Daughter whose mom shot at police who were trying to take her to stay in state custody. She can't go with dad who had no hand in the "abuse" because ... apparently Michigan doesn't need a reason to take his child from him.

[–]banksnld 11 points12 points13 points 15 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]DougDante[S] 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The father's name is Mubuarak Hakim. The mother's is Maryanne Godboldo. Note the different last names.

The parents have different lawyers.

"A lawyer for the girl's father, Mubuarak Hakim, also accused protective services of failing one of its mandates to keep families together by not trying to find the father or another relative with whom to place the girl."

From The Detroit News

IANAL, but AFAIK, fathers are customarily not considered when Michigan's CPS is involved with a mom whom they have indicated is not fit. The only choices before the referee are usually maternal care or state care.

"However, Juvenile Court Referee Leslie Graves ruled the girl should be kept in the custody of the state. Graves said testimony and documents indicated there was probable cause to believe Godboldo's actions and her lack of cooperation with authorities constituted neglect." (ibid)

Read that carefully: Mom screwed up so the state gets the kid. Dad doesn't get any individualized consideration as a parent.

Similar circumstances caused father Shane Hinojosa to complain that the judge in his case refused to give him any access to his daughter Nevaeh Buchanan. 5 year old Navaeh was murdered while living in an environment with her sometimes jailed mother, the maternal grandmother, and her registered sex offender "father figure". details here

This is a men's rights issue.

[–]MDKAOD 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShakeyBobWillis 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MDKAOD 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fauropitotto 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DougDante[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShakeyBobWillis 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DougDante[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShakeyBobWillis 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Mr. Hakim has a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of his own child, and to a more than fair process before it's abridged. See Troxel V Granville.

and yes, the application of the law may be discriminatory on the basis of gender.

Yes, except in this case it wasn't discriminatory on gender. Or at least not in any manner backed by the facts we have. Because, contrary to what you believe...

I believe that if Mr. Hakim were the custodial parent in this case, the state would have more willingly recognized mom's rights

...is in no way a substitute for knowing the actual facts at hand on any individual case level.

Do we know whether or not, through any of this process, it was made known that the father had no objections to, or actually agreed with the mother? Or has some argument been brought forth that the father did agree or would also not use the medicine? I have not seen this reported. I bring it up because it's facts like these that would be material to a decision on whether or not to immediately remand the irl to the father's custody.

All I've seen so far are small tidbits like the father agreeing with the mother that the medicine was causing more harm than good and that “Child Protective Services is interfering with her rights as a parent to decide what doctor and what treatment is needed for her child,” which would hint more towards the argument that (based on the reasoning for taking her child in the first place) he would not be an acceptable substitution in this particular event.

You're also presuming it was known at the time of the decision that he was willing to take custody of her. I've since seen quotes from him saying he's willing to do so and I think if those requests are ignored, or we know that he did in fact make that known to the court before their decision it's certainly in the wheelhouse of a mensrights issue, but I still don't see any actual facts to indicate that, when the decision was made, it was merely a case of the man being immediately discriminated against.

[–]DougDante[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

"Do we know whether or not, through any of this process, it was made known that the father had no objections to, or actually agreed with the mother?"

These would be excellent facts to review in court. However, that never happened. Neither the father nor his lawyer were allowed to speak during the Referee's hearing. A judge later made a ruling affirming without a hearing.

Neither the referee nor the judge involved took testimony from dad. IIRC, the referee specifically refused all motions before ruling on the custody of the girl.

None of the news reports indicated either made a ruling on the fitness of the father, or on the motions from his lawyer. He was simply ignored.

My position is not that the should get his daughter, but rather he should be given his due process rights to present his case to get his daughter. That hasn't happened.

Unless a court has said he is unfit, he should be able to tuck his daughter into bed tonight.

[–]the_misogynist 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MorTomeh 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DougDante[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]DougDante[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShakeyBobWillis -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]DougDante[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShakeyBobWillis 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]DougDante[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShakeyBobWillis 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]DougDante[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShakeyBobWillis 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The ruling is on the fitness of the mom because she had custody. This issue is a question of her alleged neglect. That is a separate issue that determining if the father could have custody.

"A lawyer for the girl's father, Mubuarak Hakim, also accused protective services of failing one of its mandates to keep families together by not trying to find the father or another relative with whom to place the girl."

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110407/METRO01/104070398/Girl-seized-in-Detroit-standoff-to-remain-in-state-custody#ixzz1IzVaVPlz

From the way the mans lawyer sounds, they didn't even look for the father...or anyone else in the family that could have been a better guardian than the state at this juncture. I don't know how why you think it's a sexism issue here. It's more a question of them not doing anything at all to find this girl an alternative to being a ward of the state.

[–]DougDante[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_Pathological_Liar 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DougDante[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]frostek 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]veryevilgenius -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Godboldo has said her daughter's physical and mental problems stem from a bad reaction to a cocktail of immunizations

If you have another source, please share, but the OP article is ambiguous as to whether she even had an actual medical reaction or whether the mother just decided that all her daughter's problems could be blamed on vaccines. Both could be true, but even a moderate reaction to immunization is usually outweighed by the protection they afford.

However, vaccine debates aside, I agreed in my prior comment that questioning forced psychotropic medication for a child is valid. I don't know why you have to link it to anti-vaxxing. Unless a child is in imminent danger of death from lack of said medication (blood thinners, or heart meds, or something like that), then, yes, I agree that the use of police and force was unwarranted.

Edit: I notice you address your comment to Frostek-- did you reply to the wrong person? And none of it, as noted by others, has anything to do with men's rights.

[–]veryevilgenius -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I was replying to frostek at the lowest available position.

The vaccination is important as the mother initially cooperated with the state requirement for vaccinations then her child developed the facial tics and mood swings consistent with an allergic reaction to the vaccinations. CPS a state agency then demanded her child be put on Risperadel another drug to treat the symptoms that developed after her daughter was vaccinated. This could have all been avoided if the state had neither forced vaccination as a requirement for middle school, or risperdal as a requirement for dealing with side effects of vaccination.

The child was more in danger from the police bearing assault weapons, and armored vehicles around her house then from her mother.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/police-use-assault-weapons-and-tank-against-home-school-mom-wanting-to-protect-daughter-from-dangerous-medications/

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

From their "About" page:

We cover topics in Alternative Health such as whole food nutrition, herbs, vitamins, fitness, complimentary medicine, naturopathy, osteopathy, Traditional Chinese Medicine, homeopathy, environmental medicine and much more!

Do you have a more reputable source? I 100% support vaccination requirements for public school children, and this article also claims the daughter had autism from prior vaccines, which has been so completely beyond debunked that there's not even a dead horse to beat anymore, it rotted away a long time ago.

I agree that this is pretty horrifying: "Child Protective Services workers apparently disagreed, however, and obtained a warrant to remove the girl because the mother had withheld her medication." But I suspect there's more to the story. How did CPS know she was withholding medication? Did the school notify them? Unless the girl was showing suicidal or otherwise self-destructive behavior, I find it hard to believe they called on CPS to force the mother to administer the drugs.

[–]veryevilgenius -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Your begging the question with the comment how did they know?

I'm not begging any question, I'm pointing out potential holes in the story. Why was CPS monitoring the situation in the first place? This may vary by state, but I've never heard of CPS requiring a psychiatric medication, and that's where, I think, my BS detector is going off.

If an allergic reaction to the vaccination gardisal can result in death or mental impairment then its not so hard to believe that an allergic reaction to other vaccinations can result in other neuro-physical impairments such as facial tics.

Yeah, it is. I mean, it depends on the vaccine, but gardisal is a brand new one; Merck halted lobbying efforts to make it mandatory in 2007 because, among other things, it was showing nasty side effects. As opposed to something like the tetanus shot, which has been around for a long time and is pretty thoroughly tested.

State mandates of vaccination for access to public services such as education did harm the quality of life for this child.

I've seen no evidence that the vaccine caused her health issues. But even assuming it did, again, it depends on the vaccine, but one girl's probably temporary mood swings and facial tics are a small price to pay for avoiding massive epidemics of easily preventable diseases.

State mandates of forced drugging of said children also resulted in the assault of this law abiding family.

Again, my BS detector is going off big time here. The only thing I've heard of that causes that kind of reaction in law enforcement is a report that there are drugs in the house. Please offer a more reputable source for this timeline and causality of events and I may re-evaluate.

One of my friends in her late twenties was recently vaccinated for an over seas trip and she had a allergic reaction too.

Yeah, and I get flu-like symptoms the day after I get a tetanus shot. Beats the hell out of getting lockjaw.

It's people like you that are why I spent the first six months of my baby's life petrified she was going to get whooping cough, a disease that was on its way out until people like you decided to listen to crazy celebrities and doctors with questionable credentials and blame vaccines for every childhood problem for the last thirty years.

[+]veryevilgenius -6 points-5 points-4 points 15 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Why was CPS monitoring the situation in the first place? Your begging the question with that statement. The fact is that CPS did issue warrant for the child to be given risperdal. And that the police did break and enter, besiege with assault weapons and armored vehicles to fulfill the warrant that the child be medicated as per every news outlet I can find about t his.

I've seen no evidence that the vaccine caused her health issues. I've seen news reports that both the mother and CPS agreed that the daughter had certain issues. The mother decided in conjunction with other agencies not to give psychotropic drugs to her daughter. CPS decided that risperdal must be given to the daughter- and ratcheted up the level of violence to the point of having policemen running around with assault weapons all about forcibly drugging a 13 year old girl.

Again, my BS detector is going off big time here. The only thing I've heard of that causes that kind of reaction in law Your full of shit you cock sucking fascist apologist. If you like nazi cock so much why don't you go to germany and find a nazi to blow. You pro-druggers get kicked into the moral low ground by pro-drugger cops carrying around assault rifles and prepared to kill parents who don't drug their kids. If pro-druggers being willing to potentially machine gun to death a mom and her kid because she wouldn't drug her kid where are you going to stop next? Raping bambi?

The police were called in because a police officer (on the warrant issued for forcible risperedel) attempted to break and enter the home and the Mom defended her daughter by discharging a weapon. There was a massive police response because the Mom had barricaded herself in the house. These facts are not in dispute about state agencies utilizing violence to enforce their pro-drug agenda and yet you try to beg the question by attempting to reframe the issue by wondering about the mental intentions of CPS employees.

It's people like you that almost caused a thirteen year old to be machine gunned to death in Detroit.

[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]frostek 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]veryevilgenius 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments