# News & Current Events > Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies >  I lost custody of my son for refusing to vaccinate

## Lesa Dawn

I recently lost custody of my nine year old son due to my refusal to vaccinate. I was accused of medical neglect even though he did NOT suffer adversly for my refusal to vaccinate. A Guardian was appointed and told me that failure to vaccinate is medical neglect.  She also said that the religious exemption does not apply to me as I am neither RLDS nor Amish.

My son, who I now rarely get to see, is now living with his father.  He is emotionally traumatized and begging to come home.  He is not being bathed nor is he brushing his teeth regularly.  He is wetting the bed and frequently missing school.  His grades have dropped from straight As and he is often tardy and in trouble in school.  He has had four days of In School Suspension.  He says his dad calls him stupid and a$$hole.  I could go into greater detail about how my son is now abused and neglected, but I won't.

I was interviewed on the radio show Lives In The Balance hosted by Jason Littlejohn :
http://www.mediafire.com/?yzmmy4l14d1

Also, the Supreme court has weighed in on this one, so how can a lower court take away my child from me for something the Supreme Court has ruled is my Constitutional right.

Quote: 
Applicable law has been interpreted to mean that a religious belief is subject to protection even though no religious group espouses such beliefs or the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to belong may not advocate or require such belief. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended Nov. 1, 1980; Part 1605.1-Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion. 

Our legal rights are guaranteed by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Recent court decisions have upheld the rights of individuals seeking exemptions from immunizations based upon personal and religious reasons. On the U.S. Supreme Court level in Frazee V. Illinois Dept. of Security, 489 U.S. 829, it was found that a state may not deny an exemption simply because a person is not a member of a formal religious organization. 

I am new to this forum, but have been an avid Ron Paul supporter and campaign contributer since 2007.

----------


## Lesa Dawn



----------


## GunnyFreedom

That's beyond horrible, the only real solution I see is to pursue remedy in Federal Court, where as you say such a determination has already been made and is merely a matter of precedent.  Hopefully you can pick up an activist lawyer who will take the case pro-bono.

----------


## anaconda

This is crazy. I am speechless. Maybe Alex Jones would like to hear your story. Why not email your story to him. Couldn't hurt. Definitely talk to a some attorneys.

----------


## TC95

Nice free country we live in, huh?  I pray you'll get him back.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> That's beyond horrible, the only real solution I see is to pursue remedy in Federal Court, where as you say such a determination has already been made and is merely a matter of precedent.  Hopefully you can pick up an activist lawyer who will take the case pro-bono.


Thank you GunnyFreedom.  I have been looking but have yet been able to find a pro bono attorney.  I contacted Faith and Freedom this weekend so hopefully I will hear from them Monday.  I previously contacted an anti vaccine law firm that deals strictly with immunization cases, but they want $15,000.  Local attorneys have been quoting $15k to $20k with the option of costing more as they are hourly plus expenses.

----------


## jclay2

Get a lawyer now. This is absolutely horrible and I hope you can get him back.

----------


## constituent

Just thinking practically about this, I understand that you're upset.  However, making your case about how bad your son has it in your husband's care because the authorities took him from your custody is really little more than a good way to get your son handed over to the care of some state home where he is quite likely to be waaaaaay worse off than he is atm.  

Try to collect yourself, your thoughts, emotions, etc. and work with a lawyer.  If you're looking for an outcry of public support, ronpaulforums late on a sunday probably isn't ideal.

It's a benefit/risk thing, ya know? 

Good luck to you.

----------


## slothman

Even if you can't get him back can you get him away from his father?
:shrug: or however that smiley works.
Maybe wuth the info you have the court might agree.

----------


## BuddyRey

The Institute for Justice at www.ij.org _may_ be able to help, even though they normally deal with property rights cases and prohibitive licensing strictures.  They do undertake some pro bono stuff from time to time however, and I'm sure if you consulted them they might be able to recommend a similarly concerned law firm that would love to take the state to the woodshed over a case like this.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> This is crazy. I am speechless. Maybe Alex Jones would like to hear your story. Why not email your story to him. Couldn't hurt. Definitely talk to a some attorneys.


Hello Anaconda and thanks for the advice.  I emailed AJ several days ago and have not heard back yet.  When I click on the tracking number, it still says pending.

Yes, I have been interviewing attorneys the last few weeks.  The good ones want $15,000 to $20,000.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> Nice free country we live in, huh?  I pray you'll get him back.


Hello TC95 and thank you.  Prayers are needed and very appreciated.  Please pray for protection for my son and wisdom for me.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> Get a lawyer now. This is absolutely horrible and I hope you can get him back.


Hello, jclay and thank you.  I have been looking for an attorney that is competent to handle my case that I can afford.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> Just thinking practically about this, I understand that you're upset.  However, making your case about how bad your son has it in your husband's care because the authorities took him from your custody is really little more than a good way to get your son handed over to the care of some state home where he is quite likely to be waaaaaay worse off than he is atm.  
> 
> Try to collect yourself, your thoughts, emotions, etc. and work with a lawyer.  If you're looking for an outcry of public support, ronpaulforums late on a sunday probably isn't ideal.
> 
> It's a benefit/risk thing, ya know? 
> 
> Good luck to you.


Hello constituent and thanks for the advice and well wishes.  I have thought long and hard and if I had to choose between his father's house or foster care, I would chose foster care.  It IS that bad.

I am working on finding affordable counsel.  My timing for this post may not be ideal.  How else am I to spend my sleepless nights?

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> Even if you can't get him back can you get him away from his father?
> :shrug: or however that smiley works.
> Maybe wuth the info you have the court might agree.


Hello slothman and thanks for the sympathy.  I need all of the support I can get.

I have been documenting and have supporting evidence to show how my son's life is traumatic since he has been ripped away from me.  He was immediately vaccinated so hopefully they will let me have him back.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> The Institute for Justice at www.ij.org _may_ be able to help, even though they normally deal with property rights cases and prohibitive licensing strictures.  They do undertake some pro bono stuff from time to time however, and I'm sure if you consulted them they might be able to recommend a similarly concerned law firm that would love to take the state to the woodshed over a case like this.


Thank you BuddyRey.  I will contact them.  I have been doing a lot of research and found that Supreme Court ruling.  I also found a case where the same Commissioner took another nine year old boy away from his mother because she dared to homeschool him.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I recently lost custody of my nine year old son due to my refusal to vaccinate. I was accused of medical neglect even though he did NOT suffer adversly for my refusal to vaccinate. A Guardian was appointed and told me that failure to vaccinate is medical neglect.  She also said that the religious exemption does not apply to me as I am neither RLDS nor Amish.


Observation:

You voluntarily subjected your child and family to the jurisdiction of the state and now that things are not going your way you seem to be upset over how the state is regulating and intervening for what you voluntarily gave them permission to do.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> Observation:
> 
> You voluntarily subjected your child and family to the jurisdiction of the state and now that things are not going your way you seem to be upset over how the state is regulating and intervening for what you voluntarily gave them permission to do.


How did I voluntarily subject my child and my family to the jurisdiction of the state?

----------


## JoshLowry

> How did I voluntarily subject my child and my family to the jurisdiction of the state?


We have many open voluntaryists on this site that chime in on threads.

I wouldn't look to RPF for legal advice.

Maybe someone could point you in the right direction, but I doubt you'll find any end solutions here.

Hopefully, after proving that you were wronged, you will get custody of your child back.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> How did I voluntarily subject my child and my family to the jurisdiction of the state?


Great question.

YouTube - Matrix - The pill

Red pill or Blue pill?

----------


## BuddyRey

> Observation:
> 
> You voluntarily subjected your child and family to the jurisdiction of the state and now that things are not going your way you seem to be upset over how the state is regulating and intervening for what you voluntarily gave them permission to do.


Dude...the state just took this woman's child away from her and you're blaming _her_ for it?  That's royally f'ed up!

----------


## Danke

> Dude...the state just took this woman's child away from her and you're blaming _her_ for it?  That's royally f'ed up!


Pointing out how someone got into their situation doesn't mean he is assigning blame.  I see it as a way to help one out in their predicament.  You need to understand the cause before you can see the remedy.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Dude...the state just took this woman's child away from her and you're blaming _her_ for it?  That's royally f'ed up!


If the people pay the taxes of a tyrant who is at fault?  The people or tyrant?

Do you mistake me for a politician who compromises to the whim of public opinion?

If by chance the OP obtained custody of the child tomorrow due to a magic legal bullet that may or may not exist would the OP have learned how to fish?

----------


## Rael

> If the people pay the taxes of a tyrant who is at fault?  The people or tyrant?


Oh for God's sake. 

You act like the decision to pay taxes is the same as deciding what to have for lunch. You can avoid taxes but only up to a point. I don't believe for a second that you pay no taxes whatsoever.

Leave this woman alone.

----------


## low preference guy

> Oh for God's sake. 
> 
> You act like the decision to pay taxes is the same as deciding what to have for lunch. You can avoid taxes but only up to a point. I don't believe for a second that you pay no taxes whatsoever.
> 
> Leave this woman alone.


I bet Live_Free_Or_Die bought goods in a state with a sales tax, therefore paid taxes. Bottom line, he is an idiot.

----------


## Mach

Lesa Dawn, I don't know what State you're from but look up some "Pro Bono (your State here)" and give them a call.

Here is a start.

http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/...lhelp/home.cfm

----------


## dannno

Maybe the ACLU?

----------


## angelatc

> How did I voluntarily subject my child and my family to the jurisdiction of the state?


Put him on ignore. You don't need that anarchist bull$#@! right now.  My heart goes out to you.

----------


## angelatc

> Do you mistake me for a politician who compromises to the whim of public opinion?
> 
> ?


No, there's not much mistaking what you are.

If you want to spar, pick on me, not some poor woman who just lost a kid (who is probably closer to your age than she is.)

----------


## RCA

I'm sorry to hear of this. You may find help with one of these sites:

Law & The Constitution

abanet.org
abouthumanrights.co.uk
aclj.org
aclu.org
alipac.us
alliancedefensefund.org
billofrights.org
billofrightsinstitute.org
bordc.org
brokenlives.info
castlecoalition.org
ccrjustice.org
cldc.org
cnss.org
committeesofsafety.org
constitution.org
constitutionfacts.com
constitutionpreservation.org
copwatch.com
declaration.net
expertlaw.com
fed-soc.org
fija.org
findlaw.com
firstamendmentcenter.org
flexyourrights.org
ij.org
judgepedia.org
judicialwatch.org
learntheconstitution.com
lectlaw.com
legal-aid.org
liberty1.org
livefreenow.org
minutemanproject.com
minutemanproject.com
mountainstateslegal.com
nccs.net
nla.org
nrtw.org
penusa.org
policeabuse.com
proprights.com
randybarnett.com
ratemycop.com
rcfp.org
rightsworkinggroup.org
ruleoflawradio.com
rutherford.org
secession.net
sheriffmack.com
sickoflawsuits.org
sunlightfoundation.com
tassc.org
theacru.org
thomas.loc.gov
teamlaw.net
tenthamendmentcenter.com
usa1911.com
usconstitution.net
uslaw.com

----------


## Acala

Try the county public defender's office.  

See if a local law school has a pro bono service - they sometimes have students undertake pro bono projects.

Try nearby large law firms - they nearly always handle some pro bono matters to help them sleep at night.

See if there is a women's law center nearby.


And in the meantime, find something to do to bring yourself back into balance - meditation, yoga, something.  You will make better decisions and make a better impression on judges etc. if you are calm and centered.  I know it's hard.  But it is in your son's interest that YOU are healthy, strong and calm.

And be prepared to compromise.  The judicial machinery of the state is very bad at vindicating rights.  Everyone will be better off if you can resolve the matter without the court.

----------


## NiceGoing

I would try the Legal Aid Society.

Hope things work out for you.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

I am not going to fully get in to service of process, jurisdiction, or rebutting a presumption but I will make a point citing an excerpt of state statues from one state:




> 61.507  Effect of child custody determination.--A child custody determination made by a court of this state which had jurisdiction under this part binds all persons *who have been served in accordance with the laws of this state* or notified in accordance with s. 61.509 (Notice to persons outside the state.) *or who have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court*, and who have been given an opportunity to be heard. As to those persons, the determination is conclusive as to all decided issues of law and fact except to the extent the determination is modified.


Ruling excerpts:



> The trial court erred in finding that John Doe failed to successfully rebut a presumption of valid service





> Service of process is required to notify any interested parties of the pendency of an action and afford them an opportunity to respond.





> It is the plaintiff's duty to accomplish proper service on a defendant.





> Although a defendant's sworn denial of receipt of service generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by a process server's affidavit and necessitates an evidentiary hearing, no hearing is required where the defendant fails to swear to specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server's affidavits


Let's get into the facts of receiving.  If you receive there are two options 1) accept 2) rebut.

I accept this service of process conditioned on _________?  What?

I am the idiot.... 

You all go ahead and help the OP with your sympathy.  I will find another thread.

----------


## Acala

> I am not going to fully get in to service of process, jurisdiction, or rebutting a presumption but I will make a point citing an excerpt of state statues from one state:
> 
> 
> 
> Ruling excerpts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can be served process without your acceptance.  They will throw it at you and say "served" and as far as the court is concerned, you are served.  Did you REALLY think you could avoid the jurisdiction of the court just by saying "I do not accept it"?  You can't.  Furthermore, the court or even an administrative agency can seize an asset - or a child - without serving you at all and the burden is on you to go to court and recover your property or child.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> You can be served process without your acceptance.  They will throw it at you and say "served" and as far as the court is concerned, you are served.  Did you REALLY think you could avoid the jurisdiction of the court just by saying "I do not accept it"?  You can't.  Furthermore, the court or even an administrative agency can seize an asset - or a child - without serving you at all and the burden is on you to go to court and recover your property or child.


If everything you receive is valid provide me your address in a private message.  I have a bill I would like to send you.

----------


## romacox

I am not positive this can help, but it is worth contacting the Homeschool Legal Defense Association to find out.  They help homeschool parents who are needing legal advise.  Many homeschool parents choose not to vaccinate, and I think this association would have some information on the matter you are speaking of.

If this organization can't help, try blogging on some homeschool and natural health sites.  I am sure there are parents who have already fought the courts on this issue, who could direct you.

----------


## Acala

> If everything you receive is valid provide me your address in a private message.  I have a bill I would like to send you.


I said nothing about validity.  I said you can be served with court process without your consent.  Happens all the time.  All you have to do is be physically present and you can be served.  Of course you can TRY to evade process by hiding.  But your point - that some kind of willing acceptance is required for effective service of process - is false.  And once you are served, regardless of whether you accepted it or not, you ARE within the court's jurisdiction and it WILL send the sheriff to enforce its orders.  And you will not have to accept the sheriff's advances either.  He'll bust a cap in your ass.  That is where the force inherent in everything the state does comes unsheathed.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I said nothing about validity.  I said you can be served with court process without your consent.  Happens all the time.  All you have to do is be physically present and you can be served.  Of course you can TRY to evade process by hiding.  But your point - that some kind of willing acceptance is required for effective service of process - is false.  And once you are served, regardless of whether you accepted it or not, you ARE within the court's jurisdiction and it WILL send the sheriff to enforce its orders.  And you will not have to accept the sheriff's advances either.  He'll bust a cap in your ass.  That is where the force inherent in everything the state does comes unsheathed.


You argue a contradiction.  If you admit service of process can be invalid then valid service of process must depend on something other than physical presence. 

Regarding your suggestion of force are you asserting there is no remedy regarding the Detroit Police killing a 7 year old story?  I would never assert people are not free to do whatever they want to do because it is self evident they are.  If a person is free to shoot someone it makes no difference whether they are an officer or not.  We are not talking about the fact people are free to do whatever they want.

The validity regarding service of process strikes at the heart of the matter.  The fact is if you do not rebut the presumption implied (what is the presumption implied?) and have been physically served....  it is valid.

----------


## TC95

> I am not positive this can help, but it is worth contacting the Homeschool Legal Defense Association to find out.  They help homeschool parents who are needing legal advise.  Many homeschool parents choose not to vaccinate, and I think this association would have some information on the matter you are speaking of.
> 
> If this organization can't help, try blogging on some homeschool and natural health sites.  I am sure there are parents who have already fought the courts on this issue, who could direct you.


HSLDA will not help her because she was not homeschooling.

Edited to add:

Oh, I get it now. I misunderstood what you were trying to say.  I thought you were under the assumption that she was homeschooling so you thought HSLDA might represent her in court, but now I think you were just saying to call up and get some info on how she can fight this without them actually representing her.  They might do that.

----------


## TC95

The state has clearly violated the law here in taking away this child.  The statute says,

h ttp://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c100-199/1670000181.htm




> 2. It is unlawful for any student to attend school unless he has been immunized as required under the rules and regulations of the department of health and senior services, and can provide satisfactory evidence of such immunization; except that if he produces satisfactory evidence of having begun the process of immunization, he may continue to attend school as long as the immunization process is being accomplished in the prescribed manner. It is unlawful for any parent or guardian to refuse or neglect to have his child immunized as required by this section, unless the child is properly exempted.


AND




> 3. This section shall not apply to any child if one parent or guardian objects in writing to his school administrator against the immunization of the child, because of religious beliefs or medical contraindications. In cases where any such objection is for reasons of medical contraindications, a statement from a duly licensed physician must also be provided to the school administrator.


The OP met the requirements of the law.  Nowhere in the statute does it say that you must belong to a certain religious denomination in order to claim the religious exemption.  Therefore, it can be your own personal religious belief.

----------


## BuddyRey

> If the people pay the taxes of a tyrant who is at fault?  The people or tyrant?
> 
> Do you mistake me for a politician who compromises to the whim of public opinion?
> 
> If by chance the OP obtained custody of the child tomorrow due to a magic legal bullet that may or may not exist would the OP have learned how to fish?


You remind me of somebody who justifies a sexual assault by drawing attention to what the victim was wearing beforehand.  I don't care _how_ much somebody unwittingly brings the scrutiny and/or involvement of the state into their own lives; inasmuch as people are forced by threat of violence to pay taxes, they do so out of an understandable impulse toward self-preservation and defense.  

To blame somebody whose half-hearted dealings with the state are _not_ purely of his or her own accord for the violent nature of that institution is callous and extremely misguided, IMO.

P.S. Whatever this virulent strain of Social Darwinism is, it is _not_ an intrinsic component of Voluntaryism or Market Anarchism, so I hope certain people will avoid painting us all with this same broad brush.

----------


## osan

> I recently lost custody of my nine year old son due to my refusal to vaccinate.


HAs he been vaccinated?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> You remind me of somebody who justifies a sexual assault by drawing attention to what the victim was wearing beforehand.  I don't care _how_ much somebody unwittingly brings the scrutiny and/or involvement of the state into their own lives; inasmuch as people are forced by threat of violence to pay taxes, they do so out of an understandable impulse toward self-preservation and defense.  
> 
> To blame somebody whose half-hearted dealings with the state are _not_ purely of his or her own accord for the violent nature of that institution is callous and extremely misguided, IMO.
> 
> P.S. Whatever this virulent strain of Social Darwinism is, it is _not_ an intrinsic component of Voluntaryism or Market Anarchism, so I hope certain people will avoid painting us all with this same broad brush.


I'm sorry.  Did I miss the OP mention a contract stipulating the terms of custody that was negotiated before or during pregnancy or did the OP voluntarily choose to leave the matter of regulation and intervention up to the state?

----------


## low preference guy

Live_Free_Or_Die, have you ever lost a son/daughter?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Live_Free_Or_Die, have you ever lost a son/daughter?


You are implying I am not sympathetic.  I am sympathetic.  Not that my opinion is worth much but I would be happy to try to uncover a potential magic legal bullet with the OP upon a review of facts.  There are attorneys floating around who can take up the matter with the OP in private discussion.

I am not going feel bad illuminating the roots of American ignorance just because the circumstances might be tragic.

----------


## low preference guy

The OP asked a question and had some great answers. You're trolling the thread like an attention whore, hijacking the discussion and interfering with the OP getting the answers she is looking for. Also, your condemnation doesn't make sense. Have you never bought anything in a state that has a sales tax? I hope you didn't, otherwise you're a statist piece of $#@!. Please answer that question in your mind, not in this thread. Start a new one if you like, but please don't hijack this one.

----------


## mrsat_98

> The state has clearly violated the law here in taking away this child.  The statute says,
> 
> h ttp://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c100-199/1670000181.htm
> 
> 
> 
> AND
> 
> 
> ...



YouTube - English Gematria: Vaccinations Exposed

this is a video on english gematria. watch the video then do a few searches on google or what not for english  gematria 666 ssnumber computer and have a look at the way things add up. David Steven v Stephen Burger 428 F. Supp 896 is a case that mention english gematria specifically and children where allowed food stamps without ssnumber .

Notify them in writing that you believe the vaccination is just part of the mark of the beast. Style your religious objection as a "nunc pro tunc" notice. 

Something to the effect of nunc pro tunc notice of religious objection to vacination, ssnumber.... etc.  in closing advise them that any holding your child against your will will be construed as a violation of 18 usc 241,242, 245 UNDER 18 USC 241  or 2 the actions that they are taking subject them to the penalty of death ( kidnapping) then start dropping Affidavits of Information in the federal court under 18 usc 4. yOU CAN SEARCH GOOGLE for "affidavit of information" Complaint 18 USC 242, 241, 245 etc. 

Nunc pro tunc means now for then. It is in effect a rule that allows you to break the rules or you or notifying them NOW for THEN. You can only use nunc pro tunc if there has been fraud ( they lied concerning the religious objection) or mistake  (you where unaware of the requirement to notify them in writing)


The video should give you a start to understanding part of the religious objection.

Good Luck and don't shoot them over it as it is much more fun to watch them squirm over the idea that you are going to personally drag them in to the federal court and have them put to death for kidnapping your child. As soon as they see the constitutional violation the end result is kidnapping and it carries the death penalty.

You might be able to get a lawyer to fix your letter but you wiull have to get your religious objection down pat because he can't dream it up for you.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Two women came before King Solomon.

One woman said, "My lord, this woman and I dwell in the same house and I gave birth to a child while she was in the house. On the third day after I gave birth she also gave birth This woman's child died during the night because she lay on him. She arose during the night and took my son from my side while I slept, laid him on her bosom and laid her dead child on my bosom. When I rose in the morning to nurse my son, behold, he was dead! But when I observed him in the morning, I realized that he was not my son to whom I had given birth."

The other woman replied, "It is not so! My son is the live one and your son is the dead one."

King Solomon briefly reiterated their arguments and ordered, "Bring me a sword." The King then said, "Cut the living child in two, and give half to one and half to the other."

The woman who claimed that her son was stolen from her said, "Please, my lord, give her the living child and do not kill it."

But the other woman said, "Neither mine nor yours shall he be. Cut!"

The king spoke up and said, "Give the first woman the living child and do not kill it; for she is his mother."

----------


## Mini-Me

> You remind me of somebody who justifies a sexual assault by drawing attention to what the victim was wearing beforehand.  I don't care _how_ much somebody unwittingly brings the scrutiny and/or involvement of the state into their own lives; inasmuch as people are forced by threat of violence to pay taxes, they do so out of an understandable impulse toward self-preservation and defense.  
> 
> To blame somebody whose half-hearted dealings with the state are _not_ purely of his or her own accord for the violent nature of that institution is callous and extremely misguided, IMO.
> 
> P.S. Whatever this virulent strain of Social Darwinism is, it is _not_ an intrinsic component of Voluntaryism or Market Anarchism, so I hope certain people will avoid painting us all with this same broad brush.


F'real.  Voluntaryism has deeper roots in compassion than smug finger-wagging.  Besides, even WITH a prenup clearly specifying custody, I find it hard to believe that a busybody court couldn't find a way to impose their agenda anyway, if they were hellbent on imposing their agenda.  After all, CPS comes around and kidnaps people's children every day for oftentimes frivolous reasons, and that's entirely unrelated to the issue of divorce.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> 


It has been pointed out I picked the wrong thread:



Can you all ever forgive me?

----------


## M House

Um I'm 26 and my parents are subjecting me to court guardianship, bull$#@!. Yeah super cool they are divorced too and one wants it, the other has it blah blah. "Adults" need to grow up and realize this kinda stuff is beyond gay. The guardianship will go to whichever parent can work the court system better. It's pathetic. It may be yer kid, but you don't own them. So it's beyond yer fault for having a kid with someone you can't get along with. Since you didn't get the vaccine what are you now seen as incompetent? If you really are seen as such, you're gonna have a huge problem getting him back. Anyway, I'm not entirely unsympathetic cuz the ex seems like a douchebag. Atleast, you seem to have presented yourself well. I do hope you get your kid back. But this who's a better caretaker is $#@!ing ridiculous. Depending on how awful you, um parents/adults, wanna make this you will waste ALOT of money and time. That will not go to benefiting your child, remotely. Also say you get the guardian$#@!, custio$#@!, legal monstrosity, whatever back sorta in your hands, the court does not settle issues you can't begin to resolve between you. It also as you will discover works only on it's own time and convenience. Jeez I don't even know how long I've been under "temporary" guardianship.

Actually, I just noticed you said a guardian was appointed and she told you this is medical neglect. Who is this woman. Someone you know or someone just appointed. Is she still the guardian? Amusingly, I've had 4 guardian ad litems so far. Let me tell you they are $#@!ing worthless. I can't even meet with them cuz they are sooo busy.

----------


## Ricky201

> If the people pay the taxes of a tyrant who is at fault?  The people or tyrant?
> 
> Do you mistake me for a politician who compromises to the whim of public opinion?
> 
> If by chance the OP obtained custody of the child tomorrow due to a magic legal bullet that may or may not exist would the OP have learned how to fish?


...Holy $#@! dude.  So how many people are winning over with your "logic" and your charming personality?  Oh wait, why would you care?!  You just care about being right all the time!  Get over yourself, your not influencing anybody by the way you act.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> Oh for God's sake. 
> 
> You act like the decision to pay taxes is the same as deciding what to have for lunch. You can avoid taxes but only up to a point. I don't believe for a second that you pay no taxes whatsoever.
> 
> Leave this woman alone.


Thanks, Rael.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> I bet Live_Free_Or_Die bought goods in a state with a sales tax, therefore paid taxes. Bottom line, he is an idiot.


Thanks, low preference guy.  The only thing I have done to put myself in this situation is stand up for my Christian beliefs and Constitutional rights.  Isn't that what the freedom movement is all about?

----------


## JoshLowry

> Thanks, low preference guy.  The only thing I have done to put myself in this situation is stand up for my Christian beliefs and Constitutional rights.  Isn't that what the freedom movement is all about?


Not sure if you want to look for a debate...

I'd start looking into the sources that people have provided for you.

Best of luck.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> Lesa Dawn, I don't know what State you're from but look up some "Pro Bono (your State here)" and give them a call.
> 
> Here is a start.
> 
> http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/...lhelp/home.cfm


Thanks, Mach!  I clicked on the link and several areas in my state say that child custody is one of their areas of service.  However, for my particular county, it does not state child custody.  I wrote down the phone number and will call them tomorrow.  Thanks again!

----------


## Danke

What is sad is many posting in this ("Liberty Forest") thread cannot comprehend what Live_Free_Or_Die is giving them.  And this poor woman may not get the remedy she desires because of it.

But go ahead and hire an attorney, that has worked out well for so many people, well maybe 50% of them minus fees (the other half, of course, lose).


Legal definition: Attorn,  1. To agree to be the tenant of a new landlord.   2. To transfer (money, good, etc.) to another.

Good luck with that, wards of the court!

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> Dude...the state just took this woman's child away from her and you're blaming _her_ for it?  That's royally f'ed up!


Thanks, BuddyRey.  I agree.  Seems there are a lot of antagonists on this forum.  Not at all what I expected from supposed fellow patriots.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> Maybe the ACLU?


Hello, dannno and welcome to my thread.  Regarding the ACLU, do they support Christian rights?

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> Put him on ignore. You don't need that anarchist bull$#@! right now.  My heart goes out to you.


Thank you angelatc.  How do I put the hecklers on ignore so I can concentrate on the fellow patriots that are trying to help and posting some great links of possible legal assistance?

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> I'm sorry to hear of this. You may find help with one of these sites:
> 
> Law & The Constitution
> 
> abanet.org
> abouthumanrights.co.uk
> aclj.org
> aclu.org
> alipac.us
> ...


Thank, RCA.  That will keep me busy for a while!

----------


## TCE

> Hello, dannno and welcome to my thread.  Regarding the ACLU, do they support Christian rights?


The ACLU, unfortunately, has not been too friendly to religions from what I've seen. It is worth checking out, since you are not debating the tenants of Christianity, but rather, a state law you feel the government has violated itself, which they would be likely to help you with. Best to throw a ton of spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks in this case, and the ACLU is certainly worth contacting.

To ignore someone. Go to "User CP" in the upper left hand corner of the forums. On the left tabs, you'll see "Edit Ignore List" then insert the member name you want to ignore.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> Try the county public defender's office.  
> 
> See if a local law school has a pro bono service - they sometimes have students undertake pro bono projects.
> 
> Try nearby large law firms - they nearly always handle some pro bono matters to help them sleep at night.
> 
> See if there is a women's law center nearby.
> 
> 
> ...


Hello Acala and thanks for all of the very good advice.  

It is hard for me not to obsess on this.  It is the first thought when I wake up in the morning and the last before I fall asleep at night.  My baby is gone and it is hard to concentrate on anything else.  I do find solace in my Bible which is always by my side.

Compromise how?  As for my Christian beliefs, I am not willing to compromise regardless of what the reprecussions may be.

I wish it were possible to keep the courts out of it.  But it is not.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> I would try the Legal Aid Society.
> 
> Hope things work out for you.


Hello NiceGoing and thanks for the advice and well wishes.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> I am not positive this can help, but it is worth contacting the Homeschool Legal Defense Association to find out.  They help homeschool parents who are needing legal advise.  Many homeschool parents choose not to vaccinate, and I think this association would have some information on the matter you are speaking of.
> 
> If this organization can't help, try blogging on some homeschool and natural health sites.  I am sure there are parents who have already fought the courts on this issue, who could direct you.


Hello, romacox and thanks for the advice.  I visited and posted my story on several antivaccine websites.  On another forum I was given a link for an antivaccine law firm.  I contacted them and they want $15,000 to represent me.

It would be great if I could find something similar to the Homeschool Legal Defense Association that deals with vaccines.  Does anyone know of anything like that?

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> HSLDA will not help her because she was not homeschooling.
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> Oh, I get it now. I misunderstood what you were trying to say.  I thought you were under the assumption that she was homeschooling so you thought HSLDA might represent her in court, but now I think you were just saying to call up and get some info on how she can fight this without them actually representing her.  They might do that.


Actually I did homeschool my son for a semester. I re-enrolled him in public school under duress, but I refused to vaccinate regardless.  My son was immediately tested upon re-entering public school.  According to guidelines reading level for his grade was between 500-600.  He scored a 757 which is highly advanced.

The court admitted that he was not behind academically (which is an understatement as he was advanced), but still admonished me for failing to file with the state.  When I told the Commissioner (she wasn't even a judge) that Missouri law does not dictate state oversight for second graders, she disagreed.  I AM RIGHT.  Missouri law states that you _may_ file a notice of homeschooling with the state, but that it is strictly _voluntary_.

How very scary that we have courts run by Commissioners that do not know the laws of the state.  And that these same Commissioners have the power to take away your child.

I have been interviewing local attorneys and have learned that this Commissioner has a history of these actions.  One even said, "Let me guess, you had Commissioner So and So"

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> The state has clearly violated the law here in taking away this child.  The statute says,
> 
> h ttp://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c100-199/1670000181.htm
> 
> 
> 
> AND
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks TC95 and welcome to this thread.  As stated in my OP, the Supreme Court further stated that the religious exemption was valid regardless of one's church affiliation.  

However, unfortunately for my son and me, we had both a Guardian and a Commissioner that do not know the law, but think they do.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> HAs he been vaccinated?


Yes, they immediately vaccinate him.

----------


## low preference guy

> Thank you angelatc.  How do I put the hecklers on ignore so I can concentrate on the fellow patriots that are trying to help and posting some great links of possible legal assistance?


Click on his/her name
View Public Profile
User Lists
Add to Ignore List

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> F'real.  Voluntaryism has deeper roots in compassion than smug finger-wagging.  Besides, even WITH a prenup clearly specifying custody, I find it hard to believe that a busybody court couldn't find a way to impose their agenda anyway, if they were hellbent on imposing their agenda.  After all, CPS comes around and kidnaps people's children every day for oftentimes frivolous reasons, and that's entirely unrelated to the issue of divorce.


Hello Mini-Me and welcome to the thread.  

I am familiar with the argument that a marriage license gives the government authority over the children.  However, the dad and I were never married.  My son was nine years old and had always lived with me.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> The ACLU, unfortunately, has not been too friendly to religions from what I've seen. It is worth checking out, since you are not debating the tenants of Christianity, but rather, a state law you feel the government has violated itself, which they would be likely to help you with. Best to throw a ton of spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks in this case, and the ACLU is certainly worth contacting.
> 
> To ignore someone. Go to "User CP" in the upper left hand corner of the forums. On the left tabs, you'll see "Edit Ignore List" then insert the member name you want to ignore.


Hello, TCE.  You are correct, what this boils down to is a lower court violating both a Supreme Court ruling and State law.

It is worth a try, I will contact them and see what they say.  Thanks for the instructions on how to ignore those trying to distract rather than help.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I find it hard to believe that a busybody court couldn't find a way to impose their agenda anyway, if they were hellbent on imposing their agenda.


This one is for you Mini-Me because you consider arguments of reason and do not always rush to emotional conclusion.

I wanted to address your specific comment about busybody courts because it has historical context:

*Forum Selection Clause*

The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Company, 407 U.S. 1 (1972) was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court considered when a U.S. court should uphold the validity of a contractual forum selection clause.

The parties had entered into an agreement for a drilling rig to be towed from Louisiana to Italy, which included a clause stating that disputes would be settled by a court in England. When a storm forced the towing party to make land in Tampa, Florida, the other party sued there. After the lower courts refused to uphold the forum selection clause, the Supreme Court held that it was enforceable unless the party seeking to avoid it could meet the high burden of showing it to be unreasonable or unjust.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that United States federal courts will enforce forum selection clauses so long as the clause is not unreasonably burdensome to the party seeking to escape it.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Blackmun, held the Shutes to their deal. The Court noted that Florida is not a random jurisdiction - Carnival is headquartered there and does much business there, and Washington does not necessarily make sense in the context of an accident off the coast of Mexico on a ship that left from California. The hardship on the plaintiffs mattered little, as they had signed the contract, and no one forced them to go on a cruise. On the other hand, it made sense for the cruise industry, which carries passengers from all over, to have a single forum for lawsuits. The cruise line will thereby avoid defending itself in many different courts, which will save money, which will translate to cheaper tickets.

*Choice of Law Clause*
A choice of law clause or proper law clause is a term of a contract in which the parties specify that any dispute arising under the contract shall be determined in accordance with the law of a particular jurisdiction

I am not going to bother citing anything for the choice of law clause.  The ignorant people in this thread can look up their own $#@!.

----------


## Elwar

This is quite horrible. I was born and raised in Michigan where I was not required to be vaccinated. It wasn't until I had to go to Iraq for work with the military that I was finally vaccinated after several weeks of trying to find a way out of it.

It sucks that they vaccinated him. That's a form of child abuse in and of itself if you and he were against it.

What state do you live in? Each state has its own statutes on what basis you can refuse vaccinations. Some allow you to based purely on a philosophical disagreement with vaccinations.

I would sue the hell out of the state and ask for damages and then take your money and run to New Hampshire.

----------


## jmdrake

> I recently lost custody of my nine year old son due to my refusal to vaccinate. I was accused of medical neglect even though he did NOT suffer adversly for my refusal to vaccinate. A Guardian was appointed and told me that failure to vaccinate is medical neglect.  She also said that the religious exemption does not apply to me as I am neither RLDS nor Amish.
> 
> My son, who I now rarely get to see, is now living with his father.  He is emotionally traumatized and begging to come home.  He is not being bathed nor is he brushing his teeth regularly.  He is wetting the bed and frequently missing school.  His grades have dropped from straight As and he is often tardy and in trouble in school.  He has had four days of In School Suspension.  He says his dad calls him stupid and a$$hole.  I could go into greater detail about how my son is now abused and neglected, but I won't.
> 
> I was interviewed on the radio show Lives In The Balance hosted by Jason Littlejohn :
> http://www.mediafire.com/?yzmmy4l14d1
> 
> Also, the Supreme court has weighed in on this one, so how can a lower court take away my child from me for something the Supreme Court has ruled is my Constitutional right.
> 
> ...


What state are you in?  Family law is different in all 50.  It's a little fuzzy from the facts, but I take it that you were initially awarded custody post a divorce?  Did the dad sue to get the custody changed or did the state take it 100% on itself to do this?  It makes a big difference.  State can "factor" in all sorts of crap under a "best interest of the child" standard when awarding custody to one parent or another that wouldn't pass muster a "unfit parent" standard used to take a child and put him in foster care.

I'm not up on the particulars of vaccine law, but the "You can't get an exemption unless you belong to one of two religions" doesn't pass the smell test.  Personal faith is an individual right, not a right that you "earn" by being part of some particular "group".

Emailing Alex Jones is a waste of time.  He simply gets too many emails.  If you want on the show you need to call in.  Some days it's easy to get in, other days it's not so easy.

Last point.  Check your local law school.  Most have legal clinics that can help with this sort of thing.

----------


## jmdrake

> This one is for you Mini-Me because you consider arguments of reason and do not always rush to emotional conclusion.
> 
> I wanted to address your specific comment about busybody courts because it has historical context:
> 
> *Forum Selection Clause*
> 
> The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Company, 407 U.S. 1 (1972) was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court considered when a U.S. court should uphold the validity of a contractual forum selection clause.
> 
> The parties had entered into an agreement for a drilling rig to be towed from Louisiana to Italy, which included a clause stating that disputes would be settled by a court in England. When a storm forced the towing party to make land in Tampa, Florida, the other party sued there. After the lower courts refused to uphold the forum selection clause, the Supreme Court held that it was enforceable unless the party seeking to avoid it could meet the high burden of showing it to be unreasonable or unjust.
> ...


Two points.

1) In both cases the forum selection clause still meant that the parties would be subject to *some* court's jurisdiction.

2) In both cases these were disputes about a *contract*.

Sorry, but there's no mention of any contract in the facts in the OP.  It's unclear if the dispute is between the OP and her child's father or between the OP and the state.  Do you think the state is going to sign a contract that says that it doesn't have jurisdiction over someone in their own state?  What could possibly induce a state to do that?

----------


## Theocrat

> I recently lost custody of my nine year old son due to my refusal to vaccinate. I was accused of medical neglect even though he did NOT suffer adversly for my refusal to vaccinate. A Guardian was appointed and told me that failure to vaccinate is medical neglect.  She also said that the religious exemption does not apply to me as I am neither RLDS nor Amish.
> 
> My son, who I now rarely get to see, is now living with his father.  He is emotionally traumatized and begging to come home.  He is not being bathed nor is he brushing his teeth regularly.  He is wetting the bed and frequently missing school.  His grades have dropped from straight As and he is often tardy and in trouble in school.  He has had four days of In School Suspension.  He says his dad calls him stupid and a$$hole.  I could go into greater detail about how my son is now abused and neglected, but I won't.
> 
> I was interviewed on the radio show Lives In The Balance hosted by Jason Littlejohn :
> http://www.mediafire.com/?yzmmy4l14d1
> 
> Also, the Supreme court has weighed in on this one, so how can a lower court take away my child from me for something the Supreme Court has ruled is my Constitutional right.
> 
> ...


I am truly sorry that your son was taken away from you on such a trivial matter. I would like to suggest that you make your case known to this organization:

American Center for Law & Justice

Let them know as soon as you can. My prayers are with you.

----------


## torchbearer

the doctrine where the state owns your children is called "King as father".
I would at least get the government on record as claiming right over your child.

----------


## Acala

> You argue a contradiction.  If you admit service of process can be invalid then valid service of process must depend on something other than physical presence. 
> 
> Regarding your suggestion of force are you asserting there is no remedy regarding the Detroit Police killing a 7 year old story?  I would never assert people are not free to do whatever they want to do because it is self evident they are.  If a person is free to shoot someone it makes no difference whether they are an officer or not.  We are not talking about the fact people are free to do whatever they want.
> 
> The validity regarding service of process strikes at the heart of the matter.  The fact is if you do not rebut the presumption implied (what is the presumption implied?) and have been physically served....  it is valid.


Dude, you don't even make sense.  Try and stay on the point.

This is it: as far as the court is concerned, your agreement is not required for service of process.  And once you are served, with or without your consent, the court takes jurisdiction over you and the dispute up to and including dragging you in chains before the bench to hear a judgement against you which will be enforced at gunpoint if necessary.

I don't know what you intend to convey with your gobblydygook, but the limited matter at hand - whether the court can take jurisdiction only with your consent, is clear and beyond dispute.  It can and will.

Oh, and by the way, you can't contract away the State's jurisdiction when a minor is involved.  The state considers the minor to be a party in interest who did not and could not be a party to the contract.  So even if the parents have an enforceable forum selection contract it will not work when a minor is involved.

----------


## johnrocks

Your pics show a happy Mom with her happy son, best of luck to you, this really is a sad situation.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Two points.
> 
> 1) In both cases the forum selection clause still meant that the parties would be subject to *some* court's jurisdiction.
> 
> 2) In both cases these were disputes about a *contract*.
> 
> Sorry, but there's no mention of any contract in the facts in the OP.  It's unclear if the dispute is between the OP and her child's father or between the OP and the state.  Do you think the state is going to sign a contract that says that it doesn't have jurisdiction over someone in their own state?  What could possibly induce a state to do that?


I agree there is no mention of contract which was relevant to my point of voluntarily leaving a matter entirely up to a state.

I would not expect a state to do anything less than try to establish jurisdiction over every person or thing regardless of any prohibitions in state constitutions.  It is up to an individual to rebut presumptions of jurisdiction legislated in state statue or supported with case precedent at all times.

Regarding "some courts jurisdiction"  Do you think that is an absolute where an arbitrator could not be substituted for "court" under any circumstances in any contract?

The alleged heartless contexts of my posts do not address who the dispute is between but I agree with you it's unclear where a charge originated.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> This is it:


Any SCOTUS case I cite where the lower court was reversed (such as the two previous) or a reversal over invalid service of process means your arguments are not absolute.  Rulings can and have been reversed.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> This is quite horrible. I was born and raised in Michigan where I was not required to be vaccinated. It wasn't until I had to go to Iraq for work with the military that I was finally vaccinated after several weeks of trying to find a way out of it.
> 
> It sucks that they vaccinated him. That's a form of child abuse in and of itself if you and he were against it.
> 
> What state do you live in? Each state has its own statutes on what basis you can refuse vaccinations. Some allow you to based purely on a philosophical disagreement with vaccinations.
> 
> I would sue the hell out of the state and ask for damages and then take your money and run to New Hampshire.


I am in Missouri which does have the religious exemption.  As stated in my original post, the Supreme Court ruled that one does not have to belong to a particular antivaccinating church for the exclusion to apply.

However, the Guardian does not know the law and told me that the religious exclusion does not apply to me as I am neither RLDS nor Amish.

----------


## jmdrake

> I agree there is no mention of contract which was relevant to my point of voluntarily leaving a matter entirely up to a state.
> 
> I would not expect a state to do anything less than try to establish jurisdiction over every person or thing regardless of any prohibitions in state constitutions.  It is up to an individual to rebut presumptions of jurisdiction legislated in state statue or supported with case precedent at all times.
> 
> Regarding "some courts jurisdiction"  Do you think that is an absolute where an arbitrator could not be substituted for "court" under any circumstances in any contract?
> 
> The alleged heartless contexts of my posts do not address who the dispute is between but I agree with you it's unclear where a charge originated.


The reason I made the point about "some court's jurisdiction" is that those were the cases you cited.  Sure there are contracts where disputes are left to "binding arbitration" (and sometimes the courts annul those agreements as unconscionable) but again it's a contract dispute.  Contracts require at least *two* parties to agree.  You mention case precedent.  Do you have any case where someone wins based on declaring in court "I have this unilateral contract that I signed that states this state does not have jurisdiction over me and/or my child"?

----------


## Acala

> Any SCOTUS case I cite where the lower court was reversed (such as the two previous) or a reversal over invalid service of process means your arguments are not absolute.  Rulings can and have been reversed.


You are setting up a straw man.  I never said all service of process is valid.  I said that consent is not needed for valid service of process.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

I don't think vaccinations are so bad. If you gotta do it, you gotta do it. I'm sure the elitist offspring take the vaccinations. I'm ancap, but why make things hard on yourself over something you aren't positive is bad for you?

----------


## jmdrake

> I am in Missouri which does have the religious exemption.  As stated in my original post, the Supreme Court ruled that one does not have to belong to a particular antivaccinating church for the exclusion to apply.
> 
> However, the Guardian does not know the law and told me that the religious exclusion does not apply to me as I am neither RLDS nor Amish.


Is the Guardian an attorney?  Which Supreme Court case are you citing?  (Having trouble finding it).  I did find two cases from New York of Pantheists challenging vaccine laws.  In the first the Pantheist won.  

(Look for "Sherr v. Northport-East Northport" in : http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Research/PDF/vaccine.pdf)

In the second she lost.  The judge ruled that her religious believe was not "sincere" enough because she took medicine such as Moutrin and "essential oils".  (Nonsense ruling as essential oil is a natural non prescription product).

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202447652557

I'm wondering, however, which law in particular is the state using to snatch your child?  The Missouri state law (that I've found anyway) on vaccination only requires you to vaccinate your child if you are sending him to a "public, parochial or private" school.  But you have a constitutional right to homeschool or even not school at all.  (Wisconsin v. Yoder).  And what's the dad's stance in all of this?  From the original post it doesn't sound like he's trying to be helpful, but is he neutral or antagonistic to your cause?

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't think vaccinations are so bad. If you gotta do it, you gotta do it. I'm sure the elitist offspring take the vaccinations. I'm ancap, but why make things hard on yourself over something you aren't positive is bad for you?


People used to not think smoking was bad for you too.  In WW II sailors were told to "thrash around" in the water to keep away the sharks.  There's strong evidence to suggest vaccines may be bad for you.  Why risk them on your *children* just because some other people don't think they are bad?

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> People used to not think smoking was bad for you too.  In WW II sailors were told to "thrash around" in the water to keep away the sharks.  There's strong evidence to suggest vaccines may be bad for you.  Why risk them on your *children* just because some other people don't think they are bad?


because that's life. but hey, it aint me, so goodluck to her. I took them. I wasn't asked if I wanted them, it was mandatory for me to attend a public school. I had no choice. Homeschooling? I didn't even know what that was. When I have kids I'll let my wife make the decisions like that lol

----------


## constituent

It seems as though very few folks participating in the thread are clear on exactly what is going on.  I feel like maybe we're only getting parts of the story, or perhaps the manner in which certain parts have been "revealed" have clouded the discussion...

I went from thinking the state took the child away CPS-kidnapping style because she refused to vaccinate the child, and then handed the child over to the father... what it's now starting to sound like to me is that the "medical neglect" aspect is just one part of a broader case that the father has made against the mother (likely in court).  

Is this not correct?

----------


## tommyzDad

My prayers go out to you, Lesa. I pray you get him back, soon.

----------


## osan

> If you want to spar, pick on me, not some poor woman who just lost a kid (who is probably closer to your age than she is.)


Oh_ $#@!..._ that's gonna leave a mark.

----------


## osan

> Yes, they immediately vaccinate him.


Pardon my candor, but that is $#@!ED UP.

I would kill them all, but don't follow my example.

I take it you cannot get junior away from his father, right?  If you could I would suggest you take him to Brazil and tell the USA to screw themselves.  This is rank insanity.

Seems the boy's father doesn't care much for him, is that correct?  I mean, calling him "stupid" and all that.  If he doesn't want him, adopt him out to someone you know (barring that, I'd even take him) and then take him back when you move to another state.  I have real personal issues with the abuse of children, especially this sort.  

What $#@! hole of a state are you cursed with living in, by the way?

----------


## osan

> I am in Missouri which does have the religious exemption.  As stated in my original post, the Supreme Court ruled that one does not have to belong to a particular antivaccinating church for the exclusion to apply.
> 
> However, the Guardian does not know the law and told me that the religious exclusion does not apply to me as I am neither RLDS nor Amish.


When I began graduate school at CCNY in NYC I was told I would have to show proof of vaccination.  I contemplated getting a note from my step father (doctor), but decided that the requirement was bull$#@!, so I told them that the requirement violated my first Amendment right because vaccination is against my religious belief.  They then asked to what religion I belonged in an attempt to defeat me on that basis.  To that I replied that my religious beliefs are my own and that they had no basis for asking such questions.  They shut their traps, but asked that I give a written and signed statement to that effect, which I did, and I was allowed to register with the notice that if an epidemic broke out, I could be barred from attending classes.  Yeah, whatever.  $#@!s.

Don't take $#@! from anyone.  Fight them and their nonsense tooth and nail.

----------


## osan

> I don't think vaccinations are so bad. If you gotta do it, you gotta do it. I'm sure the elitist offspring take the vaccinations. I'm ancap, but why make things hard on yourself over something you aren't positive is bad for you?


OK, then try an experiment.  Get your hands on some squalene, a common adjuvant component in some vaccines, and inject yourself with it.  I'm serious - if you think they are not so bad, give it a try.  If you are right you will suffer no ill effects.  If you are wrong, you can let us know just how utterly destroyed your life has become.  (hint: don't really try it because it probably WILL destroy your health)

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> This is quite horrible. I was born and raised in Michigan where I was not required to be vaccinated. It wasn't until I had to go to Iraq for work with the military that I was finally vaccinated after several weeks of trying to find a way out of it.
> 
> It sucks that they vaccinated him. That's a form of child abuse in and of itself if you and he were against it.
> 
> What state do you live in? Each state has its own statutes on what basis you can refuse vaccinations. Some allow you to based purely on a philosophical disagreement with vaccinations.
> 
> I would sue the hell out of the state and ask for damages and then take your money and run to New Hampshire.



Hello Elwar an welcome to this thread.  Too bad we didn't get a chance to talk before your mandatory military vaccines.  I found a nonprofit organization that defends soldier's vaccine exemptions.

I am in Missouri which has the religious and medical exemptions only.  The religious exemption applies to me.

I can't respond to your last comment as anything I say can and will be used against me.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> What state are you in?  Family law is different in all 50.  It's a little fuzzy from the facts, but I take it that you were initially awarded custody post a divorce?  Did the dad sue to get the custody changed or did the state take it 100% on itself to do this?  It makes a big difference.  State can "factor" in all sorts of crap under a "best interest of the child" standard when awarding custody to one parent or another that wouldn't pass muster a "unfit parent" standard used to take a child and put him in foster care.
> 
> I'm not up on the particulars of vaccine law, but the "You can't get an exemption unless you belong to one of two religions" doesn't pass the smell test.  Personal faith is an individual right, not a right that you "earn" by being part of some particular "group".
> 
> Emailing Alex Jones is a waste of time.  He simply gets too many emails.  If you want on the show you need to call in.  Some days it's easy to get in, other days it's not so easy.
> 
> Last point.  Check your local law school.  Most have legal clinics that can help with this sort of thing.


Hello, jmdrake and welcome to the thread.  I'm in Missouri.

My son is nine years old and has been with me since birth, the dad and I were never married.  

The ONLY reason a guardian was appointed was because my son is not vaccinated.  I was accused and found guilty of medical neglect for not vaccinating.  While I understand the "best interest of the child" theory, for the court to claim it is contrary to my son's best interest to refuse vaccinations, then everyone who opposes vaccinations is at risk for a court to take their children from them.  Why would the Supreme Court rule that the parents have a Constitutional right if the Supreme Court thought that it was in violation of a child's best interest?  

For those who might think that the father might have a right to vaccinate, he had a legal right at any time to take my son and vaccinate him and he had NINE years to do it.  He did not need a court order.

The court could have also ruled that my son be vaccinated without taking him away from me.  For those who think that I am a bad mother and there were other reasons I am not disclosing, you are wrong.  I have two older sons who both graduated high school (one with a 4.0 GPA) and went on to college which I alone paid for.

Again, if the court was looking out for the best interest of the child, would they take him away from a mother with no criminal record or history of alcohol and/or drug abuse and give him to a father that is a documented alcohlic?  

Dad has been in in-patient alcohol rehab at least three times, he was evicted from a half way house for alcohlics, he pled guilty to assault on a Police officer and served jail time and also violated his probation.  

He also was charged with vandalizing my exhusband's car (the father of my two oldest children).  My exhusband had his car finger printed and guess whose prints the found?  How did they know whose prints they were?  Because of his criminal record.  I didn't date for eight years after the birth of my son, but low and behold the second guy I dated had his car vandalized on his property by someone who didn't know him well enough to know what a gun fanatic he was.  (The first guy I dated had a four car garage so I guess he wasn't an accessible target).

So the "best interest of the child" scenario does not ring true.  My attorney said that I was railroaded.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> I am truly sorry that your son was taken away from you on such a trivial matter. I would like to suggest that you make your case known to this organization:
> 
> American Center for Law & Justice
> 
> Let them know as soon as you can. My prayers are with you.


Thank you, Theocrat.  The ACLJ is an excellent idea.  Also, I have supported them financially (quite a lot actually) in the past so maybe that will weigh in my favor!

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> Your pics show a happy Mom with her happy son, best of luck to you, this really is a sad situation.


Thank you, johnrocks!

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> I don't think vaccinations are so bad. If you gotta do it, you gotta do it. I'm sure the elitist offspring take the vaccinations. I'm ancap, but why make things hard on yourself over something you aren't positive is bad for you?


Hello, JosephTheLibertarian and welcome to the thread.  

A wise person once said, "If you don't support free speech for those with ideas that conflict with your own, you don't support free speech at all".  I guess the same could be said for other Constitutional issues and religious freedoms.

I am not willing to offend my God regardless of the consequences.

Do you support freedom, liberty and the Constitution?  If so, you might want to rethink your post.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> Is the Guardian an attorney?


Yes.




> Which Supreme Court case are you citing?  (Having trouble finding it).


I first cited title VII of the Civil Rights Act which can be found here:

http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title29/29-4.1.4.1.6.html

The second citation is from a Supreme Court ruling in Frazee vs. Illinois Dept. of Employment Security which can be found here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...9_0829_ZS.html




> I did find two cases from New York of Pantheists challenging vaccine laws.  In the first the Pantheist won.


What is a Pantheist?




> (Look for "Sherr v. Northport-East Northport" in : http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Research/PDF/vaccine.pdf)


Wow, that is book length.  I didn't have time to read it all.  However, I did find this interesting bit:

This trade-off on a population-wide basis may be unacceptable
to public health authorities because it can destroy the collective immunity of a population, thus
leading to outbreaks of diseases among VACCINATED and unvaccinated children.




> In the second she lost.  The judge ruled that her religious believe was not "sincere" enough because she took medicine such as Moutrin and "essential oils".  (Nonsense ruling as essential oil is a natural non prescription product).
> 
> http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202447652557


Now this second case is just wrong on so many levels.  First of all the courts have no business determining the sincerity of one's religious beliefs.  For example, I believe in gravity 100% but I can't explain scientifically why.  Also, many Christian's strongly believe in a pretrib rapture (I don't), but couldn't explain why they do if their life depended on it.

However, when I tried to explain my beliefs in court the Guardian objected and the Commissioner sustained it.




> I'm wondering, however, which law in particular is the state using to snatch your child?


That is a really good question.  The guardian insisted that Missouri law dicatates that I vaccinate yet she refused to show me the law. 




> The Missouri state law (that I've found anyway) on vaccination only requires you to vaccinate your child if you are sending him to a "public, parochial or private" school.  But you have a constitutional right to homeschool or even not school at all.  (Wisconsin v. Yoder).  And what's the dad's stance in all of this?  From the original post it doesn't sound like he's trying to be helpful, but is he neutral or antagonistic to your cause?


Good points you make.  Unfortunately, dad is antagonistic.  If he were nurturing and caring for my son it would be easier to accept.  Since he is treating my son so poorly and my baby is begging, crying and pleading to come home IT RIPS MY HEART OUT.

----------


## jmdrake

Hello Lesa Dawn,

I see you had to repeat some stuff for me that you had said earlier.  Sorry for missing that.

One point on the "best interest of the child" standard.  Courts can factor in things that are perfectly constitutional for you to do in determining that they are not in your child's "best interest".  And courts can and do get it wrong.  Sometimes a higher court will overturn a ruling because they decided the lower court abused its discretion in applying the standard.

Also I don't think you're a bad mother (from what you've described) or that your child would be better off with his dad.  But it doesn't matter what I think.  My reason for asking the questions is to understand what "reasoning" the court used, as screwed up as it may be.  That's the only way I know to fight this.

Interesting Supreme Court case you posted.  It's definitely helpful.  I was hoping to find a holding directly on vaccination that said the same thing with regards to vaccination and religious exemptions.  

Sorry for the long read on I posted.  This was the part that is really important to your case:

_      In Sherr v. Northport-East Northport Union Free School District,148 a federal district court upheld an exemption for children of parents with “sincere religious beliefs,” but found a provision requiring them to be “bona fide members of a recognized religious organization” in violation of the Establishment Clause. Other courts have found inapposite. A federal district court in Kentucky, for example, held that exemption for “nationally recognized and established church or religious denomination” did not violate the Establishment Clause.149 
    To the extent that statutory religious exemptions to school vaccination laws discriminate against persons with non-established religious beliefs, it has been argued that the provisions violate equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment.150 The Equal Protection Clause prohibits government from intentionally discriminating against individuals of suspect classes (e.g., classes based on race, religion, national origin, or sex). In Dalli v. Board of Education,151 a Massachusetts state court found that a state exemption for objectors who subscribe to “tenets and practice of a recognized church or religious denomination” violates equal protection by extending preferred treatment to these groups while denying it to others with sincere, though unrecognized, religious objections. In Brown v. Stone,152 the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a religious exemption violates equal protection of the laws because it “discriminates against the great majority of children whose parents have no such religious
convictions.”
_

This is from page 41 and 42 of what I posted earlier.

http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Research/PDF/vaccine.pdf

Note that none of the cases I cited are Supreme Court cases so the aren't binding in Missouri, but they might be persuasive.

You asked "What is a Pantheist"?  A Pantheist is someone who believes God is in everything.  (I know I'm not giving the belief justice.)  The important thing to note for this discussion is that it's not a religion with any structure.  (At least not in the U.S. according to the trial testimony).  So neither mother could say "My Pantheistic religion teaches that we can't get vaccines"?

Now I'm not arguing that the courts should look at the sincerity of religious beliefs.  Just pointing out what one federal court held in one case.  If your going to use this defense, the stronger you can argue about the religious sincerity of this belief the better off you are.  A belief that vaccines will affect your child's soul salvation is more persuasive under current law than a sincere belief that it might irreparably harm his health.  (Stupid I know.  But that's current law.)

*But that's not the only angle you can take*.

Again it's important to know precisely what statute the court made it's ruling under.  You've mentioned "medical neglect" a couple of times.  I found this:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c200-299/2100000166.htm
_The division of family services, any juvenile officer, any physician licensed under chapter 334, RSMo, any hospital or other health care institution, and any other person or institution authorized by state or federal law to provide medical care may bring an action in the circuit court in the county where any child under eighteen years of age resides or is located, alleging the child is suffering from the denial or deprivation, by those responsible for the care, custody, and control of the child, of medical or surgical treatment or intervention which is necessary to remedy or ameliorate a medical condition which is life-threatening or causes injury......_

Not being vaccinated is (arguably) not a "life-threatening" condition.  Just look at the lifespan of the Amish.  Also if not being vaccinated is "life-threatening" then how can the state justify not requiring vaccinations for children who are not enrolled in "public, parochial or private" schools?

I also found this.  (The religious exemption for the medical neglect law).

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c200-299/2100000115.htm
_3. Notwithstanding any other provision of sections 210.109 to 210.183, any child who does not receive specified medical treatment by reason of the legitimate practice of the religious belief of the child's parents, guardian, or others legally responsible for the child, for that reason alone, shall not be found to be an abused or neglected child, and such parents, guardian or other persons legally responsible for the child shall not be entered into the central registry. However, the division may accept reports concerning such a child and may subsequently investigate or conduct a family assessment as a result of that report. Such an exception shall not limit the administrative or judicial authority of the state to ensure that medical services are provided to the child when the child's health requires it._ 

Last point.  I agree with your lawyer.  You are being railroaded.  But in order to avoid the train you need to know what track it's on.  Good luck and God bless!

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> It seems as though very few folks participating in the thread are clear on exactly what is going on.  I feel like maybe we're only getting parts of the story, or perhaps the manner in which certain parts have been "revealed" have clouded the discussion...
> 
> I went from thinking the state took the child away CPS-kidnapping style because she refused to vaccinate the child, and then handed the child over to the father... what it's now starting to sound like to me is that the "medical neglect" aspect is just one part of a broader case that the father has made against the mother (likely in court).  
> 
> Is this not correct?


I never implied that CPS was involved.

Yes, the father did make other allegations that were frivalous and false.  They are as follows:

1)  That I enrolled my son in public school versus private school as per the original agreement.

He was proven to be a liar on the witness stand when it was show that the original order dictated my son was to be enrolled in public school in my district.

2)  He claimed that I was trying to make him pay for the school lunch balance when he always sent our son to school with lunch or lunch money on his days.

He was proven to be a liar on the witness stand when school records showed that my son went to school without lunch money on the days his father took him.

3)  He claimed that I am too difficult to coparent with.

He testified that not only did he always get his court appointed visitation, but that he was also always given extra time when he asked.  It was also established that he was more than six months behind on his child support. Although I knew that the state would enforce the child support at no cost to me, I never pursued collection even though he could afford to take off work (without pay) and vacation in Mexico and bought a new truck, I still didn't go after him for child support arrears.

In summary, I gave him all of his parenting time and more every time he asked and didn't enforce the child support order.  I sound really difficult don't I.

4)  My son was not vaccinated.  = Guilty as charged

These are the ONLY allegations made against me by the dad.

Dad had a legal right to vaccinate at any time and NINE years to do it.  He did not have to take me to court to do it.

According to Missouri Law, "if ONE parent or guardian objects in writing to his school administrator against the immunization of the child, because of religious beliefs "
http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/sta.../missouri.aspx

Unfortunately dad's motivation had nothing to do with the best interest of the child and was for revenge.  He admitted in mediation that it had nothing to do with vaccines and was because he was upset that I had started dating and that he still wanted to get married.  Too bad the mediator couldn't testify.

However, regardless of what dad did or did not do, it was the COURT who accused me of medical neglect for not vaccinating (which is ironic because shouldn't dad have been guilty too?).  It was the COURT that appointed a provaccine guardian.  It was the COURT that took him away from his mother.  This same court then went on to say that it is the child's best interest to have free and liberal contact with the mother.  Would they have done this if there was any indication that I am unfit?  They took away custody and any decision making power solely because I don't vaccinate.

For more details and a description of what a fit parent dad is, see my answer to jmdrake on page ten of this thread.

Why would I make this up?  What purpose would it serve?

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> My prayers go out to you, Lesa. I pray you get him back, soon.


Thank you tommyzDad.  I sincerely appreciate any prayers for my son and I.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> Pardon my candor, but that is $#@!ED UP.
> 
> I would kill them all, but don't follow my example.
> 
> I take it you cannot get junior away from his father, right?  If you could I would suggest you take him to Brazil and tell the USA to screw themselves.  This is rank insanity.
> 
> Seems the boy's father doesn't care much for him, is that correct?  I mean, calling him "stupid" and all that.  If he doesn't want him, adopt him out to someone you know (barring that, I'd even take him) and then take him back when you move to another state.  I have real personal issues with the abuse of children, especially this sort.  
> 
> What $#@! hole of a state are you cursed with living in, by the way?


Hello, osan and welcome to this thread.  I like your candor and hope you'll stick around.  Your post made me  and not much does these days.

I am going to try a legal remedy first and then all bets are off. (I am joking of course because we don't know who could be reading this)

Missouri aka Misery

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> When I began graduate school at CCNY in NYC I was told I would have to show proof of vaccination.  I contemplated getting a note from my step father (doctor), but decided that the requirement was bull$#@!, so I told them that the requirement violated my first Amendment right because vaccination is against my religious belief.  They then asked to what religion I belonged in an attempt to defeat me on that basis.  To that I replied that my religious beliefs are my own and that they had no basis for asking such questions.  They shut their traps, but asked that I give a written and signed statement to that effect, which I did, and I was allowed to register with the notice that if an epidemic broke out, I could be barred from attending classes.  Yeah, whatever.  $#@!s.
> 
> Don't take $#@! from anyone.  Fight them and their nonsense tooth and nail.


Good for you!  It seems we are losing so many freedoms because people are to scared to make a stand.  It is always nice to meet a fellow patriot who actually practices what they preach.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> Hello Lesa Dawn,
> 
> I see you had to repeat some stuff for me that you had said earlier.  Sorry for missing that.
> 
> One point on the "best interest of the child" standard.  Courts can factor in things that are perfectly constitutional for you to do in determining that they are not in your child's "best interest".  And courts can and do get it wrong.  Sometimes a higher court will overturn a ruling because they decided the lower court abused its discretion in applying the standard.
> 
> Also I don't think you're a bad mother (from what you've described) or that your child would be better off with his dad.  But it doesn't matter what I think.  My reason for asking the questions is to understand what "reasoning" the court used, as screwed up as it may be.  That's the only way I know to fight this.
> 
> Interesting Supreme Court case you posted.  It's definitely helpful.  I was hoping to find a holding directly on vaccination that said the same thing with regards to vaccination and religious exemptions.  
> ...


Thank you for your posts.  You are a plethora of much needed knowledge.

Rand Paul won the Republican nomination!  There might still be hope for this once great nation.  My great grandfather survived the Trail of Tears and I can survive this!

----------


## osan

> Again, if the court was looking out for the best interest of the child, would they take him away from a mother with no criminal record or history of alcohol and/or drug abuse and give him to a father that is a documented alcohlic?  
> 
> Dad has been in in-patient alcohol rehab at least three times, he was evicted from a half way house for alcohlics, he pled guilty to assault on a Police officer and served jail time and also violated his probation.


$#@!... I was once involved with an alcoholic.  They can be very bad news and in general they are, exceptions being the rare case.  I am sure there is nothing I can say here that you do not already know, to all I can really do is send you my best wishes.  I know you want to do all of this legally, and I would not presume to advise you except to keep in mind that time is a factor.  

Good luck and I hope you sue the state of Misery into receivership.

----------


## furface

I didn't look through the entire thread.  However, it's impossible to talk about this situation without first seeing the court document granting custody of your child to your husband.

Some questions:

1. What criteria did the judge/jury use in granting custody?

2. What type of custody is it?  Sole custody?  

There's a process for all of this.  You have the right to appeal.  If the decision was based purely on your refusal to vaccinate, you'll win.  If there are other issues, maybe not.  We'd have to see the documentation to see what's going on.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

The government kidnapped your child?!  I've filled out religious exemption forms in my name and I didn't lose custody of myself!  I wish I could help but I have no idea how.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> $#@!... I was once involved with an alcoholic.  They can be very bad news and in general they are, exceptions being the rare case.  I am sure there is nothing I can say here that you do not already know, to all I can really do is send you my best wishes.  I know you want to do all of this legally, and I would not presume to advise you except to keep in mind that time is a factor.  
> 
> Good luck and I hope you sue the state of Misery into receivership.


Thank you, Osan.  I need as much encouragement as I can get!

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> The government kidnapped your child?!  I've filled out religious exemption forms in my name and I didn't lose custody of myself!  I wish I could help but I have no idea how.


Hello, Warrior and welcome to the thread.  Your post made me smile.  As I posted earlier, Missouri law dictates that the religious exclusion applies if _one parent_ fills out the form.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> I didn't look through the entire thread.  However, it's impossible to talk about this situation without first seeing the court document granting custody of your child to your husband.
> 
> Some questions:
> 
> 1. What criteria did the judge/jury use in granting custody?
> 
> 2. What type of custody is it?  Sole custody?  
> 
> There's a process for all of this.  You have the right to appeal.  If the decision was based purely on your refusal to vaccinate, you'll win.  If there are other issues, maybe not.  We'd have to see the documentation to see what's going on.


Hello, furface and welcome.

1) It was a commissioner, not a judge or jury.  She gave dad custody because I don't vaccinate.  This is the only reason.  She also blamed me for all of my son's school tardies even though dad took him to school half of the time.  For example, he was tardy eight times in the last semester.  According to the dates, six were dad's and two were mine.  However, even if they had all been mine (and they were not - most were dad's) this would be a minor reason to take a well adjusted nine year old with good grades away from mom.  Now that he is with dad, he still is frequently tardy and is now also missing a lot of school and getting in trouble and his grades have dropped.

2) Yes, he has sole legal and joint physical which means nothing as I rarely get to see him and have NO say in any decisions.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

I googled this commissioner and so far I have only found two of her cases.

The first is a case where she took another nine year old boy away from his mother because she dared to homeschool him:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-...s/1273342.html

The second case she also took a son away from his mother and gave him to the father.  The background is as follows:

The background on this case does not say who the judge was on the divorce, but it was NOT this commissioner. In the original divorce, the dad was granted SUPERVISED visitation.

Then the dad filed for modification and lucky for him, this commissioner was assigned.  This commissioner gave him UNsupervised visitation.

IMMEDIATELY there after, the son started coming home from visits with bruising and claiming dad hit and pinched him.  DFS was called and abuse was substantiated.  The DFS case worker instructed the mom to NOT let the dad have UNsupervised visits.


Within six months of the UNsupervised visitation order, dad was filing again asking for custody. The DFS worker testified on mom's behalf saying the abuse was substantiated and that she had instructed mom to deny the visits.

This commissioner gave custody to the DAD and found the MOM in contempt of court and gave her jail time.


What is going on in Missouri with this commissioner?  One attorney told me that she does not like feminine women (she herself is very masculine) or she feels boys should live with their fathers regardless of how unfit and abusive they are.

----------


## Lesa Dawn

> I googled this commissioner and so far I have only found two of her cases.
> 
> The first is a case where she took another nine year old boy away from his mother because she dared to homeschool him:
> 
> http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-...s/1273342.html
> 
> The second case she also took a son away from his mother and gave him to the father.  The background is as follows:
> 
> The background on this case does not say who the judge was on the divorce, but it was NOT this commissioner. In the original divorce, the dad was granted SUPERVISED visitation.
> ...


I neglected to post the link for the second case.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-...s/1164705.html

----------


## Elle

Wow, I am sorry about what happened with your son.  I googled this lady's name and found that the state took her to court.  

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-...s/1298582.html


Maybe try that route.  Go over her head to her boss.  If that doesn't work keep moving up the ladder.  Good Luck.  I hope it all works out for you.

----------


## PatriotG

> I recently lost custody of my nine year old son due to my refusal to vaccinate. I was accused of medical neglect even though he did NOT suffer adversly for my refusal to vaccinate. A Guardian was appointed and told me that failure to vaccinate is medical neglect.  She also said that the religious exemption does not apply to me as I am neither RLDS nor Amish.
> 
> My son, who I now rarely get to see, is now living with his father.  He is emotionally traumatized and begging to come home.  He is not being bathed nor is he brushing his teeth regularly.  He is wetting the bed and frequently missing school.  His grades have dropped from straight As and he is often tardy and in trouble in school.  He has had four days of In School Suspension.  He says his dad calls him stupid and a$$hole.  I could go into greater detail about how my son is now abused and neglected, but I won't.
> 
> I was interviewed on the radio show Lives In The Balance hosted by Jason Littlejohn :
> http://www.mediafire.com/?yzmmy4l14d1
> 
> Also, the Supreme court has weighed in on this one, so how can a lower court take away my child from me for something the Supreme Court has ruled is my Constitutional right.
> 
> ...


I sincerley hope you and your son, reunite very soon. These times we are living are going to push me to the brink

----------


## PatriotG

I hope you dont mind I posted your dilemma in our forum as well. It really hit hard.
Hope all the best for you.
PG

----------


## teacherone

did she ever get her kid back?

----------

