Monday, December 29, 2008

New Court Date Set ... State Moves With Vengence To Place Child Away From Family

The new court date is January 6th and the state will again (as they have from the beginning) press hard for termination and placement, presumably, with the foster woman. The state has prevented placement with several good relative families and has done its best to alienate the Lisa's affections to her biological family. (From the KING 5 coverage we see that it hasn't worked!)

Who is the mystery person spends time at the house? The foster woman has told the state that she has no one else living there. Will the state, in its scheme to steal this child, level with the court?

Will the court see the medical records?

Will the court believe the state (or the CASA?) that the mother writes an offending (to some) blog? Or, will the state be honest and tell the court that the mother had nothing to do with the blog? (Must be a real feeling of power to seed the court with lies and know you can get away with it.)

Will the judge ask who writes the alternative blog? (There is a blog other than PRR that covers the case of the Stuth's granddaughter. Judge Schafer, reportedly, blamed the alternative blog on the teen mother. Because it was aggressive in attitude it was, therefore, proof that the mother was unfit.)

Will the "free" attorney tell the judge her client did not write the blog? Why didn't she defend her client on that matter in the first place?

I have taken the position that another individual's free speech should not be used against the mother. I also believe that if the mother DID write the blog (and she didn't) it would only show that she is fighting for her child and what mother worth her salt wouldn't fight for her child?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

What difference should it make to the court anyway what ever is written in a blog. Seems childish and petty to me. I thought the courts were suppose to be above that. What happened to just the facts...If we complained about what cps writes about us (allegations) we have to prove they are wrong. So, why shouldn't they have to do the same. Instead of crying to the judge that they are being maligned.