State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'

Started by Men's Rights Activist, Oct 09, 2010, 11:16 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Men's Rights Activist

Ironically, left wing teachers in colleges are free to engage in abusive behavior against students in ways that parents never could toward their children, nor a husband to his wife.  If anyone had any doubts that we are living in a police state, here appears to be the confirmation:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=213149
State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'

Quote
Irish, in an interview with WND, said officers and other social services workers ordered him to stand with his hands behind his back, frisked him and then took his daughter from him and his fiancÚ at Concord Hospital where the baby had been born.
Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness are fundamental rights for all (including males), & not contingent on gender feminist approval or denial. Consider my "Independence" from all tyrannical gender feminist ideology "Declared" - Here & Now!

FP

"He told WND that other issues cited by authorities included an allegation of child abuse, which he assumed pertained to an incident weeks earlier in which one of his fiance's older sons allegedly was struck by a babysitter.

(Story continues below)

          

He said both he and his fiancÚ had been cleared by authorities in that investigation. "

Ah. So thats the main reason they nabbed the baby. Sadly this is why its smart to avoid single mothers.

Cordell Walker

stewart rhodes and the oathkeepers are gonna be raising holy hell over this
its already all over the net and the father is going to be on alex jones
"how can you kill women and children?"---private joker
"Easy, ya just dont lead em as much" ---Animal Mother

outdoors


stewart rhodes and the oathkeepers are gonna be raising holy hell over this
its already all over the net and the father is going to be on alex jones


been hearing of this all over the place,look-out!

Men's Rights Activist

The "Nanny State" is a bastard parent.
Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness are fundamental rights for all (including males), & not contingent on gender feminist approval or denial. Consider my "Independence" from all tyrannical gender feminist ideology "Declared" - Here & Now!

Captain Courageous

C.S. Lewis was right (The Screwtape Letters); the devil's minions are gubmint employees.

The Biscuit Queen

This has little to do with single mothers and everything to do with a liberal government which is very out of control. His child was kidnapped because he defends the Constitution. That is just mind boggling.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

CaptDMO


This has little to do with single mothers and everything to do with a liberal government which is very out of control. 

Wow
Do you see NO correlation between the (now) common prevalence of "single mothers"
(amongst other self-defined, and previously questioned, throughout world history)  groups and a liberal (US version) gub'mint?

How many gub'mint program pemployees would have to risk a cracked fingernail to eat if it weren't for the WORLD CATASTROPHE of the VICTIMIZATION SUFFERED by "single mothers"? (formerly known as widows, divorcees, or imprudently cautious fornicators)
Of course, the concept of man (ie.) simply ditching his family had fewer statutory "protection" liability incentives as well.     

The Biscuit Queen



This has little to do with single mothers and everything to do with a liberal government which is very out of control. 

Wow
Do you see NO correlation between the (now) common prevalence of "single mothers"
(amongst other self-defined, and previously questioned, throughout world history)  groups and a liberal (US version) gub'mint?

How many gub'mint program pemployees would have to risk a cracked fingernail to eat if it weren't for the WORLD CATASTROPHE of the VICTIMIZATION SUFFERED by "single mothers"? (formerly known as widows, divorcees, or imprudently cautious fornicators)
Of course, the concept of man (ie.) simply ditching his family had fewer statutory "protection" liability incentives as well.     



I was responding to this:
Sadly this is why its smart to avoid single mothers.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

.

#9
Oct 10, 2010, 09:01 AM Last Edit: Oct 10, 2010, 09:42 AM by John Dias
All of the uproar about this case seems very one-sided to me.  In the forums within our community (men's rights), I have noticed that no one has cited any independent corroboration of any facts related to this case.  It's all just information proceeding from the OathKeepers, from Jonathan Irish, and also from the libertarian community including WorldNetDaily.  But in fact, local media have covered the story.  Only after I started scrutinizing the situation from the professional news outlets did I start to realize that the child protection agency may in fact have made a defensible decision -- both legally and morally -- in taking custody of the couple's newborn baby.

It turns out that the parents of the newborn are not married to each other (they purport to be engaged).  However, the mother -- Stephanie Taylor -- IS STILL MARRIED TO ANOTHER MAN.  Her husband, and the father of her two other children, has refused (according to her) to sign any divorce papers.  Therefore, Stephanie Taylor has been seeing another man -- Jonathan Irish -- while apparently having retained sole custody of her two kids from her current (and as yet unnamed) husband.  She is also living together with Jonathan Irish; in other words, she's a married (not single) mom living together with her boyfriend.  It is that boyfriend -- Jonathan Irish -- who has been named as an abuser in the affidavit filed by the local child protection agency.  How did they substantiate that Jonathan Irish is an abuser?  Well it turns out that in the last two years, she has repeatedly summoned police to the house to report on violence that was perpetrated by her live-in boyfriend, Jonathan Irish.  Her (not their) two kids were for a time even removed from her care because of the boyfriend's alleged violence.

Neither Taylor or Irish are gainfully employed.  Both cite an inability to work as the reason for their non-employment.  And yet somehow, they have found the money to live together in a home despite neither earning a salary.  I suspect that child support is being collected from the father by the married mom, who is living with her unemployed boyfriend.  The boyfriend, Jonathan Irish, has recently purchased a Taser gun and two other firearms which he keeps in the house with his married girlfriend.

Time and again when we learn of child abuse, the vast majority of the time it is inflicted on the kids either by the mother's boyfriend or the mother herself.  By comparison, only a minority of child abuse is perpetrated by the biological father.  And so it is highly plausible that Jonathan Irish -- the unemployed live-in boyfriend in this case -- is legitimately a threat to the safety of the kids that aren't biologically his.

Why would I assume that there was conflict within the household of Stephanie Taylor and Jonathan Irish?  Because in the news article, Jonathan indicated that despite the fact that neither of them were employed, he was expected to be a caretaker for his disabled girlfriend.  That creates a caustic power dynamic, with an imbalance of responsibilities disproportionately borne by the boyfriend, and with neither the mother nor her boyfriend bringing home a salary.  It is easy to believe that domestic violence occurred in that household, possibly perpetrated by both partners against each other (and yet -- in law enforcement's eyes -- with the boyfriend bearing primary blame for all of the conflict).

Read the following articles with a careful eye, and see if you draw the same conclusions as I have above:

1.  Concord Monitor
October 9, 2010
"Couple: State took our baby"
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby

Quote
But according to an affidavit provided to Irish by the state Division for Children, Youth and Families, state officials took the child because of Irish's long record of violence and abuse. According to the affidavit, a judge determined that Irish abused Taylor's two other children. She is still married to the father of those children, though Taylor said yesterday that her husband has refused to accept her divorce petition for the past two years.

The affidavit also says that the police in Rochester report a "lengthy history of domestic violence" between Taylor and Irish, and that she accused him of choking and hitting her on more than one occasion. According to the document, Irish failed to complete a domestic violence course as ordered by the state, and that a hearing was held last month to terminate Taylor's parental rights over her two older children.


Quote
Irish, 24, said in an interview yesterday that he had never abused his fiancee or her other children. He said he was unemployed and collected disability becuse he is blind in his left eye from a childhood accident. He said that Taylor [his married girlfriend] suffers from "stress-induced seizure disorder" and that complications during her pregnancy required him to tend to her almost constantly.


2.  Concord Monitor
October 10, 2010
FBI responds to hospital threat
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219798/fbi-responds-to-hospital-threat

3.  WMUR-9 News, Manchester
October 8, 2010
"Bomb-Sniffing Dogs Check Hospital During Protest"
http://www.wmur.com/r/25332217/detail.html

4.  Boston Globe
October 9, 2010
"Couple say NH took baby, paperwork cites father"
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2010/10/09/couple_say_nh_took_baby_paperwork_cites_father/


FP




This has little to do with single mothers and everything to do with a liberal government which is very out of control. 

Wow
Do you see NO correlation between the (now) common prevalence of "single mothers"
(amongst other self-defined, and previously questioned, throughout world history)  groups and a liberal (US version) gub'mint?

How many gub'mint program pemployees would have to risk a cracked fingernail to eat if it weren't for the WORLD CATASTROPHE of the VICTIMIZATION SUFFERED by "single mothers"? (formerly known as widows, divorcees, or imprudently cautious fornicators)
Of course, the concept of man (ie.) simply ditching his family had fewer statutory "protection" liability incentives as well.     



I was responding to this:
Sadly this is why its smart to avoid single mothers.


And John Dias' new info confirms my belief that its smart to avoid single mothers and apparently non divorced mothers. While I have no problem believing that the state is capable of taking a kid for something so frivolous as membership in the oathkeepers "militia", the story seemed a little too vague. Now we learn that the abuse allegation may be real and the oathkeeper bit is just an arrogant lefty child agency wonk getting their dig in against conservatives.

How am I wrong in my belief BQ? I'm not saying its a great state of affairs but stories like this are why you avoid single mothers. Whether its because you run afoul of a nutter socialist child protection goomba for false reasons or the mother/children/ex use you as a punching bag legally and physically all for a relationship with the mother? Government is the cause but those single mothers are its agents, co-conspirators. You may find that diamond in the rough but until the laws change, its not worth the risk IMHO.

neoteny

Government is the cause but those single mothers are its agents, co-conspirators.


Well said.
The spreading of information about the [quantum] system through the [classical] environment is ultimately responsible for the emergence of "objective reality." 

Wojciech Hubert Zurek: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical

rph3664

Sorry, folks, I think the baby being taken away is justified in this case.  We're discussing it on another board, and the people there thought it was because of the parents' politics.  I don't agree with that either.

I just hope no harm comes to the other children, and that their dad can get custody if he's fit for it.

The Biscuit Queen

John, thank you for finding out more information, this does sound like there is a lot more going on than is being told here. Goes to show you one should believe everything one reads on the internet.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

Cordell Walker

as far as Im concerned, the fact that the affidavit mentions the oath keepers PERIOD AT ALL, taints the CPS case on any and all other counts.
THe fact that the OK's are mentioned specifically in the document renders the rest of it  moot.
If the CPS had a REAL case then they wouldnt have brought up somethin like that.
"how can you kill women and children?"---private joker
"Easy, ya just dont lead em as much" ---Animal Mother

Go Up