Yeah, I get Newsmax updates on my blkbry and they seem either WAY behind or have news that NOBODY has broken and no one ever really follows up on...
I agree, my first thoughts were that these angels (Bob and Mary Schindler) were doing EVERYTHING in their power to find some way, any way possible to keep their daughter alive. Even after the 11th cicuit denied them the last time and they said they would no longer pursue other avenues, they did.... They could not help it, they did not want to let her be murdered and I absolutely agree with that....
But, think about it... If there were "90 ALLEGATIONS" of abuse to Terri BY Miichael, this is the first we hear of it??? It just doesn't jive to me, I guess...
(snip)
"One member of the media asked if the state Department of Children and Families (DCF) planned to take Terri Schiavo into protective custody, remove her from the hospice where she is being dehydrated and starved to death or try to reinsert her feeding and hydration tube."
"We are looking at every potential opportunity to be of assistance," replied DCF Secretary Lucy Hadi." That response apparently prompted the attorney for Terri's estranged husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo, to contact Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge George Greer, requesting a court order barring the state from acting.
Noted "right-to-die" attorney, author and activist George Felos argued during a court hearing later Wednesday that DCF had "no more power than ... a person walking down the street," to place Terri in protective custody.?
"Any action would be a violation of Mrs. Schiavo's constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. It would be a violation of her civil rights. It would be an assault, a battery, a trespass on her," Felos argued, following his assessment with a threat aimed at DCF officials, "and, should that occur and should that be attempted, we will hold those to the fullest extent of the law."
But Florida statute 2004-Ch0415-Section%201051#0415.1051"415.1051 seems to contradict Felos' claim.
The statute states, "If it appears that the vulnerable adult ... is likely to incur a risk of death or serious physical injury if such person is not immediately removed from the premises, then the representative of the department shall transport or arrange for the transportation of the vulnerable adult to an appropriate medical or protective services facility in order to provide emergency protective services."
Jennifer Lima-Smith, an attorney for the DCF, reminded Greer that the agency does not need his permission in advance to act.
"The law allows the department to exercise both emergency protective services -- intervention and emergency removal -- either one or both," Lima-Smith told Greer.
The statute also appears to specifically exempt DCF from an otherwise enforceable mandate to seek Michael Schiavo's permission to remove Terri.
"If the vulnerable adult's caregiver or guardian is present, the protective investigator must seek the caregiver's or guardian's consent ... before the vulnerable adult may be removed from the premises," the law states, "unless the protective investigator suspects that the vulnerable adult's caregiver or guardian has caused the abuse, neglect, or exploitation."
The only authorization or requirement for the involvement of the courts in an emergency intervention or removal comes after DCF has taken its action. "The department shall, within 24 hours after providing or arranging for emergency removal of the vulnerable adult, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, petition the court for an order authorizing emergency protective services."
Nonetheless, Greer rebuked the agency, ordering it not to attempt to enforce the state law. "Since it appears imminent that the department is likely to do something in contravention of that rule of law, this court is going to grant the oral motion," Greer said. "DCF is hereby restrained from taking possession of Theresa Marie Schiavo or removing her from Hospice Woodside, administer (sic) nutrition or hydration artificially or otherwise interfere (sic) with this court's final judgment."
That final portion of Greer's oral order seems to contradict yet another portion of the statute, entitled "Emergency medical treatment.