Poppy seeds really do skew drug tests

Poppy seeds really do skew drug tests
WENCY LEUNG
Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Monday, November 1, 2010 1:23PM EDT

Beyond male “shrinkage” and “worlds colliding,” consider this another life lesson you learned from Seinfeld: Eating poppy seeds can lead to a positive reading on a drug test.

A Pennsylvania mother found out the hard way when child welfare authorities took her baby after she failed a drug test. Seems the poppy-seed bagel she ate before delivery triggered a false positive result, WLBZ 2 , a local broadcaster in Maine, reports.

MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY
Mail-order gourmet
Six tips on deciphering food labels
Counting the cost of a big snack attack
Elizabeth Mort’s daughter Isabella was removed after the new mom’s hospital blood work indicated she was using opiates. However, the child was returned to her parents five days later when there was no evidence to show Ms. Mort had used illegal drugs, WLBZ 2 says.

The American Civil Liberties Union is filing a lawsuit on Ms. Mort’s behalf.

So just how sensitive are drug tests to the opiates in poppy seeds?

According to Cynthia Whiteman, a forensic drug-testing analyst, the idea that eating a poppy-seed bagel could get you flagged as a drug user is “not a myth at all.”

“Every part of the plant does have morphine. The seeds have a very small amount but still will get positive results [on a drug test],” Ms. Whiteman tells the food site Chow.

The results will vary from person to person, but research has suggested that eating just two poppy-seed rolls with less than a gram of seeds in each could lead to a positive test for up to six hours, Chow reports.

Before your next visit to the doctor’s, you’re probably safest sticking with sesame.

Child "Protective" Services People fit the Profile of a Sociopath

Child "Protective" Services People fit the Profile of a Sociopath
Adapted from Exit & Support Network's "Profile of a Sociopath" regarding religious cult leaders and used here on condition of linking back to their content.

Countless CPS people display many of the behavioral characteristics of a sociopath. They believe they are superior, and they are not widely recognized as deviant or disturbed. Only a trained professional can make a diagnosis. Unfortunately the "trained professionals" are working in COLLUSION with them for the Federal Funding Streams. It is important to be able to recognize the personality type in order to expose them for what they really are.

Glibness/Superficial Charm
Language can be used without effort by them to confuse and convince their audience. Captivating storytellers that exude self-confidence, they can spin a web that intrigues others. Since they are persuasive, they have the capacity to destroy their critics verbally or emotionally.

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors permissible. They may appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." Craves adulation and attendance. Must be the center of attention with their own fantasies as the "spokesman for God," "enlightened," "leader of humankind," etc. Creates an us-versus-them mentality

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around her as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for Love
While they talks about "love" they is unable to give or receive it. Very harsh in testing it from their clients and expects them to feel guilt for their failings. Expects unconditional surrender.

Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge, yet testing the gullibility of their "clientele" with bizarre rules, punishments and behaviors. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. Their skills are used to exploit, abuse and exert power. Since the clientele cannot believe their government would callously hurt them, they rationalize her behavior as necessary for their own "good" and ignore the abuse. When the client become aware of the exploitation it feels like a "rape" to them.

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believes they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others. They see themselves as near perfect.

Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerning about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blame their clients or others of their family. Blame reinforces passivity and obedience and produces guilt, shame, terror and conformity in the clients.

Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
They may frequently practice promiscuity, homosexuality, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts. This is usually kept hidden from all but the inner circle. Stringent sexual control of their clients, such as forced breakups and divorces, removal of children from parents, rules for dating, etc.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future. Great contrast between the government employee's lifestyle and the client's impoverishment. Highly sensitive to their own pain and health.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image and that of the agency as needed to avoid prosecution and to increase income and to recruit a range of supporters. Is able to adapt or relocate as needed to preserve the agency. Always "on vacation" or "retired" after pulling off a "high risk" caper with too much public attention. Can resurface later in a different agency and a new twist on the same old scam.

Other Related Qualities:

Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them

Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them

Authoritarian

Secretive

Paranoid

Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired

Conventional appearance

Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)

Exercises despotic control over every aspect of their victim's life

Has a psychological need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their agency's affirmation

Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim

Incapable of real human attachment to another

Unable to feel remorse or guilt

Extreme narcissism and grandiose

May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare. In the 1830's this disorder was called "moral insanity." By 1900 it was changed to "psychopathic personality." More recently it has been termed "antisocial personality disorder." Order: Without Conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us by Robert D. Hare.

http://familyrights.us/social_work/profile_of_a_sociopath.htm

Baby LK Report For Halloween 2010 - The Scariest Baby LK Ever

http://legallykidnapped.blogspot.com/2010/10/baby-lk-report-for-halloween-2010.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/XkAqv+(Legally+Kidnapped)

Study: Alcohol More Lethal Than Heroin, Cocaine

Study: Alcohol More Lethal Than Heroin, Cocaine
Lifestream
Maria Cheng
AP
LONDON (Oct. 31) -- Alcohol is more dangerous than illegal drugs like heroin and crack cocaine, according to a new study.

British experts evaluated substances including alcohol, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and marijuana, ranking them based on how destructive they are to the individual who takes them and to society as a whole.

Researchers analyzed how addictive a drug is and how it harms the human body, in addition to other criteria like environmental damage caused by the drug, its role in breaking up families and its economic costs, such as health care, social services, and prison.

Heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamine, or crystal meth, were the most lethal to individuals. When considering their wider social effects, alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine were the deadliest. But overall, alcohol outranked all other substances, followed by heroin and crack cocaine. Marijuana, ecstasy and LSD scored far lower.

The study was paid for by Britain's Centre for Crime and Justice Studies and was published online Monday in the medical journal, Lancet.

Read More:
http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/study-alcohol-more-lethal-than-heroin-cocaine/19696816?test=latestnews

"Nobody Gets Their Kids Back "

"Nobody Gets Their Kids Back " (Major Update, October 14)

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/10/nobody-gets-their-kids-back.html

The "Petition for Abuse/Neglect" filed on behalf of Cheyenne Irish by New Hampshire's Division of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) alleges that the baby, who was born on October 6, was "neglected" by her mother on that very day in the hospital where the infant was born.

What this means is that Stephanie Taylor's act of "neglect" was to give birth to her child, and that the only way she could have avoided that charge was to have Cheyenne killed in utero. Because Stephanie had neglected this supposed duty, the DCYF kidnapped Cheyenne a little more than 16 hours following her birth.


Barring a near-miraculous outcome, Cheyenne's parents will never get their daughter back. So testifies New Hampshire resident Dorothy Knightly. Between August 31, 2005 and February 3, 2006, Dorothy (who prefers to be called Dot) saw three of her grandchildren abducted by the DCYF on the basis of spurious child abuse and neglect allegations.

Dot's grandson Austin (who is now ten years old), was so traumatized by the kidnapping that he attempted suicide. As a result he was institutionalized and "medicated" with dangerous psychotropic drugs. Two of Dot's grandchildren have been adopted, and the DCYF won't permit any contact with the grandparents. Ally was placed with her father.

All of this began on August 31, 2005, when Dot's daughter Candy gave birth to a daughter named Isabella. At some point in the pregnancy Candy developed a condition called placenta previa. Although this usually requires that the child be delivered via C-section, Candy was put on a morphine drip and Isabella was delivered normally. Predictably, this meant that a urine test found morphine in Isabella's bloodstream -- a circumstance easily explained as a result of the circumstances of her birth, but was maliciously depicted as evidence that Candy had "abused" her baby through pre-natal drug use.

Believing that this matter would be quickly and easily cleared up, Dot and her husband applied for temporary custody of Isabella in their home. They eagerly and cheerfully cooperated with the DCYF out of the common but tragically mistaken belief that agencies of that kind are operated by people who actually care about children, governed by laws, and burdened with scruples.

"We let those people into our home," Knightly lamented to Pro Libertate. "We opened the door and greeted them with smiles. We offered them coffee and treated them well. We trusted them. We assured our daughter, `don't worry -- they're not going to take your baby.' We assumed that we had rights, that the law meant something, and that the people in the DCYF would have to obey the rules. We'll never make that mistake again, and we hope other people won't either."

Two weeks after Isabella was born, a false child abuse report was filed with the DCYF alleging that Austin and his sister Ally had been molested by their father, who was married to Dot's other daughter, Holly.When they were notified of the accusation, Dot and Holly immediately took the children to the Southern New Hampshire Medical Center to be examined for evidence of molestation. A comprehensive screening revealed no evidence of abuse of any kind.



Nonetheless, during a preliminary hearing regarding custody of Isabella on September 26, 2005, DCYF official Kate McClure unflinchingly committed perjury by claiming that the medically debunked molestation charge had been "confirmed," adorning that lie with a critical decorative detail: The purported act has supposedly taken place in the grandparents' home.


Once that charge had been made by the DCYF, the fate of Dot's grandchildren was settled, in everything but the details.

A DCYF document entitled "Notice to Accused Parent" explains the ground rules that govern New Hampshire's "family law" court system: "All Court hearings and records of abuse and neglect cases are confidential. The hearings are not open to the public and only people involved in the case, or invited by the parties and approved by the Court, will be admitted to the Court hearings." In practice this means that DCYF banishes from such hearings anybody who can speak effectively on behalf of the accused.

A "preliminary hearing" can result in the DCYF being awarded "protective supervision or legal custody" over a child, "which would give DCYF the right to temporarily remove your child[ren] from parental care and custody and determine where and with whom your child[ren] will live," explains the document.

At no point in the process is it necessary to prove that abuse occurred. Even at an "adjudicatory hearing" -- the equivalent of a criminal trial -- the standard is a "preponderance of evidence," rather than a requirement to demonstrate guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." But the threshold for a judicial decision to award custody of a child to the DCYF is merely the presentation of "evidence."


In substantive terms, an anonymous, unsubstantiated accusation of abuse qualifies as "evidence." In the same fashion, "temporary," as defined in New Hampshire child abuse cases, is a synonym for "indefinite." Once a judge has granted custody or protective supervision to the DCYF, the matter is placed beyond judicial remedy, and the child's fate will be determined by the child-snatcher bureaucracy.

After Candy was charged with "neglecting" Isabella by receiving a morphine drip during a difficult delivery, the grandparents were forbidden to present evidence at either the preliminary or the adjudicatory hearing. On October 3, 2005, the DCYF seized Isabella, who at the time was a little more than one month old. She was never seen again by her grandparents.Candy was allowed brief, sporadic visits until March of 2006.

One particularly provocative aspect of this case involves Candy's refusal to apply for DCYF-administered welfare benefits. On September 2, 2005 -- less than a month after Isabella was born -- DCYF employee Melissa Deane tried to persuade Candy to apply for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Candy refused to do so, pointing out that she and Isabella would be living with the grandparents and wouldn't need welfare aid -- or the invasive government supervision that would come with it.


On September 28 -- two days after the preliminary hearing upheld the neglect charge against Candy -- Ms. Deane signed the application and filed it herself. A few days later, DCYF kidnapped Isabella from the hospital, eventually arranging for her adoption to another family.


Dot Knightly points out that as long as Isabella remained with Candy, the DCYF would not be able to obtain federal welfare funding in her name. That problem was "solved" by filing an application over the objections of Isabella's mother, and then stealing her child.



The DCYF then turned its predatory attention to Dot's other daughter, Holly, and her two children, Austin and Ally.


On January 19, 2006, Holly went to the hospital following a friend's suicide attempt. While there she was arrested for "belligerent behavior" by a police officer who believed that she was intoxicated. Although she was on various prescription medications (she had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder), a test confirmed that there was no alcohol in her system at the time of her arrest. Regardless of that fact, Holly was charged with "child endangerment."


The arresting officer, Patrolman Josue I. Santia, delivered Holly's children Austin and Ally to Dot's home. Santia noted in his report that he and his partner "felt comfortable leaving the children in [the grandparents'] custody." On the following morning the grandparents were awarded temporary supervisory care over the children while the child endangerment charge was examined. That charge was eventually dropped, but DCYF wasn't willing to end its pursuit of Holly's kids.


Darren Hood Tucker, an attorney employed by DCYF, went "judge shopping" and "found another Judge willing to modify the court order" granting temporary custody to the grandparents, Dot Knightly recounted to Pro Libertate. Tucker was able to suborn a judge into ruling that it was inappropriate for Austin and Ally to have contact with Dot's daughter Candy -- whose only "offense" had been to give birth to a child who was later abducted by the DCYF.


"They sent four police officers to our home and took those children away at gunpoint," Dot recalls. "Poor Austin was literally dragged down the street kicking and screaming as the neighbors looked on." Shortly after the siblings were placed in a foster home in Merrimack, Austin -- who had no previous record of behavioral problems -- tried to hang himself.




News of the suicide attempt sent Holly rushing to the hospital, where she was intercepted by DCYF caseworker Anna Salvatore. The caseworker "threatened my daughter Holly by stating that if Holly didn't sign Austin's admission to Anna Philbrook Psychiatric Hospital ... the Judge would sign a court order terminating Holly's parental rights," Dot Knightly relates.


Just days earlier, Austin had been a bright-eyed, friendly, cheerful little boy.
Austin's disposition and physical appearance changed dramatically after he was seized by armed strangers and forced to take mind-altering drugs.


During the four months that DCYF caseworker Anna Salvatore was on maternity leave (remember that detail; I'll return to it momentarily), Dot, her husband, and Austin's mother were able to have one brief phone call with Austin and his attending physician at the Psychiatric Hospital. The doctor told Dot that "after Austin spoke to his family his whole demeanor changed ... and he was not the same violent little boy as when he was admitted." When DCYF Supervisor Tracy Gubbins learned of that phone call, she issued instructions that there would be no further contact between Austin and his grandparents or his mother.


Austin with his Grandpa.

The only reason Dot was able to talk to her grandson was because the newly single caseworker was on maternity leave. Dot believes that Anna Salvatore -- who is now known as Anna Edlund -- may have become pregnant as a result of an affair.


"Holly and her husband had been having problems, but after this whole mess began they actually moved into a new apartment and seemed to be starting over," Dot told Pro Libertate. "The caseworker, or `home-wrecker,' Anna Salvatore found out about this and had them separated again within a week. Then Salvatore started to visit Holly's husband on nights and weekends, with or without the children, which eventually ruined her own marriage. And then she ended up divorced and pregnant -- after tearing my daughter's family apart."


After Austin was placed in a "pre-adoptive" home, Dot -- with the help of the new caseworker -- was able to arrange a few brief, supervised visits with Austin. During one of them, the traumatized little boy quietly informed his grandmother: "They told me that Holly's not my mother anymore."

"Honey, Holly is still your mother and will always be your mother," Dot replied -- thereby triggering the DCYF's retaliation reflex.

"From that time, all further visits were canceled," she recalled to Pro Libertate.


Not even this could be considered the crowning act of cruelty inflicted on this long-suffering family by New Hampshire's child "protection" racket.



By 2008, Dot -- who still hoped that she would be permitted to care for her grandchildren -- had completed her coursework to be a state-certified foster parent, but was refused a license. She was told by DCYF official Lorraine Bartlett that she would never be permitted to care for Austin out of fear that she would take him off the toxic psychotropic drugs he was forced to take.


Through a steady series of dilatory and obstructionist maneuvers, the DCYF made it impossible for Dot to qualify as a foster parent for her grandchildren. When it was decided that Austin would be adopted by another couple, Dot and her husband were instructed by Bartlett to write a good-bye letter to their grandson in order to bring "closure" to the atrocity. This gesture reminds me a bit of the way that firing squads employed by Ethiopian despot Mengistu Haile Mariam would force families of the victims to pay for the ammunition used to murder their loved ones.


Dot insisted that she would continue her legal efforts to get Austin back.


"Nobody gets their kids back in New Hampshire," replied the DCYF official. "The government gives us the power to decide how these cases turn out. Everyone who fights us loses."

(Note: This is a slightly edited version of the original essay; some details have been changed in the interests of clarity.)

Stark realities of foster "care" revealed by federal judge in Nevada

Stark realities of foster "care" revealed by federal judge in Nevada


The Oakland-based National Center for Youth Law was the loser in federal court in Las Vegas on Thursday when US District Judge Robert C. Jones dismissed a class-action lawsuit against the Nevada Dept. of Health and Human Services's director, Michael Willden; Clark County manager, Virginia Valentine; and county Dept. of Family Services director, Tom Morton, at left. The lawsuit sought class action status for three subgroups among the county's 3,600 foster children and monetary damages for the 13 foster children named as plaintiffs.

Read More:
http://californiaschildren.typepad.com/californias-children/2010/10/stark-realities-of-foster-care-revealed-by-federal-judge-in-nevada.html

Instead of using foster homes, county prefers to keep it in the family

Instead of using foster homes, county prefers to keep it in the family
Published: Friday, October 29, 2010

By Jason Lea
JLea@News-Herald.com

Lake County has 23 fewer active foster families than it did two years ago.

That may sound bad but, actually, it's a good thing.

There are fewer foster families because fewer families are needed. In 2006, 158 children were in the custody of Lake County. That number has dropped every subsequent year, according to information from Lake County Job and Family Services. Currently, there are only 66 kids in the county's custody.

State statistics mirror these trends. There were 21,038 in Ohio's custody in July 2003. In July 2010, that total dwindled to 12,197, according to the Children's Bureau of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Teresa Palm is the children services administrator for the county JFS. She said there were at least two reasons that fewer children were being taken from their biological households and put in foster care. The biggest reason is more at-risk kids are moving in with family members or friends of the family, instead of foster homes. These are called kinship placements.
Read More:
http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2010/10/29/news/nh3180662.txt