Desperate situation
#61
![Default](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The CPS woman has just informed my wife that the court date is today.That they want to take our child because a; she has a mental health issue and b; she is a licensed medical marijuana patient. How can you be victimised for having mental health issues or for taking a perfectly legal medication?
I
I
Rene
![Noorah101 is offline](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#62
![Default](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Yes she uses it. She does not smoke it. There are more ways to take it for her condition. So there is "no exposing a newborn" to it.
![selectap is offline](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#63
![Default](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Cannabis does not pass in to the fat cells to either the foetus or the breast milk.
![selectap is offline](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#64
BE Enthusiast
![](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/ranks/star.gif)
![](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/ranks/star.gif)
![](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/ranks/star.gif)
![](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/ranks/star.gif)
![](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/ranks/star.gif)
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Oakland County, Michigan
Posts: 846
![NatashaB has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![NatashaB has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![NatashaB has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![NatashaB has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![NatashaB has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![NatashaB has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gif)
![NatashaB has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gif)
![NatashaB has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gif)
![NatashaB has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gif)
![NatashaB has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gif)
![NatashaB has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gif)
![Default](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I'm glad everything is resolved. I hope your wife can get home with your baby and concentrate on recovering and bonding. I can't imagine my child being taken away from me like that.
![NatashaB is offline](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#67
![Default](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
![Smile](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif)
A satisfactory outcome for all concerned, baby home with its mother, and the CPS has been seen to have acted decisively but was over-ruled by a judge, so if things were to go pear-shaped no blame would be pinned on the CPS. And yet the CPS has none of the inconvenience of managing a short term foster placement, finding a longer term solution, or ongoing monitoring, so the CPS should be delighted with the outcome.
Last edited by Pulaski; Jan 8th 2014 at 12:51 pm.
![Pulaski is online now](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_online.gif)
#68
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
![scrubbedexpat099 is an unknown quantity at this point](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_balance.gif)
![Default](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
So what are you going to do now?
![scrubbedexpat099 is offline](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#69
![Default](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
And a question, if the Woman who gave Birth to the Child is his "Wife" then why doesn't she petition for him to move to the USA, so as they can co-habitate?
![Scouse Express is offline](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#70
![Default](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
FWIW, recording police officers in the performance of their duties in public is a protected First Amendment right. It trumps state laws on recording consent in a number of major cases, though none of which have gotten a final say from the Supreme Court.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...ce-158828.html
http://www.copblock.org/35412/tips-f...-interactions/
The Law
For years, the legality of recording police conduct was unclear and varied from state to state. Several states had even passed laws that banned the practice altogether. Indeed, many websites and blogs still contain outdated and misleading information on the Right to Record. Fortunately, recent legal developments have clearly defined certain rights in this area.
First, several federal courts and the U.S. Department of Justice have affirmed that citizens have a First Amendment right to openly record police officers performing their duties in public. Any law prohibiting this conduct is therefore unconstitutional. Only the U.S. Supreme Court can overturn this Right to Record and the current Supreme Court appears reluctant to do so. After a Federal Appeals Court last year overturned an Illinois law prohibiting audio recordings of police, the state of Illinois appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to revive the Illinois law by denying further review of the case. However, because the Court did not issue an opinion, this doesn’t necessarily mean the justices endorse the lower court’s ruling.
Most of the notable cases dealing with this issue have involved the third parties (typically media) filming or photographing police interactions with other citizens. However, the law is clear that any citizen may openly record their own communications with police.[ref]Note: Citizens are also protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments from having their recording equipment illegally seized by police under these circumstances and can sue the police for damages under federal law.
Unfortunately, it remains unclear whether or not citizens may secretly record law enforcement acting in public. Several courts have explicitly held that individuals do have this right. Further, in a recent court filing (03/04/13), the U.S. Justice Department stated “[i]t is now settled law that the First Amendment protects individuals who photograph or otherwise record officers engaging in police activity in a public place.” This is a broad affirmation of the right to record public police conduct from the highest law enforcement agency in the country and could reasonably be relied on to justify secret police recordings.
To be clear, the current status of the law is as follows:
You DO have the right to openly record official police conduct performed in public.
You MAY have the right to secretly record police conduct performed in public.
You DO NOT have the right to record the private conversations of police (or anyone else) without consent if you are not a party to the conversation.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...ce-158828.html
http://www.copblock.org/35412/tips-f...-interactions/
The Law
For years, the legality of recording police conduct was unclear and varied from state to state. Several states had even passed laws that banned the practice altogether. Indeed, many websites and blogs still contain outdated and misleading information on the Right to Record. Fortunately, recent legal developments have clearly defined certain rights in this area.
First, several federal courts and the U.S. Department of Justice have affirmed that citizens have a First Amendment right to openly record police officers performing their duties in public. Any law prohibiting this conduct is therefore unconstitutional. Only the U.S. Supreme Court can overturn this Right to Record and the current Supreme Court appears reluctant to do so. After a Federal Appeals Court last year overturned an Illinois law prohibiting audio recordings of police, the state of Illinois appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to revive the Illinois law by denying further review of the case. However, because the Court did not issue an opinion, this doesn’t necessarily mean the justices endorse the lower court’s ruling.
Most of the notable cases dealing with this issue have involved the third parties (typically media) filming or photographing police interactions with other citizens. However, the law is clear that any citizen may openly record their own communications with police.[ref]Note: Citizens are also protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments from having their recording equipment illegally seized by police under these circumstances and can sue the police for damages under federal law.
Unfortunately, it remains unclear whether or not citizens may secretly record law enforcement acting in public. Several courts have explicitly held that individuals do have this right. Further, in a recent court filing (03/04/13), the U.S. Justice Department stated “[i]t is now settled law that the First Amendment protects individuals who photograph or otherwise record officers engaging in police activity in a public place.” This is a broad affirmation of the right to record public police conduct from the highest law enforcement agency in the country and could reasonably be relied on to justify secret police recordings.
To be clear, the current status of the law is as follows:
You DO have the right to openly record official police conduct performed in public.
You MAY have the right to secretly record police conduct performed in public.
You DO NOT have the right to record the private conversations of police (or anyone else) without consent if you are not a party to the conversation.
![penguinsix is offline](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#71
![Default](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I have to say that there are reams and reams of independent scientific medical research on the benefits of medical marijuana and despite how social services feel about it, if it is not illegal you should not be persecuted for it anymore than you should be for taking any other state recognised legal medicine.
![Duncan Roberts is offline](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#74
Account Closed
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 0
![scrubbedexpat097 has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![scrubbedexpat097 has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![scrubbedexpat097 has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![scrubbedexpat097 has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![scrubbedexpat097 has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![scrubbedexpat097 has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gif)
![scrubbedexpat097 has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gif)
![scrubbedexpat097 has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gif)
![scrubbedexpat097 has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gif)
![scrubbedexpat097 has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gif)
![scrubbedexpat097 has a reputation beyond repute](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gif)
![Default](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The babies meconium is tested at birth and will show positive for all drugs, marijuana included. Positive testing usually means CPS are involved.
![scrubbedexpat097 is offline](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
#75
![Default](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The thing is in court they said the babys urine tested negative, and they hadnt gotten the results of of another test (i forget the name) by the court hearing. They didnt seem concerned that they wanted to give my wife Oxycotin. So it would on the face of it appear that highly addictive and dangerous is acceptable for newborns.
![selectap is offline](https://britishexpats.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)