Aspies For Freedom

Full Version: Autistic boy taken from his family U.S.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Is Orange County in California or are there other Orange counties?  

Children can be removed from their homes to "protect them" while an investigation is being conducted on their parents and the care they are receiving.  If the parents had been giving this kid chelation while strapped down in "doctor approved restraints", would some people still feel outraged?  

Somehow I don't feel that an institution for the criminally insane is really a place for a child with autism.  If he was violent, they would drug him.  

Something is creepy about the whole story.  Maybe the kid was not treated well at home or in the institution.

M Wrote:
Is Orange County in California or are there other Orange counties?  

Children can be removed from their homes to "protect them" while an investigation is being conducted on their parents and the care they are receiving.  If the parents had been giving this kid chelation while strapped down in "doctor approved restraints", would some people still feel outraged?  

Somehow I don't feel that an institution for the criminally insane is really a place for a child with autism.  If he was violent, they would drug him.  

Something is creepy about the whole story.  Maybe the kid was not treated well at home or in the institution.



Florida has an Orange County.

I've asked for more information. My gut tells me that the parents' status as immigrants influenced these events. They probably need an advocate.
It is Child Protective Services of San Diego. California.  The boy was violent.  Apparently it has been a while since this happened.  There was mention of his parents visiting him "over the summer".  Here are further (rather ugly) details in an article by Kristina Chew, PhD :
-------------------------------------------------------

Should Child Protective Services of San Diego have removed 17-year-old Nate Tseglin from his parents, Ilya and Riva Tseglin, after a teacher reported seeing self-inflicted scratches on Nate’s body and complaining about the doctor-approved arm restraints that his parents used? Nate has been in the Fairview Developmental Center (formerly Fairview State Hospital) in Costa Mesa, OC Register writer Steven Greenhut noted in a February 17th column, and has been given medication and suffered seizures; his parents fear that he may have suffered more.

Writes Fingerhut:

The forced removal came after the Tseglins came to loggerheads with the government over Nate’s proper treatment. The parents are opposed to the use of psychotropic drugs and argue that Nate has had strong negative reactions to them. They point to success they’ve had with an alternative, holistic approach that focuses on diet and psychiatric counseling. The government disagreed, so it took the boy away from home and initially placed him in a group home – where he had the same negative reaction to the drugs that his parents predicted would happen.
……..
The details are complicated and discouraging. But, essentially, the parents were cut out of any decision-making regarding their son. They were given only short visits with him. After he ran away from the group home, the government transferred Nate to a mental hospital. The Tseglins say the drugs the hospital gave Nate caused him to have a “grand mal” seizure, and his health has continued to deteriorate while he languishes in a government mental facility. When they visited him over the summer, they found his face swollen. He faded in and out of consciousness and was suffering from convulsions. They believe he has been beaten and are worried about sexual abuse, given that he is housed with the criminally insane.

The Tseglins claim Child Protective Services has told them they have the “wrong set of beliefs” and even threatened to force them to undergo court-ordered psychological evaluation. The agency at one point suspended the parents’ visitations as a way “to assist them in coming to grips regarding their son.” The Tseglins, as former citizens of the Soviet Union, have good reason to be fearful of the authorities. But they tell me that they experienced nothing of this sort in the former communist nation. If their descriptions are correct, then the Soviets weren’t the only ones who know how to create a totalitarian bureaucracy.

A few years ago, when my own son was having a lot of self-injurious and violent behaviors, we had been told to use a “basket hold” to prevent him from hurting himself; the teachers at school also used this. Sometimes the efforts to hang onto Charlie did result in bruises on his arms and it got to the point that everyone started to document when what restraint was used and what resulted, and that was before things got really ugly between us and the school district.

What happened to the Tseglins is a horrible scenario that more than a few parents have feared—–and what is happened to Nate Tseglin, separated from his family and his familiar environment, is beyond frightening

http://www. autismvox .com/ nate-tseglin-removed-from-his-home-and-institutionalized-why/
According to the State of California Department of Developmental Services, patients have the following rights. Of course, the rub is... another section of their code says the facility can withhold these rights for "good cause" and that it must be documented, reviewed, etc etc.
------------------------------------------------
(2) A right to dignity, privacy, and humane care.  
(6) A right to social interaction and participation in community activities
(8) A right to be free from harm, including unnecessary physical restraint, or isolation, excessive medication, abuse or neglect. Medication shall not be used as punishment, for convenience of staff, as a substitute for program, or in quantities that interfere with the treatment program.  
(9) A right to be free from hazardous procedures.  
(10) A right to advocacy services, as provided by law, to protect and assert the civil, legal, and service rights to which any person with a developmental disability is entitled.  
(12) A right of access to the courts for purposes including, but not limited to the following:  
(A) To protect or assert any right to which any person with a developmental disability is entitled;  
(B) To question a treatment decision affecting such rights, once the administrative remedies provided by law, if any, have been exhausted;  
© To inquire into the terms and conditions of placement in any community care or health facility, or state hospital, by way of a writ of habeas corpus, and  
(D) To contest a guardianship or conservatorship, its terms, and/or the individual or entity appointed as guardian or conservator.  
(b) Personal Rights. Each person with a developmental disability who has been admitted or committed to a state hospital, community care facility, or health facility shall have rights which include, but are not limited to, the following:  
(5) To see visitors each day.
(8) To refuse electroconvulsive therapy (“ECT”).  
(9) To refuse behavior modification techniques which cause pain or trauma.  
(10) To refuse psychosurgery. Psychosurgery means those operations currently referred to as lobotomy, psychiatric surgery, and behavioral surgery and all other forms of brain surgery if the surgery is performed for any of the following purposes:  
(A) Modification or control of thoughts, feelings, actions, or behavior rather than treatment of a known and diagnosed physical disease of the brain.  
(B) Modification of normal brain function or normal brain tissue in order to control thoughts, feelings, actions, or behavior.  
© Treatment of abnormal brain function or abnormal brain tissue in order to modify thoughts, feelings, actions, or behavior when the abnormality is not an established cause for those thought, feelings, actions, or behavior.  
(11) Other rights as specified by administrative regulations of any federal, state, or local agency.  
© Rights of State Hospital Residents. In addition to all of the other rights provided for in this subchapter, each person with a developmental disability who resides in a state hospital shall be accorded the following rights:  
(1) If involuntarily detained, to have access to a current and up-to-date copy of the California Welfare and Institutions Code. This right includes the right to have assistance from the Clients' Rights Advocate in the reading and understanding of the Code.  
(2) To give or withhold consent for treatments and procedures, in the absence of a judicial order or other provision of law which provides for the exercise of this right to devolve to another party.  

http://www.dds.cahwnet.gov/Title17/T17Se...hapterID=5

matthe

<primate response><throws stuff><beats chest and screams like gorrila><censored></primate response>
This scares me. I intend to be a parent someday, and if something like this were to happen, I would be crushed...

Certainly it's clear, though, how CPS would respond if a cure were found and parents refused it.
USA

Quote:
Of course, once social workers are involved in a family, they are reluctant to relinquish their power – something I've found in every Child Protective Services case I've written about. And even though the court determined "the evidence is clear that the parents have always stood by and tried to help their son," the court sided with the government. That's another common theme from these closed family-court proceedings – the social workers' words are taken as gospel, and the parents are treated like enemies and given little chance to defend themselves.

UK

Quote:
Parents cannot complain either by revealing what happened in the secret family courts ,or by naming themselves or their children publicly without risking prison for contempt of the secret court.(Unlike more civilized countries such as Australia, New Zealand Canada, and Ireland where such secrecy in family courts does not exist) .

grizeldatee Wrote:
What!!??!! If the government hauls you into family court you cannot discuss your own case?! That certainly calls for civil disobedience of the highest order. If they've already got your children then there is nothing to lose.

I posted this recently on the thread:-Autistic mums new baby taken into care & also another which refers to the Asperger's mother who had her baby taken.
Forced adoption.

Somewhere in this site it does say that only the UK & USA hold secret courts where the parents have little justice and are gagged.
It is a very long hard read, but well worth it.
Another snip

Quote:
The judges in the secret family courts however inevitably respond  by threatening parents with prison if they reveal to anybody details of proceedings in the secret family courts.The identity of the children must be protected at all costs they say with an intimidating judicial frown ! They follow up this stricture by authorising social services to advertise the unfortunate babies and toddlers as "adoption candidates" in magazines like "adoption UK" and on the internet on sites such as "www.ukkids.info "like pedigree dogs,with large colour photographs ,first names, dates of birth and character descriptions for easy identification by "the neighbours". These children are finally given away via "forced adoption" to anonymous strangers for the rest of their lives.

This is why we hear in the press about babies being taken, but then seem never to hear anything again.

The owner of the site gives a great deal of useful advice & offers his services / advice for free.

I know that it sounds incredible but the UK social services have a great deal of power, as I have found to my cost whilst dealing with my mother & other elderly people.
I would certainly advise to anyone dealing with them to have everything in writing.

And the US too has secret courts! What kinds of hoops am I going to have to jump through to become a parent?!! My one hope right now is that it doesn't get EVEN worse between now and when I am ready to start a family.
Mother who had baby snatched illegally minutes after birth in line for £20,000 damages

Quote:
Mother who had baby snatched illegally minutes after birth in line for £20,000 damages
By DAVID WILKES - More by this author » Last updated at 20:12pm on 18th February 2008

The young mother whose newborn baby was snatched from her by social workers could receive up to £20,000 damages.

Lawyers for Nottingham City Council conceded yesterday that its social services department had acted illegally in removing the baby boy two hours after his birth last month.

The admission means the 18-year-old mother, known only as G, is in line for damages under the Human Rights Act. Legal sources said she stands to receive up to £20,000.

Lawyers acting for G were hopeful last night that they can now argue successfully for her to be reunited with her son in a specialist mother-and-baby unit.

The little boy, known as K, is currently in foster care and G is allowed to see him for three hours a day, five days a week.

Family courts decide on children's lives behind closed doors

Yesterday, G was in court to hear the council admit it had acted unlawfully. The admission was made at a hearing before High Court judge Mr Justice Munby sitting at the Family Court in Liverpool.

The case first came before the same judge in London last month, when he ruled that the social workers had "on the face of it" acted unlawfully because no court order had been sought for the baby's removal.

The baby was returned to his mother, but within days was again removed and placed in foster care after a judge at Nottingham County Court granted the city council an interim care order.

The council claimed that the mother's troubled childhood and mental health problems threatened the baby's welfare.

She had been taken into care herself after running away from home and had in the past taken drugs.

David Lock, for the council, argued that G had not objected to the baby being taken away from her in hospital.

Mr Justice Munby said social services 'should have known better' than to remove the child

But Ian Wise, for G, said she had never seen the birth plan prepared by the council before the baby's arrival and that she was unaware of any proposal for an interim care order.

"She never consented to removal," he said.

"At the time of removal there was uproar from the mother and her family."

Mr Lock later conceded: "On behalf of the local authority, it did not have an agreement from the claimant which was sufficient to be consent in law."

The council also admitted it had failed in its statutory duty of care to G before the child was born.

When someone has been in local authority care for 13 weeks, the authority has a statutory duty to appoint an independent personal adviser to that person.

But the court heard that in the case of G, the council appointed a social worker to the role who was also involved in the preparation of their care plan for her and was therefore not "independent."

Yesterday, the council agreed to appoint a new personal adviser who meets the criteria.

Much of the hearing was behind closed doors.

However, Mr Justice Munby said that in the interests of transparency of the courts and given the publicity the case has already attracted, he will give a "brief judgment" explaining more about what happened yesterday at a later date when he is sitting in London.

I won't post any more of these stories...but this one beggars belief !!

My baby had cancer but social workers falsely accused me of child abuse and took all three of my children

matthe

20k pounds? wtf? shouldnt they add a couple zeros to that? and pay for layer expenses? and a public formal apology? and psychiatric help for the mother for the next 5 years or so?
Earthmonkey, the US does not have secret courts.  However, because we do not have enough courts to deal with all the cases (particularly in California, a very overcrowded state), the judges often limit testimony in family court proceedings to less than an hour, in order to move the cases along quickly.  As a result, families often are unable to present enough information, and courts rely on the word of social workers much more than they should.

I hope that the press coverage will get the attention of state legislators and that someone will help the parents to bring Nate home.
Ah. Thanks for that. I must've read something wrong.

Still, that is quite unfair for those living in the UK.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's