selectap

Apperantly in the state of Michigan any recording by any party however obtained in cases involving children is admissible.
And it wasnt a recording as such, but a message left on the phones voicemail!!!

scrubbedexpat099

If it was one year then you overstayed 9 months or so and have a 3 year waiverable ban.

The waiver for a non immigrant visa is the d3, I 601 for the immigrant visa.

Plus a I 212 for Deportation.

With your history a non immigrant visa is unlikely, an Immigrant Visa will both cost and take a couple of years. My assumption is you will need legal (not cheap) help.

Pulaski

You mean "may be" admissible. The judge will decide what is admissible, and the decisions can appear capricious.

Personally, I would question whether robust and/or misleading language from a police officer in the course of their job (in this case protecting the safety of a potentially at risk child) has any real significance regardless of whether a recording of it is admissible.

A little robust and/ or misleading language isn't much to complain about, because in Michigan the alternatives can be ugly, really ugly.

Cases like this one in Michigan, and others across the US (like similar ones in the UK), have led to Child Protective Services being much more protactive in acting to identify and protect children at risk. Imagine the headlines "Where were CPS staff when newborn was released to pot smoking mother with PTSD?"

selectap

Is, may be, robust is not misleading, a lie is a lie, and when used to gain access turns it unlawful maybe. Like i say we will see how the attorney wants to deal with it.
a public servant is sworn to do his duty and serve and protect, that includes to preserve and protect and uphold the law. Is does not include lying.

Yes they should go back to the hospitals maternity ward and take away all children of mothers who are taking opiate based medicines,and cns depressing anti-depressants and any other legal medications. Then conduct a door to door hunt for any parent who shows any amount of alcohol in their blood stream. Maybe when they have done that they may be able to spare some time to go look for the obscene amounts of sexual child abuse cases they always seem to miss?

Good thing my wife does not smoke pots.

Pulaski

That is not true. In the US the alternative to lying (by a police officer) may include battering down the front door and shooting. A lie told by a police officer to trick someone out of their house is perfectly acceptable, especially if the alternative is shooting someone. ...... I think even you might agree, given that in the case I linked to above, during a child seizure from cannabis smoking parent(s), the father was shot and killed, and the killing was deemed reasonable force and the officer who fired was exonerated (not even put on trial!)

selectap

From what i know of the case the guy had a knife and threatened the police. I dont see how threatening to take away someone's benefits knowing that they do not have that power is anything other than a total lie and how is that likely to get someone to open a door? All it would appear to do whether in our case or any other would make any search/entry warrant invalid and likely have the case thrown out of court. like lying about the reasons for a search warrant.

so, having just read about the case again it appears the police lied about the victim having been smoking pot to have the child taken away. A post mortem revealed no marijuana in his bloodstream at all. So cops telling a few lies, sorry, using robust language created a situation where a poor young child has lost his father. Imagine the headlines "Police tell lies to CPS and set up scenario where father is gunned down".

lansbury

If US police can lie to obtain confessions to crimes, telling a few porkies to get a child to safety isn't going to worry many people. If I thought a child was at risk inside a building, I would do whatever it took to get them to a place of safety. It is better to apologize afterwards for doing something wrong, than to be explaining to a coroner why the child is dead. Unfortunately I learned that from experience.

selectap

Except no crime here has been committed. And besides what you think and what you know are two completely different things.

lansbury

I didn't say a crime had been committed I was drawing an example between what US police are allowed to do, and you assuming because they lied it counts for much if anything.

Indeed what I might think and know can be different. But again I was saying that in circumstances of child safety most police officers, and US ones are no different, will act on what they think and put their perception of what is best for the child's safety above everything else. The court will decide calmly and without need to hasty action. As I said I would far rather be bollocked by a judge than a coroner for doing something wrong.

I hope for your sake the court decides they were wrong, but I doubt that acted without reason.

selectap

They did not think. They acted as escorts to the CPS.
They went to a home where no crime was committed. Lied to try and get access
and took a child away from its mother because she uses a legal medicine that she is state licensed for and suffers from a mental condition that has no history of harm to either herself or others. The one thing all these forces acted without is exactly what you think they acted with. REASON.

Pulaski

You're "thinking British". This is America, and we are trying to help you understand the way things work here. You can take it or leave it, but arguing with us is not going to change reality on this side of the Atlantic.

selectap

I am debating. I am English, not British by the way and i have spent enough time in America to get a feel for it. You are merely stating your perception of the way things are there. my wife got out of court six minutes ago and is having the child released back to us. The reality as opposed to your "under-standing" is that the judge was not happy about way both the police and CPS had acted or the methods police used to try and gain entry. Thanks for everyones input.

DebzinUS

No REASONABLE person would think it is okay for a newborn to have been exposed to marijuana. No Harm?? Are you smoking too?

selectap

My wife does not smoke it
I dont take it.
And the judge, very reasonably decided there was no harm. Thats the reality.

selectap

It appears that after 30 hrs of labour my wife was in a lot of pain and asked for over the counter strength ibuprofen. The jnr doctor told her she had to have oxy-codin or some other opiod that unlike canaboids is passed through the blood stream into fat cells and will taint the breast milk. Upset at being told by the patient that she knew what was best for her body he phoned the social worker, and started this ball rolling. So all in all a traumatic day for us, an expensive day for the state.
Fancy any reasonable person thinking its okay to have highly addictive and dangerous legal drugs put into a babys body!