Tag Archives: Child Protective Services

Detroit mother’s heroism sends message to all parents: Say “no” to child drugging

The story of the Detroit mother, Maryanne Godboldo, undergoing a police siege on her home after refusing to give her daughter a psychotropic drug has set off a national outcry. Many facts not only vindicate her defiance but point the finger squarely at the correct villains: the psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries.

As a recap, on March 24 a Children’s Protective Services (CPS) case worker petitioned to remove Maryanne Godboldo’s 13-year-old daughter from her care and place her in state custody. Only two weeks on the assignment (scarcely knowing the girl), the case worker claimed the mother was medically neglecting her child by taking her off Risperdal – a highly toxic antipsychotic drug.

Court files prove Mom had full legal authority to stop administering dangerous drugs to daughter; CPS raid nothing but illegal kidnapping

New developments in the case of Maryanne Godboldo — the Detroit, Mich., woman whose house was recently raided by a SWAT team with a tank, and whose daughter was subsequently kidnapped by these armed terrorists — are set to hopefully clear the mother of any wrongdoing in the matter (http://www.naturalnews.com/032090_M…).

Recently-released court documents prove that the consent form Maryanne signed agreeing to give her daughter the highly-dangerous anti-psychotic drug Risperdal was optional, and that she was always free to cease using them at any time.

Court Files Vindicate Detroit Mom In Stand Off With Police: She Had Legal Authority To Stop Daughter’s Drugging

Detroit — A mother accused of medical neglect for refusing to give her daughter a prescribed drug had authority to halt treatment, court files indicate. The “informed consent” form signed by Maryanne Godboldo, who sparked a debate over parents’ rights when her daughter was removed from her care March 25, authorized her to give her daughter, Ariana, the antipsychotic drug Risperdal…The document, signed by the mother on behalf of her minor child, says, “I understand that I will not be forced to take this medication and that I can stop taking it at anytime. I also understand that discontinuation of prescribed medication without consultation with my doctor could cause my condition to worsen.”

“I think that document proves our case,” said Godboldo’s lawyer, Wanda Evans. “She understood she had a right to stop giving the medication. If you sign an informed consent that says you can stop, and you stop, you did the right thing, and CPS (Child Protective Services) is just being nasty.”

Mother Loses Custody of Teen For Refusing to Give Her Antipsychotics, Daughter Now Held in Psychiatric Ward

A Detroit mother lost custody of her daughter after refusing to give her antipsychotic medications, which officials say the teen may not need in the first place. Her mother, Maryanne Godboldo, was accused of medical neglect when her 13-year-old daughter, Ariana, began to have erratic symptoms following a series of vaccinations, and was given an antipsychotic drug by a center for at-risk youth. Godboldo felt that the drug, however, made her daughter worse, and began looking for holistic treatments instead. Child Protective Services then tried to remove Ariana from her home, resulting in a “stand-off” with a police SWAT team during which Godboldo reportedly fired a gun. Ariana is currently at a local psychiatric hospital, where officials say there is no “emergency need” to give her antipsychotic drugs. Even more disturbingly, Ariana has tested positive for an STD, which her father is saying is proof that she was sexually abused while she was at the hospital.

The Maryanne Godboldo question: When do parents have the right to shoot back against state-sponsored kidnappers?

The story of Maryanne Godboldo and how armed government agents broke down her door and attempted to kidnap her daughter because she wouldn’t feed her psychiatric drugs brings to light an important question: When is it justified to shoot back? I’ll explore both sides of this argument here and then share my own views. On the “shoot back” side of the argument, this woman had every right to defend herself against armed assailants who were engaged in acts of violence (breaking down her door) and who conspired to kidnap her daughter. In the legal world, the term “conspiracy” simply means more than one person was involved in planning the event. This was, without question, a conspiracy to kidnap a human being.