Michigan removes child from medical marijuana home

When Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved the state’s Medical Marijuana law to help patients suffering with pain, little did they know that some patients would be hit with another malady…paranoia. If I legally use marijuana, could the authorities take my kids away from me?

The recent case of Baby Bree underscores that parents can lose custody of their children even if they legally grow and consume marijuana in their home.

A referee recently ruled that Maria and Gordon Steven Green were subjecting their six-month-old baby to possible danger because of grass.

“They were worried about the possibility of break-ins, armed robbery that kind of thing,” mother Green explains. “He (the referee) put that out as a possibility and that warranted immediate danger for the child.”

The Greens and their attorney contend they had a legal right to have the drug since she
is a licensed caregiver and father Green has epilepsy, but Child Protective Service workers, charged with protecting children from abuse, saw it differently and petitioned for the right to remove the baby from the home.

In round one, the state won.

In round two, the family, surrounded by about 100 protestors sympathetic to their case, showed up at the state welfare department denouncing the state action.

Detroit barrister Thomas Lavigne, who works on cannabis issues, was blunt. “They obscure it with this Reefer Madness rhetoric and we are done with this. We’re not going to take it anymore. This is our red line,” borrowing a phrase from President Obama. “You take our kids away, we will revolt.”

As curious state employees who work at the Department of Human Services strolled past the demonstration, none of the higher ups inside the building would comment based on privacy issues and the policy of not commenting on cases in litigation.

However DHS spokesperson David Ackerly agreed to appear on camera with a statement but declined to take any follow-up questions. A reporter reluctantly agreed to the deal just to bring some balance to the story.

Mr. Ackerly said, in part, this is what the state is looking for: “What kind of choices are parents making that impact their kids…The safety and the well-being of the child is paramount for any of our investigators when they are doing their job.”

Having your child removed from the home was highly emotional for the Green family. Father Green cried on camera as he wondered, “Why are they stealing my baby?”

Reminded that the state contends it was trying to protect the child, he reflected, “I don’t believe that at all.”

Mother Green reflected, “I don’t feel like I’m living in America…We’re suppose to be free and have rights and one of them is raising children and I’m not allowed to do that right now.”

The baby is with the grandmother, but while Ms. Green concedes that is preferable to being with strangers, she says the baby “needs to be with her mother for the mother-infant bonding” to take place.

She warned if this can happen to her, it can happen to others. And indeed some of those hanging out at the rally reported they had lost custody of their children, too.

You had to wonder if some in the crowd pondered would they be next as the paranoia set in.

This is a classic case of individual rights butting up against government’s desire to protect children from abuse.

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/09/tim_skubick_medical_marijuana_1.html