This is [expletive] horrendous! I can't believe the depths of oppressive evil our government has fallen into that it thinks it can simply take away a woman's child because she is homeless.
slaveofone | Homepage | 04.01.06 - 12:15 am | #

Right up until 35 years ago such actions were routine in Australia where police/welfare authorities would remove babies from native aboriginal women and farm them out to white families to be raised. (The Stolen Generation) It was bad then and it's no different now no matter where in the world it happens. One of the Australian cases was Deborah Cheetham who travelled the world with a one woman show entitled "White Baptist ABBA Fan." Hers was a horror story and yet maybe if she hadn't been removed from her mother she may never have lived. What's left of Western culture however, always seems to take the easy way out. Take the babies and do nothing to help the mothers 'cos well they're not a good or easy investment I guess.
Another Steve | 04.01.06 - 12:30 am | #

No, frankly, I'm not appalled by this at all. If the child is endangered by living in filthy, hazardous conditions, the state can take action just as if the child were being abused, neglected,chained, or starved. While I hope due process will be observed in the proceedings, my instinct is to trust a police officers assessment of the situation (even more than aa social workers' assessment.)
See-Dubya | 04.01.06 - 2:30 am | #

See-Dubya, I'm not outraged that the child was placed in protective custody — the deputies may well have had good reason for that. But to fail to find shelter for the mother and grandmother as well is outrageous. What are they supposed to think when their child/grandchild is snatched away and they're tossed back onto the street? To alienate them in that way would make them fearful of asserting their parental/grandparental rights. Perhaps they don't deserve those rights -- but that's for a court to decide. When the mother and grandmother have been alienated from governmental authorities, they're not likely to want to learn what legal recourse they may have.

The interest of government should always be in preserving families. Whether a parent is abusive or negligent should be decided by the judiciary — and the poor should receive the same brand of justice as the rich.

If those deputies thought that the mother and grandmother had done something criminal, they would have held them. It's sadly ironic that such a case would have been the only way the deputies would have given the women a place to spend the night.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.01.06 - 2:55 am | #

I agree government should preserve families. And you know I am the farthest thing from a Sangerite in California.

But I can't sign on to arresting these women in order to give them a place to rest. Being homeless isn't criminal. Being too poor to feed and shelter your child is tragic, but not criminal.

Besides, the way I read the story, the deputies tried for hours to find shelter for the women but were unsuccessful. It was the women who cried for the baby's loss and continued on their way--presumably voluntarily. Presumably they will be back for the baby soon.
See-Dubya | 04.01.06 - 3:39 am | #

I was being facetious in saying that if the women were arrested, they would have a place to rest. (I'll alter that comment to point that up, since it wasn't as obvious as I thought.) As I said, if they've been frightened away by having their kid snatched and then being tossed back onto the street, they're not so likely to attempt to see the child again.

I really don't see any excuse for the deputies' inability to find shelter for the women. San Diego's a big place.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.01.06 - 3:41 am | #

See-Dubya, thinking about your comment, I think you're unwittingly falling into a common libertarian trap, which is assuming that poor and uneducated individuals have no basis to be afraid of police and courts. If a person's only experience of police is being arrested, harassed or — God help us — having their baby snatched away, and if their only experience of courts is having themselves or a relative represented by an ineffective court-appointed lawyer, it's possible they might be less aware of their rights than someone who's had a better start in life.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.01.06 - 3:52 am | #

Can't we hold the father accountable? This story creates more questions than answers.
Richard J Stuart | Homepage | 04.01.06 - 8:25 am | #

It's an appalling situation, and the cops were placed in a Catch-22. Had they left the baby with the women and something terrible happened, they'd have been blamed and would have felt wretched. They chose, I'm sure, what seemed to be the lesser of two evils.

I agree that just being homeless doesn't by definition make you an unfit mother. Mary and Joseph, after all, had no home to offer Jesus during the flight to Egypt!

I'm just hoping that the publicity about the case generates a solution.
Christina | Homepage | 04.01.06 - 9:19 am | #

ooooohhhhhh,CW, _I_ see! So, how about if she was a nursing mother? Very likely, with poor homeless 9-day post-partum women. And how about if she needed post-partum care? How about if she was still hemorrhaging? What was the authorities' duty in the first scenario? What in the second and third? What is our duty for a 19-year-old homeless?

It's hard to believe that the stupid and negligent authorities would not _at the very least_ have given this story immediately to the local radio and press, appealing for help.

It seems like "pro-choice" mothers get punished for making the "wrong" choice, i.e., to keep a baby. Oh, never mind, I'm actually pro-choice myself. Live eternally with the consequences, you happy abortion-choicers!
RR-ARE | 04.01.06 - 9:45 am | #

I also have a VERY hard time believing there was no place for the mother to stay. I know homeless shelters fill up fast, but frankly they typically aren't as full during nicer weather. No womens shelters, no maternity homes...he could have picked up a phone and called a CPC. We have families who will take people in for a limited amount of time until a more permanent arrangement can be found. Heck I know of a family who the state was putting up in a motel because there was currently no room at the womens shelter (the reason why the lost their apartment was because the landlord had raped one of the family members)
Sarah Faith | 04.01.06 - 10:02 am | #

San Diego County, which is patrolled by the Sheriff's Dept. is mostly either rural, state park or fringe urban. They patrol over 4,200 sq. miles which is almost 5 1/2 times the area of NYC and with a fraction of the population and services. The deputy tried for hours to find a shelter for the women but didn't succeed, and only then followed the law and turned the baby over to the county's child services. With the weather we have been having in California recently I'm not sure that a 9-day old infant was better off in a shopping cart in the rain then at a shelter or hospital.
Pat Patterson | 04.01.06 - 2:10 pm | #

Sorry my math skills deserted me, San Diego County is almost eleven times larger in area than NYC with less than half of the population.
Pat Patterson | 04.01.06 - 2:13 pm | #

The fact that the woman cried and hadn't abandoned her baby should have made it painfully obvious that the mother loved her baby and just needed help.

The really heartless ones are the people that couldn't see that this woman was trying to do her best and instead of helping her they assumed her life was a forgone conclusion.
SBW | Homepage | 04.01.06 - 3:55 pm | #

Trying to do her best doesn't necessarily make her a fit mother for a newborn; neither does crying. Sometimes there just isn't a perfect solution no matter how much you want there to be.
Ledasmom | 04.01.06 - 7:03 pm | #

The geographical facts about the west coast are often shocking and surprising to east coasters, because all they usually see of California (Oregon and Washington too) are the dense urban areas. What I found interesting about this was that the family had been kicked out of a motel - older motels have become de facto shelters for the homeless in much of california, and often are subsidized by welfare agencies.
I really wish that I knew more of the back story here. WHere did this mom give birth? in the motel? or in a hospital? was she discharged out the door with no plans for backup or follow up? was she an illegal immigrant or simply a homeless person with no coping skills? mentally ill? drugs or alcohol? were there reasons why no shelter would take her?

One of the big bad side effects of the sexual/cultural revolution is that we no longer have the 'homes for unwed mothers' that at one time were an important resource.
alicia | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 8:57 am | #

The deputies were probably looking in the wrong places. I know of churches in the Sab Diego area that would help. The problem being that churches are the last resort for government agencies to use. That mother and grandmother need to be found and reunited with their child. Family is the best place for a child unless the family is abusing the child. I saw no evidence that the child was in an abusive situation. California is pretty mild this time of year. Dawn you are right that there are too many details missing from this story.
Al of Alnot | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 1:50 am | #

BTW I went to the link and also saw the story where two children were found burned to death in the back of a car that had ben doused with gasoline. It exploded when lit and the father of the children was found critically burned. He is a suspect in the killings. It seems he was in a custody battle with his wife. No matter how crazy things might get with my wife our kids would never be harmed by either of us. This story shocked me.
Al of Alnot | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 2:00 am | #

Mild compared to the East Coast but the weather for the 31st ranged from a high of 63 degrees to a low of 16 degrees. The barometer was dropping and all indications were that it was going to rain in the area that night. Again this area was not in San Diego City but in an unincorporated area in the foothills around El Cajon. I might hate to have to make the decision that the deputies did but the physical circumstances would have certainly played the most important factor in that decision.
Pat Patterson | 04.03.06 - 2:56 am | #

It's really sad, the whole thing. But if this young woman was in jail, she would not have been separated from her child.
Christine (Rambling GOP Soccer | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 8:11 am | #

Before criticizing the cops for making a decision, you might consider the various factors that went into it.

One of the worst things about police work is that you can't save everybody. Sometimes you have to make a choice. Since the infant can't take care of itself, and its mother wasn't in a place where she could do it, I think the cops acted appropriately. If the mother and grandmother wanted shelter, they would have asked. And as prior commenters have pointed out, the southwest isn't like NYC, with shelters and resources for the homeless all over the place.

Before you want to call the cops 'despicable', try being one for a day. I doubt you could hack it.
Dan | 04.03.06 - 9:57 am | #

In India, babies sit on the streets eating dirt, because there is no child welfare system to prevent them from being homeless.

In America, children of people living on the street are removed and placed in foster care, so they can have a roof over their heads.

Which do you prefer? Would you rather the baby froze or starved to death? As long as he's born and she didn't "contracept," we're not supposed to intervene beyond that?
Someone | 04.03.06 - 10:16 am | #

Someone, you appear to be attacking a straw man.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 1:15 pm | #

What troubles me about this story is the decision undertaken by the police. There are fashions in social mores just like in the clothing industry. When I was a boy I wrode my bicycle without a helmet, in full knowledge of the potential danger should I fall and hit my head. Today I'm considered a terrible parent if I allow my son to take precisely the same risk.

This mother was penalized for not meeting a certain standard of wealth which, while meaningful to our society in this present time, has little relevance in the history of humankind. The poor have generally been allowed to raise their children as best they can. Christian charity, when best applied, is focused on strengthening the foundation of the families of the poor instead of on dividing them in order to conquer poverty.

This story does not say what provisions this young mother had made for her baby's well-being. It is in no way clear that the baby would have died under her care. We do know she had her own mother with her, a woman who somehow successfully raised a child of her own. We are expected to presume, as the police officers did, that she was irresponsible or inept, and less able to protect her offspring than a common alley cat.

This is the kind of horror that arises in a society with a memory of Christian charity but with no accompanying Christian intelligence to guide our charitable efforts. Without an understanding of the importance of the family unit, our attempted acts of mercy will inevitably be marred by injustice, tragedy and sorrow.
Joel | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 1:57 pm | #

This mother was penalized for not meeting a certain standard of wealth which, while meaningful to our society in this present time, has little relevance in the history of humankind.

She's living in our society in this present time, not in the history of mankind.

Many babies have died, historically, who can be saved now. That is no reason not to save them.

It is in no way clear that the baby would have died under her care.

How clear does it have to be before we are entitled to intervene?
Mary | 04.03.06 - 9:34 pm | #

She's living in our society in this present time, not in the history of mankind.

It's ironic to assert that a homeless person is "living in our society." But leaving that aside, she's living in this present time and in the history of humankind simultaneously.

Many babies have died, historically, who can be saved now. That is no reason not to save them.

I'm not arguing that we oughtn't save babies, far from it. But how disgusting is a society whose democratic government "saves" babies by ripping them from their mothers, and fails to muster the will to keep that family intact?

How clear does it have to be before we are entitled to intervene?

Your use of the word "entitled" is chilling; as if the intervention is something we do for our own benifit instead of the benifit of those who are the object of our intervention. Perhaps you don't mean it that way.

That being said, I think you've put your finger on the real question. And I'd say it must be very clear indeed, particularly when there are alternative ways to address such situations. Splitting a family is catastrophic. Let's be honest about this young mother's chances for having her child returned to her. They aren't particularly good.
Joel | Homepage | 04.04.06 - 1:57 am | #

I remember that baby straped in her high chair, found dead, after being abused by her adoptive parents. There is not adequate shelter places for women and children. It's heartless to take a 9 day old baby away from it's mother. True officers can't save everyone, but in this case, it might have been nice for them each to contribute $25. and put the ladies in a Motel 6 for the night; buying time to find some Christian Charity willing to help. A 23 year old woman recently had her baby at home in the bathroom, and stuffed tissues down it's throat, tossed the still living newborn in a trash bag. If the homeless mother and grandmother didn't care about the baby, it may have been left to a similar fate. The ladies might be unaware, of being able to take unwanted newborns to hospitals, no questions asked. Did the gentlemen ask her if she wanted to give up her child in that manner?
mary | Homepage | 07.09.06 - 7:50 pm | #