Full Version: The gov't seizes cancer stricken girl
From CNN:
One particularly shocking thing was that an Amber alert was issued in order to obtain custody.
There is some reference to religious influence in the case, as they are member of the Church of God, but it doesn't seem dominant on face as being a religious issue.
To be honest, I find myself very conflicted usually in cases like this, so I thought it might be a good topic to discuss.
Questions for debate:
1) Should CPS be allowed to seize custody of a child in order to dictate their medical protocol? Under what conditions?
2) What rights should the parents retain in determining their children's health care? At what age does the child get a say in the matter?
3) Did CPS abuse the "Amber Alert" system in seizing custody?
QUOTE
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (AP) -- Child welfare officials seized a 12-year-old cancer patient from her parents, saying they were blocking radiation treatment that doctors say she needs.
During a court hearing Wednesday, Michele and Edward Wernecke asked that doctors be barred from giving radiation therapy to their daughter Katie until a hearing next week to determine whether she will stay in state custody.
During a court hearing Wednesday, Michele and Edward Wernecke asked that doctors be barred from giving radiation therapy to their daughter Katie until a hearing next week to determine whether she will stay in state custody.
One particularly shocking thing was that an Amber alert was issued in order to obtain custody.
QUOTE
Last week, authorities issued an Amber Alert to gain temporary custody of Katie after receiving an anonymous tip about possible neglect. She was found with her mother at a family ranch, about 80 miles west of Corpus Christi near Freer, on Saturday.
There is some reference to religious influence in the case, as they are member of the Church of God, but it doesn't seem dominant on face as being a religious issue.
To be honest, I find myself very conflicted usually in cases like this, so I thought it might be a good topic to discuss.
Questions for debate:
1) Should CPS be allowed to seize custody of a child in order to dictate their medical protocol? Under what conditions?
2) What rights should the parents retain in determining their children's health care? At what age does the child get a say in the matter?
3) Did CPS abuse the "Amber Alert" system in seizing custody?
Update on this topic, for those that are interested. Evidently the appeal of the parent's has failed. From CNN:
Unfortunately it appears the girl's cancer has returned.
From reading the article, I think there is likely a lot more beneath the surface than is being revealed. Its really hard to gauge the parent's intent in this scenario. Was this a simple matter of confusion between the doctor and the parents?
I guess one question that came into my mind in response the judgement of the court was: given that the parent's seem willing to continue her treatment, under what circumstances should the parent's be able to retain custody of their child?
QUOTE
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (AP) -- A judge ruled Thursday that the state will retain custody of a 13-year-old girl who was taken from her parents after they refused to continue her cancer treatments because they thought the cancer had been eliminated.
Katie Wernecke, who is suffering from Hodgkin's Disease, will remain with Child Protective Services indefinitely, juvenile court Judge Carl Lewis ruled. Katie, who has been in state custody since June 4, was scheduled to see doctors at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston on Thursday.
Katie Wernecke, who is suffering from Hodgkin's Disease, will remain with Child Protective Services indefinitely, juvenile court Judge Carl Lewis ruled. Katie, who has been in state custody since June 4, was scheduled to see doctors at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston on Thursday.
Unfortunately it appears the girl's cancer has returned.
From reading the article, I think there is likely a lot more beneath the surface than is being revealed. Its really hard to gauge the parent's intent in this scenario. Was this a simple matter of confusion between the doctor and the parents?
I guess one question that came into my mind in response the judgement of the court was: given that the parent's seem willing to continue her treatment, under what circumstances should the parent's be able to retain custody of their child?
QUOTE(Doclotus @ Jun 18 2005, 12:49 PM)
I guess one question that came into my mind in response the judgement of the court was: given that the parent's seem willing to continue her treatment, under what circumstances should the parent's be able to retain custody of their child?
Just for clarification, a legal point here. Texas law in cases like this is apparently very similar to California law. Once the state has taken custody of a child and has been upheld by a court the burden of proof shifts to the parent(s) for them to regain custody. They will somehow have to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the conditions under which they lost custody in the first place no longer exist. The fact that they "seem willing" to continue treatment would not meet that standard. What they would have to do I think is sign a sworn statement that they would continue to pursue the best medical treatment available for their daughter and allow for the court to continue to monitor their decisionis. Should they sign such a statement and regain custody, they would then be legally bound to follow it. Failure to do so would not only result in loss of custody again, but also criminal charges against them. This is an extremely serious situation and if Texas courts are anything like California courts (and I suspect they are), they will mean what they say and they will do what they have to do.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.