<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Update: &#8220;Judge determines couple with low IQs can parent both their boys&#8221;	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2018/01/judge-determines-couple-low-iqs-can-parent-boys/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2018/01/judge-determines-couple-low-iqs-can-parent-boys/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:00:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: SPO		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2018/01/judge-determines-couple-low-iqs-can-parent-boys/comment-page-1/#comment-347853</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[SPO]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:00:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.overlawyered.com/?p=68420#comment-347853</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This whole &quot;transition&quot; thing is nonsense as well.  I get that the foster parents have a deep emotional attachment to the four year old and that the child will likely benefit, but the answer is &quot;so what?&quot;  Interference with parental custody is the deprivation of a constitutional right and has to be based on some sort of inability to care for the child--here, a judge has determined that there is no basis for the interference, thus, any additional transition (i.e., keeping their kid from them) is unconstitutional.  

That&#039;s the problem here.  CPS has no consideration for the rights of the parents and seem to think that casual interference on a going-forward basis is ok.  No,  It&#039;s not ok.  And it ought to be prosecuted under federal civil rights laws.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This whole &#8220;transition&#8221; thing is nonsense as well.  I get that the foster parents have a deep emotional attachment to the four year old and that the child will likely benefit, but the answer is &#8220;so what?&#8221;  Interference with parental custody is the deprivation of a constitutional right and has to be based on some sort of inability to care for the child&#8211;here, a judge has determined that there is no basis for the interference, thus, any additional transition (i.e., keeping their kid from them) is unconstitutional.  </p>
<p>That&#8217;s the problem here.  CPS has no consideration for the rights of the parents and seem to think that casual interference on a going-forward basis is ok.  No,  It&#8217;s not ok.  And it ought to be prosecuted under federal civil rights laws.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
