, and yourself, are a good example of why the libertarian party will never be a viable option - never offer solutions, only insults...
Since actual debate is beneath you, enjoy this circle jerk of a thread, and wallow in your "true conservative" irrelevance... I have better things to do with my time than try to discuss issues with people who only want to brag about how they are the 'real conservatives' and everyone else is a 'mock conservative'..
To: SalukiLawyer
Putting a child in foster care is no guarantee that that child will be protected from sexual or other abuse by foster parents or other foster children.The "Child Protective Service" here in Washington has has scandal after scandal involving abuse (physical, sexual, etc...) of children who become wards of the state...
CPS, and by extension DSHS, are agencies that need to be reined in, and reined in fast...
To: SalukiLawyer
In a related matter, I learned that by requesting 'government assistance' (in Ohio anyway) you are signing off on the fact the authorities have the "final say" in
any matter regarding your child.
I am not now/never was/never hope to be a "welfare" recipient, but back around 1993/94 I was without health insurance. My son has a medical condition, and without any private medical coverage he qualified for a state health care for children - BCMH (income less than $125,000/household).
I asked for the paperwork to sign him up temporarily until I could get coverage. What I received in the mail was a "welfare" application (BCMH was only a fraction of the paperwork). They said the entire thing had to be filled out blah blah blah.
I did some research into the administrative code that I had to sign for/accept (at the local library, no internet at that time for me) and learned the hard cold facts.
The most revealing item was that I was giving the STATE, or it's "lawful" representative (social worker etc), authorization to enter my home, examine my financial/medical records, or access to other personal information (credit or whatever) without recourse.
I never returned the application. A short time later, a county "nurse" called to "schedule" a time when she could "evaluate" the home. I informed her that I decided not to take the medical benefits [I paid out of pocket *ouch*]. She was, to say the least, unhappy. She said that I had already given my *consent.* I said to show me the document where I signed for that (didn't exist). She never called back.
I'm not a criminal, I am a citizen.
26
posted on
10/04/2002 7:51:46 AM PDT
by
fone
To: Chad Fairbanks
FWIW: I voted for Howard Phillips in 1996. GWB in 2000, which I regret actually.
I held an (elected) seat as a Republican Precinct Committeeman...I agree 99% with the US Constitution Party...
On a one to ten scale, I am what might be considered an Ultra-conservative, example: I agree with the principle that only land owners should vote.
27
posted on
10/04/2002 8:01:15 AM PDT
by
fone
To: fone
Now, if we can perhaps start over... I am very much in agreement with what you stated in this post... we had a very similar circumstance, and looked at the state's medical plan... We thought twice about it, for the very same reasons you stated - If I have to 'sell my soul' for medical benefits, then I'll pay my own way, thanks... The welfare state is one of the key things in this nation that are destroying the freedoms we as individual citizens have.
When you are dependent upon the state, you become a Subject of the state, rather than a sovereign individual... I wish people would wake up to that fact...
It is the same as the idea of Gun Control - it's not gun control, it's "People Control", just like welfare...
To: Chad Fairbanks
Truce! =)
29
posted on
10/04/2002 8:08:42 AM PDT
by
fone
To: fone
Maybe we are not too far apart, after all... I tend to be a conservative, with Libertarian-leanings, but find the whole "war" going on here at FR between conservatives and libertarians to be a waste of time and resources that could be better spent fighting the left (which is why E Pluribus' posts ticked me off, for what it's worth)...
I voted for Buchanan years ago, before he went nuts... ;0)
To: fone
I like the idea of only property-owners being able to vote... I recall a quote from someone (I forget who) that stated something along the lines that when people discover they can vote themselves benefits, the Republic is doomed...
To: Chad Fairbanks
Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) was a Scottish jurist and historian, widely known in his time. He was professor of Universal History at Edinburgh University in the late18th century.
Here is a very important quotation for your serious contemplation, taken from the 1801 collection of his lectures.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years.
These nations have progressed through this sequence:
"From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."
emphasis added
32
posted on
10/04/2002 8:18:02 AM PDT
by
fone
To: fone
Yup... that's the one... I remember reading that in junior High oh so many years ago...
Wealth Redistribution is taking place here in America, it's just taking longer than Marx would have liked...
Religion is being destroyed here in America, it's just taking longer than Marx would have liked...
I could go on and on and on... but I won't, because all I'm doing is preaching to the choir. ;0)
Family TIes are being severed here in America, it's just taking longer than Marx would have liked...
This Toogood lady really opened up a can of worms.
To: fone
On a one to ten scale, I am what might be considered an Ultra-conservative, example: I agree with the principle that only land owners should vote. The criteria should be tax paying, not land ownership. Only those who actually pay for the government should have any say in how that governmetn operates. While all land owners pay taxes, they do not all pay federal taxes, and in federal elections that should be the criteria.
Hank
To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
Libertarians are getting whacky these days. The dictators of Iraq and China are good, America is always evil. The Confederacy held four million slaves, but the South was right. Now they're coming down on the side of child abusers.
Suppose I came up to you and shook you like this mother shook her child. I'll bet you'd run to the nearest law enforcement officer and complain, and try to get me thrown into jail. But if you were a child, and I was your parent, it would be okay?
Ladies and gentlemen, now and then government is there for a reason.
I also don't get the point with Andrea Yates. "Andrea Yates murdered her children, so I get to beat up mine!" Is this what libertarians call 'logic?'
To: 537 Votes
I don't believe this article was written to support child abuse or child abusers. In fact, the article brilliantly illustrates the current state of affairs, where 'our' government claims ownership of many aspects of our life, including our children and it acts as it is free to abuse our children in any way it sees fit - this while vast and ever-growing majorities, evidently under some media/propaganda-induced spell do nothing but ask for even more intrusions.
If you really want to go into the details of this particular case, she notes something no one else noted. Namely the fact that the girl's mother never asked for anything (mercy???) for herself in her public appearences. All she asked was to (please, please, please) do not not punish the girl by having her live with people she didn't know. Naturally, the all-loving state can't care less about the fate of a little girl.
And the execrable loudmouths in the media and their follower masses thought they should call her 'a monster'.
To: fone
I'd take the opinion of freeper #15,967 over #52,858 any day!Where did you get those numbers? I'm assuming you didn't just make them up.
P.S. that Chad guy seemed to take it personal! LOL
To: Balding_Eagle
::lol::
we made a truce on posts 28/29!
Just point your mouse to any freeper name ("posted by") and you'll see a number
...profile?u=54,118 [is Balding_Eagle]
thus, you were the 54,118 person to sign up after the reformatting done late in 97/early 98. Before that, things were much different! You could use any name you wanted in the "posted by" column! Ahhh, the good old days.
If I would have known I'd be stuck with "fone" for all these years I would have been more clever!
38
posted on
10/05/2002 7:05:12 PM PDT
by
fone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-38 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
