I was reading an
article today that suggested that the guardian ad litem has filed
motions blocking the adoptive efforts in the Stocklaufer - Baby Max
case. I also read that the judge isn't allowing a new hearing. Is
this all true? If so, then the question "WHY?" becomes one that all
citizens should be asking. I mean, it isn't as though it can be
traumatic to Baby Max, because he won't be testifying or even aware
of what is transpiring. So what can possibly be a legit reason to
deny Gary & Cynthia Stocklaufer an appeal to the original decision?
What's up?
This case certainly
isn't endearing the judicial system or Missouri Department of Family
Services to the majority that are tried of being bullied and
suppressed by people with god-like self-images, who have appointed
themselves as rulers (divine leaders) of the so-called "village".
Perhaps they need to be reminded that there are still laws and one
of those laws is against discrimination. Hiding behind the
suggestion they are looking out for the "best interest of the child"
can only go so far. Can their declaration hold up to the test of
whether it is actually in the best interest of the child as opposed
to their "bias and personal opinion" of what is best?
We had Mike Nifong in
NC, standing in front of the cameras, acting as though he was a
crusader for truth and justice. He was going to get those bad boys
and make them pay the price for their wrongfulness. He was the hero
for months. He was the hero at the price paid by three young men
from the Duke lacrosse team. He was a hero until the Attorney
General's investigation uncovered the truth and showed Nifong and
his case for what it was. A wrongful disgrace to the system!
Keeping in mind how
long the Duke lacrosse case drug out, with the accused being
wealthy, what might have happened had they been poor? Would those in
position have reviewed the case? Would the truth have ever come to
light? Or, would the system have merely railroaded them one and all?
What is happening in
the Stocklaufer - Baby Max case? How in the world did this baby get
taken away from the Stocklaufer's in the first place? Are we seeing
still another case of the system over-stepping its powers and using
taxpayers' resources to carry out its own crusade of justice
according to personal bias?
Here is my
question...
If the mother wants
the Stocklaufer's to raise her child, that is within her right to
turn guardianship over to them, right? So, even if the court denies
"adoption" itself, how did that empower them to take the child out
of the Stocklaufer's home, against the mother's wishes, without true
cause?
Gary Stocklaufer
might develop various conditions because he is over-weight? Does
that mean that all children born to, or being raised by, over-weight
parents (or parent) are subject to being pulled from their homes as
a result? If not, why was Baby Max?
Technically,
babysitting is a form of guardianship at work. Does this mean that
if parents entrust their children to a fat babysitter that the State
of Missouri, by it's agencies, representatives and courts, can come
in and take the children out of the home and put them into the
system? Isn't that what has happened in the Stocklaufer case? Wasn't
Baby Max entrusted to the Stocklaufer's care? By what authority did
the State over-ride the mother's authority, rights and wishes and
remove Baby Max from the home chosen by her?
Some may think this
issue has nothing to do with them. They are not over-weight and
therefore they will not have to worry about the State coming in and
taking their children. These "some" need to sit down and consider
all the facts again. These "some" need to take the phrase
"over-weight" out and replace it with all the other possibilities.
After all, weight didn't use to be an issue either. It is now,
because someone made it one. There are always someones out there
that want the world to be picture perfect within their opinion of
what picture perfect is. So what will be the next "excuse" to pull
children from loving homes, because of the bias of someone in power?
Is the Stocklaufer -
Baby Max case one we want set as an example the courts and social
workers follow? If the answer is "yes", it's time to bring the
history books back for review and check out the maps to make sure we
are still in the United States of America!
While the books and
maps are being dusted off, we should again ask by what authority the
court over-rode the guardianship authority and intent of the mother,
and will the state be doing a sweep? Will it (the state people) now
be going out and removing all children from over-weight parents and
babysitters? If not, why not? Either it is in the best interest to
remove "all" children from all the obese caregivers or it isn't in
the best interest to remove "any" for that reason. Both ways should
not be an option, especially when that option is at the discretion
of someone's bias!
Why is the guardian
ad litem in the Stocklaufer - Baby Max case so intent on blocking
adoptive efforts?
Why is the judge not
allowing a rehearing?
What's up?
Carrie Hutchens
is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is
active in fighting against the death culture movement and the
injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
