Minors forcibly from their grandmother's home by a private firm

So, this happened in my County this week. Two minors were forcibly removed from their grandmother's home for a "reunification camp" apparently arranged by their mother. In the process of the removal the pulled down the pants and pulled up the shirt of the 15-year old girl while they were manhandling her in what looks much akin to legal kidnapping. Watch the video and judge for yourself. My question, is how the fuck is this legal?

There isn't any law against it. In fact, the removal from the home was court ordered, and this firm was hired (by the court?). We don't know what led to the use of force, but the whole situation is tragic, and I imagine the more details we get, the more tragic it will appear. Alternatively, they could use law enforcement, but I don't think that would be much better.

Suffering begets suffering.

Tolerance Break said:

There isn't any law against it. In fact, the removal from the home was court ordered, and this firm was hired (by the court?). We don't know what led to the use of force, but the whole situation is tragic, and I imagine the more details we get, the more tragic it will appear. Alternatively, they could use law enforcement, but I don't think that would be much better.

Suffering begets suffering.

Click to expand...

But like the County Supervisor said in the video, “If we saw teachers or police officers or security guards grabbing and violently removing kids like this there would be serious consequences and it's crazy to me that a for-profit transportation company somehow gets to avoid the scrutiny".

I was also surprised to just see this in my local feed, and asked my wife why isn't this national news? Her response, "because sadly, it happens all the time".

I think it's fair to assume that what led to the use of force in this case was the refusal on the minors' parts to cooperate, and their practice of self-defense.

Happens quite a bit, that's how they take kids off to all those horrible places. Weirdly Paris Hilton champions against those type of facilities.

The push for parental rights is a double edged sword. The argument that parents know best and the state shouldn't overrule that isn't always great when the parents do something shitty and harmful.

I don't get it was their grandma having them removed, or were they going back to their parents or something?

Bummer situation for those kids anyway you slice it.

hanimmal said:

I don't get it was their grandma having them removed, or were they going back to their parents or something?

Bummer situation for those kids anyway you slice it.

Click to expand...

seems to me it was either at their mother’s behest (which begs the question of why they were not with her in the first place)

or the mother is a pawn in some political skulduggery aimed at “ the immigrant problem”.

What has me wondering is how the kidnapping firm got chosen by a judge.

Here's more info from another source. Apparently it stemmed from a long standing custody debate..

Santa Cruz children’s forced custody removal shines light on larger regulatory concerns
Local lawmakers seeking support for improved oversight

A group of about 50 community members gathers Oct. 27 at Lighthouse Point to bring awareness to their concerns about parental reunification camps and forced transports, such as one organizers said affected their teenage classmate earlier that month. (Shmuel Thaler — Santa Cruz Sentinel)
By JESSICA A. YORK | [email protected] | Santa Cruz Sentinel
November 3, 2022 at 4:45 p.m.
SANTA CRUZ — “This isn’t just for Maya. This is for all the kids,” Claire Protti said to a group of about 50 people standing in a candle-lit ring around her on a chilly weeknight on Lighthouse Point.
The Pacific Collegiate School sophomore is one of a small group of primarily teenage girls organizing an awareness campaign about private companies that host reunification programs with claims of reconnecting children to their estranged parents after a divorce. The teens, largely utilizing social media blasts of a video apparently depicting a private transport company’s use of force to remove their classmate and her younger brother two weeks ago, has reached viewers around the globe, the young women said. While the video has since been removed by YouTube after a complaint, it has remained available on Instagram.
Claire Protti, 15, standing in the foreground, is one of several Pacific Collegiate School students protesting the forced removal of her classmate in the midst of a family custody dispute. (Shmuel Thaler — Santa Cruz Sentinel)
The recent incident emerged from years of custody disputes between their classmate’s parents, according to case court records. The case recently culminated in a Santa Cruz County Superior Court family law division order permitting the children’s removal to a four-day Los Angeles-based center, as well as setting the children’s full custody with their mother for at least 90 days, records show.
Marcela Garcia, the mother to one of the classmate effort’s organizers, briefly addressed the vigil’s participants on the night of Oct. 27. She credited her daughter and her daughter’s friends — children themselves, she said — for bringing awareness to reunification camps and the “war zone” kids of divorced parents can be caught up in, nationwide.

“You mean to tell me that the road to reunification begins with violence,” Garcia said to the group. “Whatever led to them being there with a court order is just noise. We are here to grow the movement, to raise awareness. No child should have to go through that ever again.”
A week after the girls’ Lighthouse Field vigil, Santa Cruz Mayor Sonja Brunner and Third District Santa Cruz County Supervisor Ryan Coonerty joined forces to publicly announce their plan to seek local legislation that would regulate such private companies’ actions when it comes to court-ordered child removals. Standing Thursday afternoon in front of the family home the children were removed from two weeks earlier, Coonerty characterized the video footage as showing “completely unacceptable” and “violent force” by the contractors he identified as being employed by Assisted Interventions Inc.
Investigating use-of-force policies
Coonerty, whose niece Claire Protti is involved in organizing the protest effort, stressed that “neither the city nor the county is involved in this or other custody disputes,” and that such events involve parents and are directed by judges relying on evidence and testimony. He added that he looked into the local case after hearing from both his family and from dozens of district community members seeking a response.
“We’re not here to pick a side in this or any other case,” Coonerty said. “We are here to talk about what we see are policy failures in the treatment of Maya and Sebastian. We have an obligation to speak for them and other kids who are potentially at risk.”
Coonerty compared the recent viral footage to what he said is a Santa Cruz County Child Protective Services policy barring physically touching a child. Instead, he said he watched a video appearing to depict a transportation company that “physically overtook the children, violently carrying them away, banging their heads against car doors and the ground and pulling the pants off a 15-year-old girl in the process.”

“It’s a best practice to prevent trauma,” Coonerty said of the hands-off policy. “We will be exploring an ordinance to hold private companies, like Assisted Interventions, to the same standard.”
Santa Cruz Mayor Sonja Brunner, at left, and Santa Cruz County Supervisor Ryan Coonerty, are backed by a group of Pacific Collegiate School students Thursday during a press conference addressing the forced removal of two Santa Cruz children during a parental custody dispute. (Jessica A. York — Santa Cruz Sentinel)
Coonerty added that he hoped to see a use-of-force investigation into the recent intervention. He said he would be calling on state legislators and Gov. Gavin Newsom to license, regulate and potentially ban reunification camps, which remain unregulated, unlike the state’s child care and health care centers and schools. He said he was concerned particularly with reunification centers that are given full control over children sent to them. A state bill banning such camps died during the past legislative session, he said — a proposed law he hopes to see revived.
Brunner said she has become aware of other jurisdictions in the state that have established policies relating to situations similar to Santa Cruz’s. Enacting such changes locally would involve the cooperation of the city and county, the superior court’s law division, the family law bar and other interested stakeholders, she said.
“As a community, I just want to be sensitive to the fact that the children in the video and the family members have really had this tragic experience broadcast on social media,” Brunner said. “So, I really want to be respectful for not exacerbating the trauma the children have experienced any further.”

...

(continued)...

Santa Cruz police officers were on scene Oct. 20 when the children were taken into custody, responding after a call of a neighborhood disturbance. Deputy Chief Jon Bush said the department had received a heads-up from the court about the pending removal and that their officers met with the transportation company beforehand to vet their credentials. The court order, said Bush, offered no nuance for situations in which the children may not want to leave.
“We generally don’t get involved or will force anybody to go against their will,” Bush said. “But this was done by a third party and we actually had the court order that said they were allowed to and that it would be basically against the law for us to either intervene or to not assist.”
Young advocates shine public light
In addition to the Lighthouse Point vigil last week, the teen organizers went on to host a protest early Friday morning in front of the Watsonville courthouse, where family law cases are held.
“We should honestly be worrying about our chemistry test,” Claire said to the group gathered for the vigil, alluding to the next day’s missed classes.
She later told a reporter that “sitting in class can only teach you so much.”
“But, when your friend is in danger, that is when you need to act, no matter what,” Claire said.

After a lengthy custody dispute between the affected children’s parents, Judge Rebecca Connolly in October 2021 first awarded sole legal and physical custody to the children’s mother. Connolly, however, paused the ruling, according to court records, to allow for the children’s father to join the children for court-ordered “reunification therapy” with the children. In one of several orders laying out details of allowed parental and children interaction guidelines, the court included in a July 2021 order language that “No one shall try to or be expected to physically force a child to complete a visitation.”
Co-vigil and protest organizer Kiersten, 16, who asked not to have her last name shared, said the girls heard promises of similar vigils taking place last week across the country and even abroad, citing messages from Canada and the United Kingdom.
“Our audience is anybody who’s willing to listen. It’s to make people aware,” Kiersten said after the vigil. “It’s to kind of stop what’s happening — to kind of like, expose corruption and bring everyone home who needs to come home.”
Kiersten said she arrived at her friend’s home late into the encounter with the transporting staff and attempted to intervene. She described those on the scene as “so cold.” She said she felt traumatized from watching Maya being taken away against her will and calling out to Kiersten for help.
“I really, really tried to be there for her and I did as much as I could,” Kiersten said. “But, now we can do more, so we’re going to do as much as we can.”
The teens are sharing their messages through their @maya.and.sebastian Instagram account, located online at instagram.com/maya.and.sebastian.

Jessica A. York | Reporter
Jessica A. York covers Santa Cruz County public safety, courts and homelessness for the Sentinel. She has been a working journalist, on both coasts, since 2004.
[email protected]
Follow Jessica A. York @reporterjess

I have been trying to figure out how to best form the question, but this is the sort of situation that highlights the problem i see in libertarianism of one person's liberty running into someone else's, vs the role of the state.

1) You have parents expressing their liberty and freedom over what they think is best for their kids.

2) guess it depends, but I think most libertarians advocate teens and such have that same right to liberty and freedom. *not always for upstanding reasons

3) the state would normally act as the arbiter between those two interests butting heads, but the state is kept pretty freaking toothless under libertarians. They don't have the authority to make that ruling. Who's to say what "harm" is anymore. You have a bunch of individuals with their own interpretations rather than the collective state consensus. Who's to say what is right. If 90% of the individuals say it's wrong to do something like this, does that not step on the 10%? If your view is based on individuals, how do work with stuff where individuals have differing views on right vs wrong.

How does one reconcile the competing interests?

The example/article is obviously a terrible situation, but the underlying reasoning seems parallel to a bunch of topics that aren't as cut and dry.

Mother convicted in Qanon kidnapping plot sentenced to 60 days in jail

HGCC said:

I have been trying to figure out how to best form the question, but this is the sort of situation that highlights the problem i see in libertarianism of one person's liberty running into someone else's, vs the role of the state.

1) You have parents expressing their liberty and freedom over what they think is best for their kids.

2) guess it depends, but I think most libertarians advocate teens and such have that same right to liberty and freedom. *not always for upstanding reasons

3) the state would normally act as the arbiter between those two interests butting heads, but the state is kept pretty freaking toothless under libertarians. They don't have the authority to make that ruling. Who's to say what "harm" is anymore. You have a bunch of individuals with their own interpretations rather than the collective state consensus. Who's to say what is right. If 90% of the individuals say it's wrong to do something like this, does that not step on the 10%? If your view is based on individuals, how do work with stuff where individuals have differing views on right vs wrong.

How does one reconcile the competing interests?

The example/article is obviously a terrible situation, but the underlying reasoning seems parallel to a bunch of topics that aren't as cut and dry.

Click to expand...

I find it odd that in California, minors have the right to undergo certain medical procedures without knowledge or consent from their parents, but they don't have the same equal rights to their determine their own residency.

PJ Diaz said:

I find it odd that in California, minors have the right to undergo certain medical procedures without knowledge or consent from their parents, but they don't have the same equal rights to their determine their own residency.

Click to expand...

Because they have bodily autonomy and no credit.

As stated , tragic story. What im wondering is , if this is a “ custody “ battle , then that means the grandmother has some extent of custody now. I didn’t see a mention of father or whos mother it is, the childrens mother or father’s mother? Either way if it was court ordered why didn’t the court just order the grandmother to deliver the kids to the camp or court. I didn’t see any part about the kids having to go live with their mother other than going to a camp to try and rekindle a relationship with their mother. I personally hate the idea of a pvt company for this and many other reasons

Tolerance Break said:

Because they have bodily autonomy and no credit.

Click to expand...

But doesn't the place that you choose to reside go hand-in-hand with bodily autonomy?

It's sad, and of course it's a private company doing this. California moved to "100% hands off" (except in the case of an imminent threat to life) in Schools (Special Education), child welfare services, and county mental health facilities, which the County guy mentions in the article. I would say the legality of this is murky at best even with a court order-the removal might have been legal, but the way it was conducted opens up that company to lawsuits on behalf of those kids.

PJ Diaz said:

But doesn't the place that you choose to reside go hand-in-hand with bodily autonomy?

Click to expand...

Nobody actually has "bodily autonomy" in most parts of the world and in particular the USA. The existence of a list of "prohibited substances" provides that evidence. Any "bodily autonomy" most people, adults or teens have is privilege based rather than defaulting to a rights based circumstance.

Some people would also argue that not being able to abort is a case of bodily autonomy being restricted. Other people would argue in the opposite, being able to abort, at least from the unborn perspective is a case of bodily autonomy being ignored.

Anyway, as previously mentioned most teens are kind of stuck with their parents until they can gain some kind of financial independence. Which means it's hard for them to choose where they reside.

If / when the state steps in, teens have even fewer choices then. The state is an organization that purports to "protect bodily autonomy" but really doesn't, instead it always claims the final choice in the event of any dispute. That provides more evidence any "bodily autonomy" is privilege based
with the state being the granter or denier of that privilege. Sort of like slavery, but with cell phones.

bam0813 said:

As stated , tragic story. What im wondering is , if this is a “ custody “ battle , then that means the grandmother has some extent of custody now. I didn’t see a mention of father or whos mother it is, the childrens mother or father’s mother? Either way if it was court ordered why didn’t the court just order the grandmother to deliver the kids to the camp or court. I didn’t see any part about the kids having to go live with their mother other than going to a camp to try and rekindle a relationship with their mother. I personally hate the idea of a pvt company for this and many other reasons

Click to expand...

States and private companies in these types of instances both have people making choices about other peoples lives with or without the final say resting with the people directly involved.

Forcibly taking kids from their home is probably just as bad for the kids whether it's a private company or the state if the kids are unhappy with the outcome.

Rob Roy said:

Nobody actually has "bodily autonomy" in most parts of the world and in particular the USA. The existence of a list of "prohibited substances" provides that evidence. Any "bodily autonomy" most people, adults or teens have is privilege based rather than defaulting to a rights based circumstance.

Some people would also argue that not being able to abort is a case of bodily autonomy being restricted. Other people would argue in the opposite, being able to abort, at least from the unborn perspective is a case of bodily autonomy being ignored.

Anyway, as previously mentioned most teens are kind of stuck with their parents until they can gain some kind of financial independence. Which means it's hard for them to choose where they reside.

If / when the state steps in, teens have even fewer choices then. The state is an organization that purports to "protect bodily autonomy" but really doesn't, instead it always claims the final choice in the event of any dispute. That provides more evidence any "bodily autonomy" is privilege based
with the state being the granter or denier of that privilege. Sort of like slavery, but with cell phones.

Click to expand...

Autonomy in the US is privileged based metaphorically and physically ie. you can't do anything without money, period..the less you have the more you are charged 'convenience fee' for their convenience to do business.

Are all attorneys the same? Their fee? Who you have makes a difference and so on in every industry.

You are graded on your wealth or lack of in America in the most insidious ways.

Rurumo said:

It's sad, and of course it's a private company doing this. California moved to "100% hands off" (except in the case of an imminent threat to life) in Schools (Special Education), child welfare services, and county mental health facilities, which the County guy mentions in the article. I would say the legality of this is murky at best even with a court order-the removal might have been legal, but the way it was conducted opens up that company to lawsuits on behalf of those kids.

Click to expand...

Being stolen sets the child up for lifelong emotional trauma- ptsd that gets worse as you age..there's no controlling it either.