Elizabeth Mort's wrongful infant removal due to false positive drug test done without knowledge of unsuspecting mother. She sued the county and the hospital. Her case settled in 2013 and she was awarded $143,500.

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

© 2007-now
Bookmark and Share
donate button
PAPA logo
notice board blogger icon
New links

Elizabeth Mort and Alex Rodriguez Losing a Baby Over a Poppy Seed (April 2010)

Elizabeth Mort and her partner Alex Rodriguez of New Castle, Pennsylvania lost their 3-day old infant to Lawrence County Children and Youth Services (LCCYS) due to a false positive drug test conducted in the hospital without her consent and knowledge. Their infant was removed from their home the day after they left the hospital by social workers escorted by the police. Later, it was discovered that the false positive drug test done without the knowledge of parents was caused by the poppy seeds in an “everything” bagel from Dunkin’ Donuts. Their infant was returned after 5 days.

On October 28, 2010, parents commenced legal actions against LCCYS, Jameson Hospital and the social worker in the Pennsylvania Western District Court (MORT et al v. LAWRENCE COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES et al). Their lawsuit is launched with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. The complaint statement filed is archived below.

This case suggests the following:

  1. The witch hunt network in the "child protection" industry is extensive. Unsuspecting parents can easily fall prey for the wrong reasons.
  2. Unlike what government officials or top dogs of "child protection" agencies often say to the media that child removal decision is not made lightly, children are often removed first and do investigation later. Child removal as the last resort is a propaganda designed to mitigate public resistance and to render the most intrusive, oppressive activity seemingly reasonable.
  3. Flaws in medical diagnosis are often ignored by tunnel view "child protection" social workers.
  4. Taxpayers are exposed to contingent liabilities by the activities of "child protection" social workers because of the indemnity from their employer, ie. the government.
  5. Parents and children are powerless against the formidable "child protection" agency.
  6. Despite so many atrocities and problems, there are naive people still believe that child removal should be allowed (see the TV debate on this case in the video on the top left hand corner of this page).
  7. Although there is no law prohibiting drug addicts from raising children, child protection law allows authorities to remove their children at will. This amounts to an unwritten law barring junkies from raising kids.

[This page was added on added on 17 November 2010, last revised on 28 September 2011.]