Child refuses food while in protective custody

[The Straight Story]

Child refuses food while in protective custody
The Bakersfield Californian | Tuesday, Jun 19 2007 10:50 PM

Last Updated: Tuesday, Jun 19 2007 10:53 PM

Tiffany Mathis' children are still in custody of the county and her toilet still isn't fixed.

Her youngest child, 11-month-old Joey, hasn't eaten since Saturday and was hospitalized, Mathis said. She was allowed a one-hour visit with him in the hospital and she got him to eat, she said. The doctor said it was separation anxiety, Mathis said.

Mathis, 22, fell into the public eye after Sheriff's Deputy Justin Weidenkopf, answering a 911 hang-up call, shot her pit bull, Huzzy, after the dog ran at the officer around 6:30 p.m. Saturday.

Deputies later took her three sons into protective custody because of unsanitary conditions. Child Protective Services told her the boys would be returned after an overflowing toilet in the house had been fixed.

The plumber didn't show up Tuesday as planned, Mathis said.

http://www.bakersfield.com/hourly_news/story/169222.html

[LeighAnn]

1. WTF???

Why don't they help her fix her toilet, instead of spending all the money to traumatize her children in foster care? A toilet stool is an easy and inexpensive fix. Put a whole new one in there.

[Xithras]

9. Maybe not an inexpensive fix.

The statement claims that the toilet was overflowing. Well, here in the Central Valley about half of the homes are still on septic systems (including mine), and that introduces a lot of potential points of failure. An overflowing toilet can be caused by anything from a broken stool, to a plugged pipe, to an overfull or backed up tank. It could even be caused by a collapsed tank. Depending on the problem, a repair could cost anywhere from $150 to $5,000+

I happen to think that the government should NOT be subsidizing people who have private septic systems, and that these repairs should be the responsibility of the property owner.

[BlooInBloo]

2. Traumatized?

[Rincewind]

3. Yes, traumatized

Imagine you are a young child, strangers wearing uniforms show up at your house, shoot your dog, and then take you away from your mother and put you with other strangers. Sounds traumatic to me.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Yup. That's why I suggested it.

[Richard Steele]

5. "Billion$ for punishment; not a penny for assistance".

That's the Amerika we live in today.

[BlooInBloo]

6. Sigh.

[Richard Steele]

7. Indeed. nm

[cgrindley]

8. Shooting a pit bull is not facism

They are a dangerous breed and should be banned across the states. And if you cannot find someone to fix a toilet in four days or fix it yourself, you shouldn't be in charge of children. And if you have a drunken fiance who randomly dials 911, hangs up and flees, perhaps you should take better care of your life.

[Richard Steele]

10. Yes- anyone whose toilet has ever malfunctioned longer than 3 days DESERVES to lose their children.

Surely us "good Gawd-feerin' citizens" can all agree:
only UNFIT PARENTS ever live with large, protective dogs
and have plumbing problems on weekends!

:toast: CGrindley!

[cgrindley]

11. Yeah, if you have children and a pitbull

the pitbull should go. It's irresponsible to keep that breed of dog under any circumstances, and having them around children is just icing on the cake.

And yes, if you cannot arrange to have a toilet repaired--SUNDAY, MONDAY, TUESDAY or WEDNESDAY--after the state has taken away your children and has promised even to give them back if you fix the damn toilet, yes, yes, yes, you don't deserve to have your kids back.

[LeighAnn]

12. Well the dog is gone

Don't have to worry about the dog no more. I maintain that under those circumstances they should have offered the family a place to go before tearing them apart and putting a child in the hospital who won't eat on account of separation anxiety.

Most communities have battered and other women's shelters (at least mine does... it's actually a kind of cottage industry here). They should be referred there, where they can get counseling and where people trained in family relationships can keep an eye on them for a few days to look for areas of difficulty ... Much better to do this than to traumatize these poor children further.

The social service agencies in my area keep a roster of skilled tradesmen/women on their volunteer list just for this sort of thing.

This woman is YOUNG and likely needs a lot of help in many areas of her life. It would probably do such a person a lot of good if somebody just asked them, "What do you need?" and help her get what she needs.

On edit: She could have gotten a whole bathroom remodel with a jacuzzi for what they're going to spend on the hospital bill for this kid alone. Think about it...

[cgrindley]

13. I'm okay with that

build the woman a new bathroom. Hell, use my tax money to do it. I'm all for that.

But... I'm the guy around here who favors a lot of government intrusion in our social lives. If Social Services didn't give her a chance to place the kids with relatives, then a mistake was made, but if they did and she was unable to provide a safe haven, then yes, the state was justified in taking the children away. I certainly don't give a damn about the cost of keeping the child in hospital, as I believe that the state should pay 100% of everyone's medical bills always.

The children have to come first. The state should provide them with a safe and clean environment while this 22 year old woman gets her life in order. That's what the state is for.

[seabeyond]

14. my immediate response would be send my hubby there to fix or BUY toilet

for the woman then install. but i also have issue with an overflowing toilet and a MOTHER not able to come up with a solution.