When Life Gives You Idiots...
You could've filled Tiger Stadium (aka Comerica Park) with the tidal wave of idiot-ade in this little drama.
Start with one University of Michigan archeology professor, a little more versed in ancient culture than consumer culture, who takes his 7-year-old kid to the ball game.
He spots a sign: Mike's Lemonade, $7. Being a nice dad, he buys his kid a lemonade. Yeah, the price is kind of inflated, but it's the ball park, and he's probably focused on having a nice time with his kid.
Whoops, seems that's not just Mike's Lemonade, but Mike's Hard Lemonade, with a whopping 5% alcohol in it. Brian Dickerson tells the tale for the Freep:
If you watch much television, you've probably heard of a product called Mike's Hard Lemonade.And if you ask Christopher Ratte and his wife how they lost custody of their 7-year-old son, the short version is that nobody in the Ratte family watches much television.
The way police and child protection workers figure it, Ratte should have known that what a Comerica Park vendor handed over when Ratte ordered a lemonade for his boy three Saturdays ago contained alcohol, and Ratte's ignorance justified placing young Leo in foster care until his dad got up to speed on the commercial beverage industry.
...It wasn't until the top of the ninth inning that a Comerica Park security guard noticed the bottle in young Leo's hand.
"You know this is an alcoholic beverage?" the guard asked the professor.
"You've got to be kidding," Ratte replied. He asked for the bottle, but the security guard snatched it before Ratte could examine the label.
...An hour later, Ratte was being interviewed by a Detroit police officer at Children's Hospital, where a physician at the Comerica Park clinic had dispatched Leo -- by ambulance! -- after a cursory exam.
Leo betrayed no symptoms of inebriation. But the physician and a police officer from the Comerica substation suggested the ER visit after the boy admitted he was feeling a little nauseated.
The Comerica cop estimated that Leo had drunk about 12 ounces of the hard lemonade, which is 5% alcohol. But an ER resident who drew Leo's blood less than 90 minutes after he and his father were escorted from their seats detected no trace of alcohol.
"Completely normal appearing," the resident wrote in his report, "... he is cleared to go home."
But it would be two days before the state of Michigan allowed Ratte's wife, U-M architecture professor Claire Zimmerman, to take their son home, and nearly a week before Ratte was permitted to move back into his own house.
...And so what had begun as an outing to the ballpark ended with Leo crying himself to sleep in front of a television inside the Child Protective Services building, and Ratte and his wife standing on the sidewalk outside, wondering when they'd see their little boy again.
And yes, the CPS nitwits actually put the kid in foster care. Meanwhile, there are probably hundreds of kids in Detroit, in foster care and out, direly in need of assistance.
My big wish? That there were a TV show to replicate the role of the town stocks in the Middle Ages, where "public servants" shown to have their heads planted halfway up their small intestine will not simply be rewarded with pay raises, pensions, and vacation time, but with the kind of reception they actually deserve.
P.S. I vote for Professor Ratte to pitch the first rotten tomato of the season.
Oh yeah, and about childhood alcohol consumption, I agree with addiction treatment specialist Stanton Peele who contends that the healthy approach is giving kids alcohol in moderation, and teaching them healthy habits. When alcohol's not forbidden, it's really not such a big deal. And I say that also from personal experience, as somebody who, as a kid, was offered "tastes" of whatever liqueur my dad was drinking, and wine on Jewish holidays.
Yep, Manishevitz, the Amarone of the suburban Detroit Jews. On that note, I do have to admit: It is possible that if my parents served better wine I'd now be a crack whore/blogger posting this piece via borrowed Wifi from my favorite gutter.
Meanwhile, let's just hope the statute of limitations has expired, as my dad's a little old to manage in DeHoCo (Detroit House of Corrections).
Think its possible that the kids nausea might have been a result of a guard snatch something out of his hand? Or wathing his dad and himself dragged down to the bowels of the stadium? Or maybe the fact that he and his father were seperated and he was worried about what the cops were dooing to his dad while he was being harrased by a steady stream of questions?
What do you want to bet they asked the kid if his father beat him?
lujlp at April 29, 2008 2:35 AM
"What do you want to bet they asked the kid if his father beat him?"
...or touched him in his privates.
Giving your kid an alcoholic beverage in pubic (on purpose) if you intend to steer clear of jail is the most idiotic thing one could do. No one would actually do this if they knew that Mike's was booze.
Have any of you had an authoritative figure go apeshit on you? There you are, perfectly rational, calm, collected, trying to explain yourself and the person (police, principal) won't have any of it. It's like they have power induced rabies of the ego. That's when you start to get pissed, raise your voice (to match his/her level of asinine-ness) and WHAMMO detention/threatened with arrest.
Gretchen at April 29, 2008 4:04 AM
The 'public servants' were probably very excited to be able to remove a child from educated parents in the upper income brackets.
"oooh, finally a break from the downtrod mass we usually serve."
Although I just now realized as I was typing this that perhaps they were extra 'vigilant' in order to avoid accusations of only removing poor kids.mmmmmmm.
rsj at April 29, 2008 4:06 AM
Meanwhile, there are probably hundreds of kids in Detroit, in foster care and out, direly in need of assistance.
Yup. And a not-insignificant portion of those kids probably have some variation of FAS as a result of *significant* prenatal exposure to alcohol - i.e. far, FAR more on a regular basis than this kid consumed. But hey, I guess it's a lot easier to yank away a kid from his law-abiding parents than it is to deal with a regular foster kid who may have little chance for a good future. At least some of these morons should lose their jobs. Seriously.
Oh, and I especially liked this, from the article:
Don Duquette, a U-M law professor who directs the university's Child Advocacy Law Clinic, represented Ratte and his wife. He notes sardonically that the most remarkable thing about the couple's case may be the relative speed with which they were reunited with Leo.
He doesn't say it, but I'm betting the fact that the Rattes were able to pull in such expert legal help - and so quickly - is the only reason the kid is back with them even today. Especially given that CPS refused to release the kid to his aunts - one of whom is apparently a licensed foster parent and social worker - who came to town specifically to look after him following this incident.
marion at April 29, 2008 4:25 AM
Solution -
Legalize alcohol.
brian at April 29, 2008 4:26 AM
So does this mean that a kid is not allowed to have a glass of wine when out with his or her parents for dinner? When did this start? I was always allowed to have a beer (or part of one) or a glass of wine with dinner, when out with my grandparents or parents. According to Texas law at that time (I guess I can't attest to it now) waitstaff could legally serve alcohol to a minor accompanied by his or her parents or legal guardian.
So this has changed? Or is it just different state to state?
Jessica at April 29, 2008 6:38 AM
Jessica - in most states it is illegal for a parent to give a child an alcoholic beverage in their own home.
The nanny state is already here.
brian at April 29, 2008 6:43 AM
"Jessica - in most states it is illegal for a parent to give a child an alcoholic beverage in their own home." This shit had started happening when I was still under 21. It was really weird but I'm guessing it has gotten a hell of a lot worse.
"Have any of you had an authoritative figure go apeshit on you? " Yup, but only once as kid. We (parents) pulled the poor immigrant and the race card (Ruskies are a recognized minority, at least the school thought so). She lost her job (early retirement) and her career goal of school super intendant. Unless you actually did something illegal standing up to authority in a cool calm and collected voice usually has always worked for me. When calm and cool fails "LAWYER" and smile.
I'm not sure how easy the own home thing is to enforce but it's there.
I could see fining the old man cause being that ignorant is kind of hard to excuse. On the other hand the alcohol content of these is written in the bottom corner in fine print. Also when the vendors advertise most of the time they write "Mike's Lemonade" and leave the hard out because it's assumed. I actually had to ask at a concert was it Mike's hard or some local brand of normal lemonade.
The system way over reacted, hopefully this will be one of those points where the damn pendulum starts swinging in the other direction. I doubt it but here's hoping.
vlad at April 29, 2008 7:03 AM
Nanny state run amok.
The trouble with regulations is that, in the end, they always replace intelligent thinking.
Kirk at April 29, 2008 7:03 AM
" voice usually has always worked for me." sorry should have read: voice has always worked for me.
vlad at April 29, 2008 7:05 AM
Jessica,
As far as I know, waitstaff under age 21 aren't even allowed to carry an alcholic beverage to the table. If your server is 20, he/she must take your order, deliver it to the bar, and have someone 21+ bring it to your table . . . .
*That's* how ridiculous it's gotten.
jen
TheOtherOne at April 29, 2008 7:06 AM
"As far as I know, waitstaff under age 21 aren't even allowed to carry an alcholic beverage to the table. If your server is 20, he/she must take your order, deliver it to the bar, and have someone 21+ bring it to your table . . . ."
In the few jurisdictions I've had the pleasure of frequenting watering holes, the legal age to serve is 18. That's adding insult to injury, you're old enough to serve it to someone else, but none for you.
Aardvark at April 29, 2008 7:51 AM
I'm posting anonymously, for obvious reasons.
My wife made a similar mistake. We had hosted a big party for the 4th, and had lots of beer, wine, and other types of beverages, alcoholic and not. A few days later, she and our son were sitting on the back deck, enjoying a couple of lemonades from the fridge. She called me up a little while later, laughing her ass off. Turns out she and our son were slightly intoxicated because they were drinking an alcoholic lemonade (probably Mike's).
She made a false assumption about the drink; didn't realize that it was alcoholic. Oops. Guess what. Nobody's the worse for the wear. I was slightly upset when I found out. For about 30 seconds. Then I started laughing too.
I really feel sorry for this family. They've been chewed up and spit out by the Nanny State. And it's only going to get worse.
Anonymous at April 29, 2008 8:08 AM
You can join the military and die for your country, get married, have kids, vote, drive for NASCAR, be a porn star or almost do anything else you want in America before your 21, except drink alcohol legally.
Europe had it right, kids grow up with weak wine and by the time they are adults, they tend to have much less problems with alcoholism than we do in America. Hmmmm. Why do we so often reject proven successful ideas while stubbornly repeating the same old failed policies over and over and over again?
Bikerken at April 29, 2008 8:11 AM
We've traveled down the regulation road far enough that simple mistakes are cause for outrageous coercive intrusions on the rights of parents. This is insane, the state run amok.
Jeff at April 29, 2008 8:18 AM
Biker - I couldn't agree with you more.
I've encountered this argument before and three are pretty strong counters to your logic (which I share with you).
Obvious fact: the U.S. isn't Europe. Our cultures are vastly different, as are our general attitudes towards many things. The approach to booze in Europe works, and would probably work here, except that isn't not something that can just be implemented all of a sudden. It has to have evolved naturally.
Legalize booze for the
It would be a shitshow. This country went down the wrong path with its nannying and it's so screwed up it would be a long, hard, struggle to help create a healthy, safe, responsible relationship b/w American (youths) and alcohol.
Gretchen at April 29, 2008 8:28 AM
Biker - I couldn't agree with you more.
I've encountered this argument before and three are pretty strong counters to your logic (which I share with you).
Obvious fact: the U.S. isn't Europe. Our cultures are vastly different, as are our general attitudes towards many things. The approach to booze in Europe works, and would probably work here, except that isn't not something that can just be implemented all of a sudden. It has to have evolved naturally.
Legalize booze for the
It would be a shitshow. This country went down the wrong path with its nannying and it's so screwed up it would be a long, hard, struggle to help create a healthy, safe, responsible relationship b/w American (youths) and alcohol.
Gretchen at April 29, 2008 8:29 AM
Ok - sorry to post a dupe but a paragraph got eaten. This is supposed to be after "legalize booze for the - "
Legalize booze for the
I hope this post isn't deranged.
Gretchen at April 29, 2008 8:30 AM
>> Have any of you had an authoritative figure go apeshit on you?
In Jr High I was accused of selling marijuana, and even though there was no evidence except a nerdy kid's word for it. I was exposed to the police intimidation and threatened with expulsion, at age 12.
Even though I have never been in trouble of any kind, I know my attorney's cell phone by heart, and have two of his business cards in my wallet. He gets to talk to anyone in authority for me.
I feel for this grandfather- I would need to be tied down and knocked out if anyone, legal or not, tried to take my boy away from me. The thing about kids is you can usually tell if they are loved and cared for, and when they are, they are fairly indestructible.
eric at April 29, 2008 8:31 AM
Ahhh. Ok I give up...ciao!
Gretchen at April 29, 2008 8:31 AM
I am 50 years old and female, and I don't watch much TV. I have NEVER heard of "Mike's Lemonade." Is this a local product or nationwide or worldwide? As an attorney, I would have to say that Mike's Lemonade should be clearly labeled as alcoholic, in order to prevent mistakes like this one. Foreigners don't go to too many baseball games, but they go to other outdoor festivals -- would a foreigner be expected to know about Mike's Lemonade?
I agree with the above poster that CPS behaved badly, as usual, by taking the kid into foster care based on a honest mistake, and that CPS compounded its error by refusing to let the boy stay with his licensed social worker and foster parent aunt while they conducted their "investigation." I also agree that the parents were very lucky to get their child back after only two days. CPS usually tries to get continuance after continuance so that they can stretch the case out for at least a year.
By the way, I can just about GUARANTEE you that the child was asked if Daddy abused him in other ways.
Suspicious at April 29, 2008 8:57 AM
2 more libertarians born! Some people have to experience things themselves in order for big ideas to sink into their heads. Lord, we could use the votes.
Also, Vlad, can you give the guy a break for not watching TV? More power to the man. I have not had one for 10 years. Yes, I know what Mike's Hard Lemonade is, but, only because I've had it before - tastes pretty good, if I do say so myself. Oh, I'd never pay $7 for one.
Maybe that's the true tragedy of this entire incident, come to think of it. Seven bucks for a bottle of hard lemonade! It's egregious! Oh, yeah the police state we have sucks too.
Dave Lincoln at April 29, 2008 9:02 AM
vlad wrote: " ... being that ignorant is kind of hard to excuse...."
Ignorant? What 'ignorant'? I'm 60 years old with a PhD, and I never in my life heard of 'hard lemonade' until I read this story.
Obviously, there is nothing the poor guy can do about the CPS Nazis, but can't he at least sue the vendor and the manufacturer for not labeling the product clearly? Normally, I don't approve of frivolous lawsuits, but I'd make an exception in this case.
By the way, if you go back and read the complete , original story on the WZZM-13 News website, the CPS social worker's name was "Latricia Jones." Would it be 'racist' of me to raise the spectre of Affirmative Action here?
cato-9 at April 29, 2008 9:12 AM
I didn't mean to be reptitive - the post by "suspicious" wasn't there yet when I wrote.
Also, whether alcohol content is labeled or not, it's still not a big deal for a kid to have, what, .06 oz of alcohol - I assume 12 oz bottle, the big one is probably more like $16.50.
Dave Lincoln at April 29, 2008 9:22 AM
Add me to the list of people who have never heard of Mike's Lemonade. If I saw the word "hard" I would know what it means (hard cider, etc.) - but the sign at the ballpark (shown in the article) said only "Mike's Lemonade". In a hurry, grab the bottle, hand it to the kid, done.
The first person to really screw up here is the cop. What the hell is he doing arresting people for something like this? He started out right "did you know that contains alcohol?". Inform the parent, maybe keep an eye on them the rest of the game, then let it go. Why did he want to to start the whole machinery grinding?
Latricia? Affirmative action hire? Happy to make life difficult for the the white college prof? Nah...what would make you think that?
bradley13 at April 29, 2008 10:14 AM
"Obviously, there is nothing the poor guy can do about the CPS Nazis, but can't he at least sue the vendor and the manufacturer for not labeling the product clearly?" It is labeled it just doesn't say Alcohol in big bold letters on the front. If you look at the bottle it's there. Now being ignorant of the fact that it's alcoholic I can understand but if you don't know what it is why are you giving it to your kid without reading the label. As far as labeled clearly unless you don't drink next time you pick up a bottle of wine, beer, hard liquor, or exotic drink (Smirnoff Ice etc) take a look at how small the print is on alcohol content. So we sue ALL vendors that don't put the alcohol content on the bottle right up front in 28 point font? Should the vendor have asked who it's for maybe but it's not a suable offense no, not by a long shot. It's all the sue happiness that helps perpetuate the damn system when applied this way.
"I'm 60 years old with a PhD, and I never in my life heard of 'hard lemonade' until I read this story." Given this I'm assuming you'd actually check what something is before you give it to your kid or grand kid if you don't know what it is.
CPS is fubar for many reasons and affirmative action has little to do with it. The job suck the politics sucks and the pay sucks even more. The few competent people who go into it for the right reasons (care for kids) are emotionally drained, over worked and burned out.
"Also, Vlad, can you give the guy a break for not watching TV? More power to the man."
I know what Mikes is cause I see it at the liquire store with beer in the same cooler. I didn't know they were advertising the stuff on TV. I don't watch much TV either. Like I said I'm not saying the should fine him, inform him that this was a mistake and that's it. I could see them fining him for making a mistake doesn't mean I think they should fine him but it would make sense. Taking the kid away was completely ludicrous. Their action were insane as opposed to fining him which would have been heavy handed but still in the realm of normal.
vlad at April 29, 2008 10:16 AM
The system itself needs a serious overhaul, given this person's status and connection he can and should get that ball rolling. Can't sue CPS well then use you infulnce to get the law changed.
What's will all the affirmative action crap. One of the two CPS agents that took Leo said that the system was over reacting. So now use that over reaction to reel the system in. Before anyone starts with the "It's not his responsibility" yes, yes it. He's in a position to fix a problem that directly affected him. He has an ethical (though not legal) duty to fix the problem if he can.
vlad at April 29, 2008 10:31 AM
Now being ignorant of the fact that it's alcoholic I can understand but if you don't know what it is why are you giving it to your kid without reading the label.
If the park were selling something called "Amy's Orange Juice" I'm betting the father would have done the same thing, because orange juice - like lemonade - isn't something we reflexively assume contains alcohol. Same for soft drinks in the can/bottle. People typically put lemonade in the mental "so far from alcoholic that it's slightly boring" category. The guy probably thought this was the modern version of Country Tyme Lemonade. Hell, I know what Mike's is because I've seen it numerous times, but if I were distractedly scanning that sign - which doesn't contain the word "Hard" ANYWHERE - while talking to my kid, I might well forget about the "hard" stuff.
marion at April 29, 2008 10:37 AM
I’ve tried Mike’s Hard Lemonade...once...and I don’t get it. It tastes like it was strained through a used gym sock as soon as it came out of the horse and there’s not enough alcohol in it to get a gerbil drunk.
Maybe that’s why Dad went up for child abuse. If he’d given the kid an honest beer....
Conan the Grammarian at April 29, 2008 11:01 AM
This ridiculous situation reminds me of this story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23594474/
To summarize, a woman had all of her children taken away by CPS and is facing charges for locking her sleeping daughter in the car for a few minutes while she was 10 meters away in plain view.
How have we come to this?
liz at April 29, 2008 11:08 AM
I had a similar situation, but with a different twist.
I allowed my 14-year old alcohol in moderation (sips from coolers and hard cider my wife and I would have). Well, one morning, she was exhausted and didn't want to go to school. She didn't have a fever, and seemed to be hamming it up, so we sent her to school.
Later, she decides to "make up a story" to go home early. She thought she'd tell the guidance counselor that she had a bit of wine cooler the prior night and was a little hung over. When the counselor didn't seem interested, she "added" that maybe my wife or I put some kind of drug in it. Now THAT had the counselor's attention. She (the daughter) embellished quite a bit on the story (she tends to do that when she lies...she can't stop embellishing), not realizing what was happening.
The next day she's had an interview with CPS, and realizing how serious her "story" has made things, she is trying to retract everything - seeming more bothered by missing her lunch break than the possibility that her parents are drugging her. By the time the counselor contacted US for the required interview, she was already convinced there was nothing to substantiate the story. So in OUR case, it went as well as anyone could expect. No one got jailed or fined or accused of anything, and neither of our kids were taken away from us. It was pretty much closed as quickly as it was opened. Needless to say, our daughter was in some HOT water for a while after that stunt.
Funny thing? Her sleepiness episode prompted us have a sleep study done on her. She has pretty serious sleep apnea with occasional bouts of narcolepsy. Hence why she's so ridiculously tired some mornings - she didn't get enough restful sleep and her body is trying to FORCE her to go back to sleep to make up for it. No alcohol - let alone other drugs - involved.
CPS staff is frequently underpaid, under-trained, over burdened, and when they GET involved they almost HAVE to err on the side of caution to the point of paranoia towards the children. Things go bad frequently and cases they should be involved with - they usually never get called. Can't say they're perfect, but most of their workers get my sympathy, at least. It can't be an easy job.
Anony-moose at April 29, 2008 11:17 AM
That's the problem with this. Normal parent finds out they're not up on popular drinks and buy their kid a mikes hard lemonade by mistake and they might get mad. But, more likely, they probably laugh say somethign like "Wow, That was dumb" and get on with their life. This practically Guarentees a lawsuit because it massively inconvenienced them and it was the Security Guard at the stadium that called the cops. If I was the ballpark he'd be fired for calling over somethign so stupid but the sad reality is they're scrwed on the liability thing from both ends and it's probably a policy that the security guy had to call.
And I can only imagine that conversation to find out he was dizzy...
cfsJohnny, are you dizzy?
J:no
CFS:Are you SURE you're not dizzy
J:Yeah, I'm sure
CFS: Cause it's ok if you are, it's not your fault
J:I guess I feel a little dizzy
And "The Comerica cop estimated that Leo had drunk about 12 ounces of the hard lemonade" It's a 12 ounce bottle, if there was anything left at all, and there probably was cause the kid was still holding it, He didn't drink "about 12 ounces"
And, that sign was misleading. Beer, Lemonade, Cranberry Juice, Peanuts. I just hope they weren't Mikes Peanuts
Scott at April 29, 2008 11:34 AM
Vlad -
I know what Mikes is cause I see it at the liquire store with beer in the same cooler. I didn't know they were advertising the stuff on TV. I don't watch much TV either.
Here's the problem with that. I don't really drink any more, so I don't go to liquor stores, nor do I visit the wine/beer section of the grocery stores. I also don't watch commercial tee vee. I use an ad-blocker with Firefox. The only magazines I read are The Journal of Light Construction, Utne and Atlantic monthly. JLC doesn't have any non-construction related adverts and while I may have missed some (unlike JLC where part of the point in getting it is the ads, I ignore ads as much as possible in most periodicals) I don't recall ever seeing ads for Mike's in either of the other two.
Now it so happens that our drinking days are not that long gone and momma used to like Mike's, so I know what it is. But given the lack of exposure, I could totally see buying my kid a bottle at a ball game based on what he saw on the sign. And honestly, while I usually read the bottle to see what exactly is in it, I am more likely to forgo doing so with lemonade, because I already assume that it's loaded with sugar.
I would argue that it wouldn't be unreasonable to require producers of similar malt beverages to clearly label their products as alcoholic. At the least, the sign advertising it should have read "hard" lemonade.
DuWayne at April 29, 2008 12:20 PM
"At the least, the sign advertising it should have read "hard" lemonade." In complete agreement there. The vendor screwed up by not putting "hard" in the name of the beverage on display. This should have ended with a slap on the wrist for all and hearty chuckle.
I have been thinking about this and on second thought yeah, not sure that dad is at fault or guilty of anything. He certainly not guilty of something any one of us could have easily done before reading this post. Doubt any of us will make this type of mistake for a while now.
The bottle does say Mike's Hard Lemonade. I think that when they are sold at any amusement park or family oriented establishment the product labeling should be different.
vlad at April 29, 2008 12:52 PM
We may not agree on much most of the time, Ms. Advice Goddess, but on this we are of one mind.
First on the guards overreaction to what the father mistakenly did.
And secondly as to raising children on the proper uses of alcohol. I too was raised tasting everything and being given wine. I rarely drink.
We did the same for our three kids, and while they enjoy the occasional adult beverage, have never gone out to get stinking drunk for the hell of it and roll their eyes at people who think doing so is "fun".
Yep, take the mystery out of it and it's just not a big deal.
Mommynator at April 29, 2008 1:06 PM
And to think this all started with the quick wit and keen observation of Barney Fife from Rent-A-Cop, Inc.
I think we can all rest easy knowing that today's GED candidates can enjoy a career with this much authority over Americans.
If Barney's as smart as I think he is, he could be a star in TSA or even Homeland Security!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 29, 2008 1:23 PM
I don't think the issue here is pertinent to the marketing of Mike's Lemonade, or whether everyone should know of it's contents. It's not even about whether or not the guy was ignorant of a material fact.
The rooted problem with this story, one that has really pulled at my heartstring (yes, i do have...one), is the persistent drive of the government to come between father and son, parent and child.
More subtle, is that those who work in these capacities for the government are simple-minded persons who think they are only doing 'thier job', without contemplation of the serious consequences that can, and often does, last a lifetime.
I once worked as a legal assistant at a gov't child protective service back in the Midwest. Granted, there were some cases that were legitimately important for the agency to step in. But as time passed, I was presented with more and more cases where there was little or no evidence of harm or wrongdoing, and yet the same line was, "terminate the parental rights, just do it, i don't care how". Naturally I left there in a hurry (only to later contemplate if perhaps I could have been a roadblock to such incredulous and mechanical objectives).
My experience has told me, and I think the text of the article follows, the presumption is that the parents are ALWAYS wrong, ALWAYS guilty, and they are to bear the burden which the government holds over thier heards, one so very high and traumatic that most are not able to overcome such distances. This is government paternalism at its worst.
j.d. at April 29, 2008 1:32 PM
strike that. This is government maternalism. Paternalism has nothing to do with this. (and i'm beginning to think the more appropriate expression is 'government maternalism'.)--> Protecting ourselves from ourselves even when we don't need it, and liberty be damned.
j.d. at April 29, 2008 1:51 PM
"strike that. This is government maternalism." They are operating on the father knows best principle so paternalism was quite accurate.
vlad at April 29, 2008 2:06 PM
j.d. -
This is a tough topic for me. I agree with you that there are unbelievable insanities at work in CPS/DHS agencies.
I think that the major problem is that the system has been geared and gotten legal support for dealing with the very worse case scenarios. This is not to say that the worse case scenarios aren't important, but what has happened is that the methods for dealing with the very worse abusers, are being used across the board as standard operating procedure.
Thus a decent parent who (we'll say for the sake of argument) just lost her career, is under tremendous pressure and snaps, can have her child taken because in a moment of stress she smacked her son inappropriately. Should somehting be done if it is brought to the attention of authorities? Certainly, sending her to get help with her stress and anger issues would be a good start. Talk about sending the child to stay with a relative while the pressure is on.
Unfortunately, if the authorities were called under such circumstances, the SOP is to take the kid out of the home and ask questions later.
DuWayne at April 29, 2008 2:08 PM
I think Mike's Lemonade should be sued as well. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption, if you've not been informed otherwise, that it's a soft drink. Lemonade usually doesn't have alcohol in it. The label has a smiley lemon on it, and the alcohol warning is not very conspicuous.
I'd say it's a good cause for a tort action.
Skyler at April 29, 2008 4:32 PM
I made the same mistake at a ball park couple years ago--but I was buying for myself. No idea it was "hard", just thought I was getting a lemonade.
Joe at April 29, 2008 4:37 PM
Never heard of Mike's Lemonade, whether hard, soft or just right. But, I do believe this is the only justification I have ever heard of for carding anyone who buys booze.
stu at April 29, 2008 4:43 PM
Did the server ask for ID? It would have served as notice to the father if he wasn't buying alcohol for himself at the time.
Many sellers ask all customers for ID.
If they are going to this lengths to uphold the law, you'd think that mandatory ID would be the first step.
edh at April 29, 2008 4:51 PM
I call it "Big Sister"
Franco 53 at April 29, 2008 4:52 PM
I saw a comment below the story that made a good point:
"The CPS employee saying they were just doing there job is akin to the German soldiers in WWII saying they were just following orders."
All people - employees, citizens, soldiers - have an obligation to use common sense and personal choices when given instructions or orders.
_Jon at April 29, 2008 4:54 PM
I'd say it's a good cause for a tort action.
Not so sure about that; what about Jack Daniel's Lynchburg Lemonade? It's pretty much the same thing as Mike's Hard Lemonade. They'd shoot down a tort action with a "caveat emptor" and be done with it.
Flynne at April 29, 2008 4:55 PM
But of course if the kid had become drunk, sick, a victim of alcohol poisoning (think about it: 7 years old, weighing, what, 50-60 lbs?) or worse, the outrage would be directed in what direction?
Any father (or mother, for that matter) who gives a child *anything* to eat/drink without knowing what's being ingested has some serious parenting issues to resolve.
Denny, Alaska at April 29, 2008 5:01 PM
I have a hard time believing that anybody could be unaware of the existence of Mike's Hard Lemonade. It's not exactly a niche beverage.
That said, this:
Any father (or mother, for that matter) who gives a child *anything* to eat/drink without knowing what's being ingested has some serious parenting issues to resolve.
is idiotic. A vendor at a ballpark represents a food item as a hot dog, let's say. Are you going to conduct some kind of detailed chemical analysis to confirm that it is, in fact, a hot dog, and not Italian sausage, before feeding it to your kid?
If the vendor represented the drink as lemonade, and the father reasonably relied on that representation, then the problem here was a goodly amount of jackassery from stadium security and CPS, not the father's carelessness.
BC at April 29, 2008 5:21 PM
The outrage will be multi-directional.
Multi-directional, without validity. Lots of finger-pointing without substantive argument. Kinda like Fox News.
Why Must there be outrage? I think the term has come to pre-suppose that it is not only necessary, but when exercised, legitimate. If there is any outrage, it should be directed at the way the municipality agencies have handled the case from the first meeting of the father and the officer down whatever sick road it has taken.
If the kid had alchohol poisoning, I think it would be more of a cautionary tale. Seriously, are you going to be outraged by the fact the father had no clue as to the contents of the bottle? (Perhaps if he had been asked for ID, as one previous commenter had pointed out, that would have served as notice). The assertion that a parent has serious issues when he or she provides a consumable to a child without knowing what it was is understandable. But the assertion that this guy has some serious parenting issues is a misdirection to what is at issue here: whether he knew there was alchohol in the bottle, and not whether he was a bad parent.
To be outraged at a person's innocent lack of knowledge is a tough argument to make. What if his son was 18 years old but, like his father, still did not know the bottle contained alcohol. Would you find outrage there?
j.d. at April 29, 2008 5:33 PM
I never heard of Mike's and I have been drinking for 58 years. I'm 63. Do the math.
Like Amy my parents let me try anything they were drinking. My favorite (when I was young) was coffee with lots of sugar, cream, and butter.
These days I drink about 32 oz a day double strength black. It is supposed to be good for preventing something or other. I like the taste.
M. Simon at April 29, 2008 5:49 PM
I never heard of Mike's and I have been drinking for 58 years. I'm 63. Do the math.
The stuff shares shelf space with wine coolers in supermarkets and/or liquor stores. It and similar beverages have recently been in the news because manufacturers are allegedly marketing these so-called "alcopops" to teens. Its existence is not a state secret.
BC at April 29, 2008 6:13 PM
Note to self: Never attend Tigers Stadium, for any reason.
Richard R. at April 29, 2008 6:22 PM
Hmmph! I'm going on 62 yrs and while I don't imbibe as much as in the younger days I thought I knew my alcoholic drinks. But I have to join the "I never heard of Mike's Hard Lemonade" crowd. Of course, I don't watch television as I consider it a waste of time.
Regardless, it just reaffirms the idiocy found in government bureaucracies.
Gun Trash at April 29, 2008 6:29 PM
HRC spends big bucks scouring the country for a nice maudlin story about abuse in our health care system, and then has to make one up because she can't find one. Meanwhile, this story just pops up on the web as a business as usual story. That's how out of balance our country is.
bc at April 29, 2008 6:30 PM
We had a small skirmish with the drug warriors last fall that turned out better than the professor but the general IQ level was about the same. I described it here. The key was my daughter's friend Sammie who is so innocent that, when the DEA agent (or ICE, I don't know; it was a border check point) told her that they "knew" there were narcotics in our car and Sammie had to tell her where, Sammie asked "What are narcotics ?" They finally let us go. These folks weren't as lucky.
Mike K at April 29, 2008 6:42 PM
my god. i'm torn between amusement (at their idiocy) and rage (at the way they treated the poor family).
great catch, amy.
timderoche at April 29, 2008 6:55 PM
Labeling of alcoholic beverages is intensely scrutinized and regulated by the FDA. It may be that the makers of Mike's is legally prohibited from more prominently displaying the alcohol content. I recall reading a few years back that the FDA is greatly displeased by the idea that alcohol content would be a factor in one's decision to buy an alcoholic beverage.
timmah at April 29, 2008 7:11 PM
I've never had the product but it must taste pretty darn good for a child to drink it with no complaint about the taste.
Anyone who has children knows that you can't give them any macaroni and cheese, it has to be KRAFT macaroni and cheese, and it better not be a different color or a different shape or the chicken nuggets had better be Brand X and this particular shade of brown and not too soggy or too crispy or nothing is touched.
I guess what I am saying is that children have massive, super sensitve "something is different here and I'm having NO PART OF IT" detectors, and I'm surprised alcohol in a beverage wouldn't set that off.
I guess it is similar to the "hiding the vegetables in the mashed potatoes" trick, but with alcohol.
arminius at April 29, 2008 7:32 PM
Hi, Amy,
Instapundit sent me; great site, great post.
If by Amerone you're referring to an Italian wine, then I believe it's Amarone.
And if you meant Amarone, let me assure you that Italian (or Italian-American) families never served it around the table. Too expensive. So expensive that you'd have to be relatively wealthy before you could have enough to fall into such vices.
Amarone is (or, at least, good Amarone is), as you evidently know, completely magnificent.
Jude at April 29, 2008 8:06 PM
Anyone who has children knows that you can't give them any macaroni and cheese, it has to be KRAFT macaroni and cheese, and it better not be a different color or a different shape or the chicken nuggets had better be Brand X and this particular shade of brown and not too soggy or too crispy or nothing is touched.
That is, unless their parents actually, you know, discipline them out of such horrible behavior. I know my time of questioning food from my parents was extremely short-lived; mom and dad always said, "You don't have to eat it, but you're not getting anything else." Perhaps this just happened to be the (unfortunately) rare case of a child who, upon being handed a bottle of lemonade, simply said "Thanks, dad" and decided not to pitch a fit if it tasted a little different.
Lots of things could have happened differently here. Parents make mistakes; accidents happen and lessons are learned. This kid wasn't being abused and the length he was in for with services was "relatively" short when it shouldn't have been any time at all had someone just listened. It's the worst kind of cautionary tale out there.
Jean Moczy at April 29, 2008 8:22 PM
"The 'public servants' were probably very excited to be able to remove a child from educated parents in the upper income brackets."
I had a run-in with DCFS once. A pyschiatrist I know told me that these people LIVE to hang some kind of violation around the neck of an upper/upper-middle class family.
Absolutely LIVE for it, since so many of the people they deal with are such low-lifes. It gives them a way to "show" that they are even-handed.
Chester White at April 29, 2008 8:28 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/04/29/when_life_gives_1.html#comment-1543349">comment from JudeHi, Amy, Instapundit sent me; great site, great post. If by Amerone you're referring to an Italian wine, then I believe it's Amarone.
Thanks so much for the correction - will fix it. And I know Amarone is pricey. I had it for the first time in Mantua this past September, and haven't been able to get it out of my mind.
Amy Alkon at April 29, 2008 9:48 PM
I guess you're supposed to know that "hard" means alcohol is included. If I'd not seen the ads, I'm not sure I would have made the connection.
But it sounds like the government would have more of a problem if they called it "Mike's Booze-Laced Lemonade" because that might make adults want to drink it.
Our government prefers euphemisms, but it's against the law not to see through them.
Vail Beach at April 30, 2008 1:42 AM
I have a very clear memory of my maternal grandfather, a Welshman, giving me my first sip of beer at age 6. It was probably National Bohemian. I'm pretty sure my mother didn't approve. Other than that, no one thought anything of it.
Barry at April 30, 2008 2:41 AM
Read a great story on this subject a few years ago: A woman was awakened in the middle of the night by a noise in the kitchen, and found her four yr old son had drunk a bottle of beer and was acting a little tipsy. She called her pediatrician, who was less than dazzled to be called about this, and asked him what she should do. He told her to just put him to bed, he'd be okay in the morning. "But should I give him anything?" she asked. "Got any pretzels?" he replied
Billmax at April 30, 2008 4:44 AM
This debate is bringing excellent exposure to Mike's products (enjoy their Limeade personally. Their stuff isn't good for getting drunk, though, as it causes intense heartburn. Learned that when I was 16 and didn't have the palate for the good stuff yet.)
Anyone who's never heard of Mike's just a little interested to merely go look at it in the store? To make sure it's there? See what the label looks like to determine if YOU'D notice it was booze? Bet you wonder how it tastes...pretty refreshing stuff on a hot summer day...
This is a Mike's MARKETING CONSPIRACY!
Sorry, shouldn't make jokes because I know the parents involved are in a tough place.
Gretchen at April 30, 2008 4:47 AM
OK...but what can we do about CPS???
They actually took the grandkids of an acquaintance of mine based on the testimony of an angry neighbor who said the mother's house was "dirty". It wasn't especially clean, but is that reason to take kids away?
And ironically the foster home the kids were placed in was *filthy*, (bird defecating on the table when they were eating), and they were underfed...
What do we DO?
Mama73 at April 30, 2008 5:45 AM
zero tolerance policies like this are the direct result of affirmative action in public service. When they are no longer allowed to screen emplyees (CPS, Police, clerks, etc) for intelligence, they have to put rules into place that are "fair" and require no judgement at all.
Smarty at April 30, 2008 9:14 AM
Under Title IV-D, taking kids from a parent makes states federal money. This goes much deeper than most suppose.
Welcome to law-by-lobby opportunism, folks, where you rights, for want of maintenance, mean zip.
Ten at April 30, 2008 10:23 AM
"It tastes like it was strained through a used gym sock as soon as it came out of the horse..."
This comment by Conan the Grammarian about Mike's Hard Lemonade had me LMAO. When I went for a walk yesterday afternoon and saw a couple of horses, I was reminded of the comment and laughed again. In fact, I was even laughing about it last night.
I hope nobody in the other apartments thought I'd gone mad!
Tom Fullery
Thomas Fullery at April 30, 2008 1:55 PM
The fundamental problem is unsolvable. All types of work that involves any kind of [i]power[/i] have a tendency to draw certain personality types. Government is all about [i]power[/i] when the nice language is stripped away, as George Washington himself observed.
The world is full of busybodies, and they're drawn to CPS work just as magnetically as bullies are drawn to police work. That is NOT to say that most police are bullies, or that most CPS people are busybodies (though I suspect that the police are better at screening out the bully personality than CPS is at busybodies, because the later is hard to define and spot).
But bullies sometimes seek to become police because it gives them power over others, and busybodies are often drawn to social work because it lets them tell other people how to live their lives, which they [i]ache[/i] to do.
There is no real solution, as such. Anything we do or don't do means that [i]someone[/i] will suffer who otherwise did not. My solution is to restrict public intervention to the most extreme cases of physical and specific sexual abuse, and lesser stuff is simply not the state's business.
In short, we need to set a legal standard that the parents are presumptively right, and the accuser (public or private) is presumptively lying or wrong.
Will some children suffer for doing that? Yes.
Will some children suffer for our [i]not[/i] doing that? Yes.
The notion has infected our society in recent decades that the state is supposed to make life 'fair' and 'safe', and it [b]cannot[/b] do that, but in the process of trying much harm is done.
HC at April 30, 2008 5:02 PM
Well, the father's an academic at U of Michigan, and not in the hard sciences. The chances that he is a liberal are about 99 percent.
So I can't help but feel like he's hoist on his own petard.
punditius at May 1, 2008 4:36 AM
You should know that a Federal agency must approve all labeling of alcoholic beverages. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is that agency. I found no sign as to the extent to which its duties have been assumed from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and public outrage seems not to have followed it from the parent organization.
Radwaste at May 1, 2008 2:38 PM
The term "badge-heavy" can be applied to people other than cops - anyone in a position of authority who uses that power for their own personal jollies.
In today's over-regulated, nanny-state world, there are thousands of p*ss-ant government workers who can and do act like this.
You voted for 'em, folks.
bud at May 1, 2008 5:46 PM
Leave a comment