U.S. Corporate Parents Say No To Breastfeeding

Drop that baby and get back out to the fields.

If the U.S. supports breastfeeding, then that means it would have to change its socio-economic policies and stop trafficking tiny humans of "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth).

Corporations are parents, with parental rights, to decide the "best interests of the child", too, which is why the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is looking into this.

That is why being a wet nurse is no longer considered to be socially responsible.

From Nu Skin With Love: How Child Welfare Fraud Funded Political Campaigns & Human Trafficking

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: From Nu Skin With Love: How Child Welfare Fraud Funded Political Campaigns & Human Trafficking http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2017/07/from-nu-skin-with-love-how-child.html#ixzz5Kgwq2vTX
Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

Breastfeeding in the U.S. impedes the industry of child welfare productivity, where poverty is the crime of abuse and neglect, subject to removal of the child by Child Protective Services, placed in Foster Care, then Adopted, with tons and tons of services billable to Medicaid.

If the U.S. promotes and promulgates breastfeeding, then it would have to stop snatching kids, and, in the event this happens, how are all those child welfare NGOs going to be able to launder money into those political campaigns?

It is financially savvy to keep those infant mortality numbers high to justify that Faith Based Initiative Funding to demonize the breastfeeding mother and keep those child welfare Social Impact Bonds producing dividends.

Children of "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth) are now being codified throughout the States as a condition of disability, for the purposes of assigning a corporate parent through guardianship, which results in an automatic asset forfeiture and any inheritances or legacy.

The rest of you can pull yourselves up by the bootstraps and become a foster parent!

Depopulation policies at its best, but let us just sit back and see how these so-called child welfare NGOs are going to respond to this.

U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials

A resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly.

Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.

American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.

When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussions. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.

The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced

The showdown over the issue was recounted by more than a dozen participants from several countries, many of whom requested anonymity because they feared retaliation from the United States.

Health advocates scrambled to find another sponsor for the resolution, but at least a dozen countries, most of them poor nations in Africa and Latin America, backed off, citing fears of retaliation, according to officials from Uruguay, Mexico and the United States.

“We were astonished, appalled and also saddened,” said Patti Rundall, the policy director of the British advocacy group Baby Milk Action, who has attended meetings of the assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization, since the late 1980s.

Michigan Surrogate Parents and Special Education Decision-Making Guidance 2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Court revokes Michigan Children's Institute guardianship

Bill Johnson, Superintendent of MCI

Bill Johnson, Superintendent of the infamous Michigan Children's Institute, has filed an appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court because the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the paternal grandmother of four children was granted guardianship as his guardianship was revoked.

I do believe this is the first time the Court has revoked the legal powers of MCI.

Out of respect of the people involved, I will not publish the MCI appeal at this time, but I will be using a few choice demonstratives when commenting on the legal arguments.

Daniel Beaton, the Assistant Attorney General who always represents Bill Johnson, is a rather nice man but can lie his ass off in a courtroom.  He is good.  That is why Bill Johnson always wins.  But this time is a different story.

The grandmother applied to for adoption and was denied but applied for legal guardianship and was approved upon appeal.  Brilliant.

Bill Johnson went to the Court of Appeals and was thrown out.

Now, he goes to his buddy Maura Corrigan's (former Chief Justice of Michigan Supreme Court and current Director of Department of Human Services) old stomping grounds, the Michigan Supreme Court to cry the blues about the beginning of the end of his omnipotent reign.

Bill Johnson wants to cry the blues that he was not party to the case and had his guardianship stripped.

First of all, the state was just released from federal monitoring of relative preference placements, so Bill is violating a federal settlement agreement.

Second, there is no law which states that a person who has guardianship must adopt.

Third, Bill Johnson completely ignored the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.  He overrode the decision of another state governor.

Bill Johnson is the legal guardian for more than 7,000 children.  How can he possibly know what the best interests of the children are without third party knowledge?

Michigan Children's Institute is a 3 man circus that is an absolute waste of taxpayers dollars.  It is about time judges of Michigan's bench start making decisions.  Let the people who actually care for kids be the guardians and tell Bill to go far away.

Bill Johnson is one of the last paleo-conservatives of chattel law.  I expect him to be denied his petition for leave to appeal.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Truth Is Always Uncomfortable in Child Welfare

Abuse of 'baby-snatcher' social workers finds an outlet online

Social workers involved in sensitive child protection cases are being targeted as angry families vent their fury on blogs

Rachel Williams
The Guardian, Wednesday 24 March 2010

The hounding of social workers by the press for being "baby-snatchers" if they take children into care is a predictable story. But now such persecution has taken a new twist with online campaigns by families protesting about child protection intervention.

A proliferation of blogs and pages on social networking sites have sprung up. In one example, a Suffolk family claim they were forced to give up their child for adoption, with no evidence of abuse. They went to Spain before the birth of their second child, who is now in the care of Spanish foster carers acting on information from Suffolk social workers.

In some cases, the blogs make for uncomfortable reading. Social workers and managers are named and vilified, accusations are hurled at councils, and court injunctions banning the identification of the families and children are flouted...more

The truth is always uncomfortable.

The following is my comment:

I would like to thank Rachel Williams for demonstrating the lack of sophistication in the core of the egregious matters surrounding the child protective services industry, and that is the lack of accountability and transparency.

Interestingly enough, criticizing the United States Constitutional First Amendment Rights of free speech is the first indication that due process and equal treatment under the law is not instituted within the British child protection system.

The reason people have resorted to the internet to voice their situations is because they are not allowed to be heard under the child protection standards of the United Kingdom.

Interestingly enough, Ms. Williams makes vague references to powerful informational repositories such as Legally Kidnapped. She is absolutely correct to see how alarming the stories are being reported in the media of what goes on behind the scenes of child welfare.

Ms. Williams continues her tack of being correct when she makes the statement that social workers are being vilified online. The internet is not the proper jurisdiction to publicly try a case, but, unfortunately, it is the only opportunity a family has to cry for help as there is no oversight.

One assumption that must be immediately challenge is the comment that "these" online groups in the U.S. are presenting false information.

Madame Williams, I invite you and any of your colleagues to challenge my authority, if you can find any person qualified. We will do academic publications.

My position is that social workers are not bad people and do not come to a family with malfeasance or malicious intent, as this is what they were instructed to do through false educational theories and arcane policies of taking and not giving.

I call these theories and models false because the misdeeds and errors are never reported nor incorporated in overall statistics. This is why the online groups came into existence.

Give resources to the families to keep the children in place before situations lead to removals. Give the people the opportunity to speak.

What is there to fear?

I may not be able to speak upon the councils of the U.K. at this time, but whatever I publish on the U.S. child welfare industry, I present with finding of fact and conclusion of law, which is something you have failed to do in this article.

Beverly Tran
An Original Source

For daily global news on the child protection industry, visit Legally Kidnapped