This sounds crazy. What kind of testimony are they expecting from these young children? And how could the parents manipulate them. As far as I know this is a question of how the parents fed the kids, and wether or not it lead to the death of their baby. So how can very young children testimony shed any light on this.

Beside if the children were healthy and in no way malnourished, it was cruel to take them away in the first place

According to the original article, the remaining children were showing signs of malnutrition and that is why they were also removed from the custody of their parents. Quote from the article above:






The oldest child is 8 and the next youngest is probably between 6 and 7; quite capable of answering questions regarding what they ate on a regular basis at home which would be meaningful testimony regarding how they came to also be malnourished when their sister died.

Hello Angeline!

WOW...someone who reads both sides and inserts some common sense...THANK YOU for your heartfelt opinion! The children should NOT have been taken away and there was no malnutrition. After the states doctor examined them and gave a clean bill of health you would think they would return them but that’s not how the DCF plays the game. 90% of the law is possession in a part of the game when playing with DCF. As far as the kids testifying, the prosecutor has their testimony on tape so we thought the same thing. In fact, we though we would win the visitation hearing hands down but didn't. When I asked Lamoy how she felt she said she didn't feel she lost at all and that the prosecutor gave a good argument and deserved to win that hand. She went on to say that when you play a game of cards you don’t have to win every hand to be the winner. The prosecutor tipped his hand and now we know much more. And, her attitude is that God is running the show so she's just following and embracing what happens knowing she and her husband Joseph are victorious in the end!

Thanks for your comments and loving attitude~

Steven Gibb

Is is not a matter of law that prosector must tip his hat? It is in Canada.

Looks more like a case of making the accused fit the crime. One is reminded that power corrupts and total power corrupts totally. If those parents were a threat to the general public or likely to commit further crime or were without fixed-abode then there would be justification for remanding them in custody but neither of those situations appear to apply. The appalling injustice is the length of time those parents have already been in custody without trial. They have already lost a child but, was the apparent neglect culpable or innocent? As there appears to be doubt then why are those parents not receiving the benefit of this doubt? Nothing that I have read justifies holding those parents in custody. At this stage there appears to be only a presumption that a crime might have been committed and this is not sufficiently substantive to justify holding this couple and separating the children from their parents! The law is intended to protect the innocent and one is not supposed to be guilty until found guilty. The law is an ass!

I'm on no ones side in this except the children. They are the only ones without any kind of agenda. They had their mommy and daddy taken away and that's all they know. The State is pushing it's own agenda and probably you as well.

Unfortunately it's not possible for us to distill the truth from media reports and since we do not personally know these people our opinions are completely useless. However that never stops us from expressing one .

As I said earlier, hopefully the truth will come out in the trial. My only hope is that the real victors in this affair will
be the children.

Thanks you for your loving and intelligent comments. Please stop back to our site for update on future hearings and the trial!

Blessings,

Steven Gibb

One of the more effective treatments for cracked nipples is medical-grade modified lanolin - sheep grease. (http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/ba...tfeed/8493.html)

A vegan would be ideologically compelled to avoid such treatment, even at the expense of their child's wellbeing.

Lanolin actually comes from the sebaceous glands of sheep, it is in their wool. Sort of the equivalent of having greasy hair. You don't actually have to render down the sheep to get the good of it, but you do have to sheer them...

Since vegans reject all animal products (except for the occasional steak) - leather, milk, etc - lanolin should be out of bounds, as well.

Yes, I have heard that strict vegans will also not consume honey, as the belief is that it's produced by bees for bees only. When people remove honey from a hive, even though the bees are not physically harmed, the claim is that this disrupts their natural life cycle and causes harm indirectly.


Doreen

There are many remedies for cracked nipples that aren't animal-derived. Changing the way the baby latches on is most important, even just holding the baby in a different position can work wonders. Keeping the area clean and dry, as well as using any kind of cream, even good old vaseline, would do the trick...

Actually, one trick we learned in nursing school was to instruct a new mother to use her own breast milk to rub into the cracked area. The milk contains enzymes that would help heal the lesions. A trained nurse-midwife would have been able to provide instruction in this regard, but as I understand it, none was consulted.

Doreen

Doreen, wouldn't an electric or manual breast pump also have been an option? It seems it would be less rough than actual nursing.

It depends on where the crack is, but it is an option for a lot of problems. I had to express milk for quite a while when my son was still in the hospital, and it is a different action than nursing, so you're right, it would have been a possible solution.