The best interest of the children or human trafficking? Arizona court declares it appears being "adoptable" is the only reason State took children from their mother (pizzagate)
submitted 7.4 years ago by Factfinder2
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2017/11/20/untethered-evidence-court-reverses-department-child-safety-case-cut-mom-off-kids/868995001/
From the article:
In a rare move, the state Court of Appeals has reversed a decision that severed a mother's rights to her two children, saying state child-welfare workers presented a case "not sufficiently rooted in the evidence."… Writing for the three-judge panel, Acting Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann concluded there appeared to be only one motive to separate the mother from her kids: that the children were adoptable...The other judges, who joined in Swann's conclusions, were Michael J. Brown and Patricia A. Orozco."
https://medicalkidnap.com/2017/11/21/arizona-judge-child-removed-from-home-illegally-only-reason-was-child-was-adoptable/
“There is a great deal of federal funding in adopting out children to strangers; thus, children have literally become a commodity to be seized and sold. In any other context, this would be considered human trafficking. In the context of Child Protective Services, it is considered “in the best interest of the child.”
Full text of the court’s ruling: http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2017/1%20CA-JV%2016-0497.pdf
view the rest of the comments →
green_man 7.4 years ago
In any other context, this would be considered human trafficking.
FUCK YOU. Just because some cocksucker with a badge or state granted title performs the actions doesn't change the fact it's kidnapping and human trafficking.
view the rest of the comments →
green_man ago
FUCK YOU. Just because some cocksucker with a badge or state granted title performs the actions doesn't change the fact it's kidnapping and human trafficking.