this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2024
230 points (97.1% liked)
InsanePeopleFacebook
2624 readers
29 users here now
Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can someone help with my reading comprehension here? The person had a letter to deny healthcare for the children but said yes to healthcare for themselves?
At first I read it as the person gave them the letter saying no re healthcare for children, but when asked verbally said yes for the same.
That's what seems to have happened yeah.
it looks like this person wanted to be consulted before any care/treatment was provided to their children. when asked, they agreed to suggested care.
it looks like there is an error in their post. i do not read their statement to mean they accepted care for their own self and not for their children.
But if they agreed to the suggested care in the end, why were child protective services called?
the letter doesn't say, and the reporter may or may not have had good reason. we don't know based on the information provided.
the fact that a report was made does not inherently mean that abuse or neglect was taking place, only that someone reported concern. the fact that the report is being investigated does not mean that abuse or neglect was taking place, only that someone with CPS agreed to open a case based on what they were told.
i could call CPS and say that you are abusing a child or other vulnerable person, provide enough information about you and a plausible concern (in theory at least, whether it's based in fact or not), and CPS could choose to follow up on that report. i can make this report and they can investigate regardless of whether there is any actual evidence of abuse or neglect.
It's entirely possible that the one who reported her "misunderstood" (aka lied). However if she didn't sign anything granting permission then it wouldn't be a lie.
Alternatively they may have a policy where antivaxers with other children are automatically red flagged.