Black newborn baby taken from mother who smoked weed at a family barbecue: report

[hookaleft]

A Black woman had her newborn baby removed from her care by children's services in New York City after she legally smoked cannabis, according to a report.

Chanetto Rivers has filed a lawsuit against the Administration for Children's Services, which she said directed the hospital where she delivered her son not to allow her to take her baby home -- although the agency isn't supposed to remove children because a parent used marijuana unless they found it had impaired the child, reported the New York Times.

“While ACS is tasked with protecting New York State’s interest in the welfare of children, ACS has long known — through the State’s own data — that Black families, like Ms. Rivers and [her son], face separation and surveillance by ACS at much higher levels than white families," the lawsuit alleges.

The suit claims the BronxCare Health System hospital where Rivers gave birth tested her and her baby for drugs without consent and reported the positive test to a state agency, which then triggered the ACS investigation and the instruction not to release the infant to his mother.

cut>

https://www.rawstory.com/black-mother-children-s-services/

[roamer65]

1. So are they going to take kids away for social drinking, too?

Stupid move by NYS.

[Ms. Toad]

6. Drinking is legal. Smoking pot is not legal - anywhere in the US.

Federal law supercedes state law on drugs, and marijuana is still not legal for any purpose under Federal law.

Anyone whose career requires background or drug checks, or - apparently - the right to parent needs to be aware that no matter how wrong-headed the law is, and how rarely the law is enforced, you are taking a risk when you engage in illegal activities.

That said, it smacks of the anglicization of native children that occurred in the 50s. My (adopted) brother was taken from his family because his mother drank. There were other family members who were providing care when his mother could not, and no white child would have been taken from his parents under the same circumstances. But the goal, those days, was to assimilate native children.

[toddwv]

8. Sorry, but your post is VERY incorrect

From the NY Governor's website:

Legal Adult Use and Possession in NYC

It is now legal for adults 21 and older to possess up to three ounces of cannabis and up to 24 grams of concentrated cannabis for personal use in New York. Adults may smoke or vape cannabis wherever smoking tobacco is allowed under the smoke-free air laws, with a few exceptions.

Cannabis use is not allowed in motor vehicles (even if they are parked) or in outdoor dining areas at restaurants. Smoking or vaping cannabis in prohibited areas may result in a civil summons and fine.

It is still against the law for people younger than 21 years old to possess, sell or use any amount of cannabis. Also, no one may legally possess more than three ounces of cannabis and 24 grams of concentrated cannabis, sell any amount without a license, or drive while under the influence or impaired by cannabis.

https://www.nyc.gov/site/doh/health/health-topics/marijuana.page

Map of Marijuana legalization by state:



From https://disa.com/maps/marijuana-legality-by-state

[Ms. Toad]

17. My post is accurate. Federal law supersedes state law on marijuana.

In other words, it makes absolutely no difference what laws an individual state passes. Marijuana is a Schedule I drug under federal law. That is the same classification as heroin and LSD. That classification cannot be overridden by state law.

The federal government has currently made recreational use of marijuana a low priority prosecution, but if that changes - perhaps by Trump or DeSantis taking office, they can reach back and prosecute 5 years retroactively (the statute of limitations for violation of most federal drug laws is 5 years).

[Cuthbert Allgood]

23. As indicated below, state agencies enforce state laws.

And Biden needs to remove THC from the schedule as soon as possible.

[Ms. Toad]

28. CPS is not enforcing the drug laws.

The mother has not been arrested for violation of drug laws.

CPS is charged with determining whether the child is safe in the home. Crimes - regardless of jurisdiction, especially those which might pose harm to the child - such as taking Schedule I drugs - can be taken into consideration.

Surely you wouldn't argue that the state CPS could not consider the commission of a federal hate crime against LGBT individuals (which is NOT a crime in many states) when evaluating whether a gay child was safe in their parents home.

It's not up to Biden to remove THC. As a general rule, Congress has to create an exemption (like exists for tobacco and alcohol). A second route would be a more extended process through the DEA and FDA to change it to a Schedule II or III.

Crimes like drug crimes, particularly when the state has decided to pretend Federal laws don't exist, have a high potential for abuse (like drug testing black mothers but not white ones, or testing based on flimsy reasons (e.g. lowballing the baby's apgar score so that there is a reason to test).

I'm not arguing what should be. I'm stating what is - and there's a heck of a lot of people who are not aware of the risks they are taking when they rely on state laws to protect their licenses or their families, when the law is very clear: use of marijuana is illegal everywhere in the US. It is very similar to parents of black children making their children aware that their survival may well depend on being super squeaky clean - and that they may not be able to get away with doing things their white peers do.

[sl8]

20. From your NY link: "Under federal law, cannabis possession and use in all forms remains illegal." nt

[roamer65]

9. These are state authorities.

Acting under state law, not federal.

New York is now a legal, recreational MJ state.

[Ms. Toad]

14. That isn't relevant.

Federal laws supercede state laws as to drugs. While the federal government has made recreational use a low priority for prosecution, it is still a crime in all 50 states.

As to child protective services, you aren't seriously suggesting that child protective services would ignore a federal crime committed by a parent if that crime endangers a child, are you?

Again - I think this particular incident is probably a pretext based on racial profiling. But it doesn't change the reality that anyone who whose ability to work or parent their children should be attentive to the actual law, not the myth that recreational (or even medicinal) use of marijuana is legal anywhere in the US, because it isn't.

[Phoenix61]

16. It's a state agency so they follow state laws. nt

[Ms. Toad]

29. Correct, to an extent.

They are not enforcing the drug laws. They are assessing whether the child is safe in the home, not arresting the mother for violation of the law. There are lots of things a parent can do which are not illegal under state law (or perhaps anywhere) - but which still put their child in jeopardy. You wouldn't want CPS to ignore parents who commit a federal hate crime against a class of people which includes their child, simply because the state law doesn't make that particular activity a hate crime.

Under federal law, which applies everywhere in the United States, using marijuana is the same as using LSD or heroin. All three are Schedule I drugs.

I'm simply making people of the risks, of which many are unaware, when choosing to ignore Federal law on use of marijuana. Anyone who does so and has a license or family to protect, should take that risk into account when considering whether to imbibe.

[RobinA]

19. Doubtful On The Racial Profiling

Having worked for CPS we had way too much to do and way too few foster homes to be worrying about any child's race. Plus, the CPS social worker pool is extremely diverse, usually leaning far more towards being African American in more urban agencies.

As I said in another post, I doubt this women lost her child simply because she smoked pot. There's gotta be history here. My bet when I wrote my original post was that this woman had children taken before. AND, sure enough...

[questionseverything]

25. Once a family gets on dcfs radar the agency will harass them repeatedly

Is basically what you are admitting

[WhiskeyGrinder]

26. ope

[questionseverything]

27. What's ope?

[Ms. Toad]

30. I know too much to ignore the possibility of racial profiling.

The history with my adopted siblings, my spouse worked for CPS, crack was (for many years) punished far more heavily that cocaine, etc. I don't doubt that this woman has a history. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that multiple generations of her family have a history.
That doesn't mean racial profiling isn't/wasn't going on.

Non-white families are treated as suspect for things which are let slide for white families. In the same way that young black men are perceived as a threat when young white men engaging in the same activity are not. We live in a society that has a racial hierarchy, and even when people believe they are not acting in a race biased way - that unconscious bias often comes through.

[FakeNoose]

2. This is a horrible situation

I hope this mother has the legal resources to fight this.

[tblue37]

3. This sort of thing makes me want to chew nails and spit carpet tacks!

[Emile]

4. WTF

[RobinA]

5. Having Worked

for CYS (not in NY), I'd bet a nice amount of money there's more to this story

[sl8]

18. She had lost custody of her two older kids 5 years prior, but A.C.S hasn't said if that's a factor.

I'd like to hear their side, as well.

[RobinA]

21. Well, The Factor

that was a factor before is probably still a factor. That's usually the way it works in this type of situation.

[RAB910]

7. I am withholding judgment

Did the baby test positive for marijuana? If so, I can see a legit issue. Based on the lawsuit, there seems to be an unspoken fact that she was smoking marijuana just prior to giving birth. So it seems the issue that protective services had was baby's exposure to marijuana rather than the mother's usage.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

10. Both she and the baby were tested, without her consent.

The NYT article this rawstory garbage is spun from: https://archive.ph/Ap5lj#selection-493.0-501.119

Without Ms. Rivers’s consent, she said, she and her baby were tested for drugs. Both were positive for marijuana. Two days later, the city’s child welfare agency, the Administration for Children’s Services, ordered the hospital not to release the baby to Ms. Rivers, her lawyers said.

and:

New York’s legalization law bars removing a child for a parent’s marijuana use alone. A.C.S.’s policy states that marijuana in an infant’s system is not grounds for removal without a finding that the baby might be impaired, and A.C.S. never said that the baby, identified in court papers as T.W., was harmed by the marijuana exposure, Ms. Rivers’s lawyers said.

But it took nearly a week altogether, multiple trips to court and a judge’s order before she gained custody of her son.

Preventing the early bonding between mother and son caused a lot more harm than any cannabis the baby had in his system.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

11. Would this officer had done the same for a white parent?

[marble falls]

12. Let's find out ...

[Hekate]

22. Excellent and relevant question, imo

[sl8]

13. Lawsuit (pdf) :

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/Suit-Against-NYC-ACS-Over-Prenatal-Marjuana-Use/2ca589d81b4a1c1a/full.pdf

[Frasier Balzov]

15. Are edibles that much harder to get in the Just-Say-No states?

[Hekate]

24. Pot hangs out in the user's bloodstream much longer than quickly-metabolized drugs like meth...

…and coke (I think I have those 2 examples right) Using edibles wouldn’t help.

Pot is less dangerous by far — but so easy to catch.