Archived page

    “Even after a judge required ACS to reunite Ms. Rivers with her baby, ACS continued to subject Ms. Rivers to needless court proceedings and a litany of conditions that interfered with her parenting of TW for months, while the unlawful removal of her baby was ratified by senior ACS leadership,” the complaint reads. “This was not because ACS was trying to protect TW; this was because Ms. Rivers is Black.”

    • halvo317
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except a court ruled in my favor for $75k, so tell me again who is right

      • AngryHumanoid@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well if you tried actually reading the article it sounds like the settlement was for the delay in returning the baby and the practice of using pot use as a negative factor. Not testing the baby or mother for marijuana, and not removing the baby because the mother smoked pot in the hospital while pregnant. Headlines are not an adequate source of information, you have to keep reading.

        • halvo317
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, $75k for violating human rights.

          • AngryHumanoid@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you think that’s some magic phrase you can parrot with absolutely no context? Let try an easy one: what human right did they violate? Are you referring to one of the 30 defined by the UN? If so which one? Are you using a different definition? If so cite your reference please.

            • halvo317
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              In no particular order

              All human beings are free and equal.
              No discrimination.
              Right to life.
              No torture and inhuman treatment.
              Same right to use law.
              Equal before the law.
              Right to be treated fair by the court.
              Innocent until proved guilty.
              Right to privacy.
              Human rights can’t be taken away.

              • AngryHumanoid@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                OK now cite specific actions listed in the article and which violation they match up to. You started by saying testing them for marijuana was a violation of human rights, maybe start by explaining that one.

                • halvo317
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You can keep moving those goalposts. I’ve got the law on my side.