Thread: What? Govt Agents Seize Oath Keeper's New Born From Hospital

Slowly, more is coming in on this story. A big question mark concerns the father of the two children she lost. This explains why Jon had trouble getting his name on the birth certificate - if there is a legal husband anywhere in the picture, legally the child is presumed his until proven otherwise (and that takes some effort and maybe a court hearing).

So, why was there a termination of parental rights hearing conducted concerning the previous two children of Stephanie and her legal husband (who is not Jon Irish)? That remains a mystery at this time, but is EXTREMELY serious, because if either one of them were perceived by the state as being a competent parent, and if they were separated or in the process of separation (which they obviously are), then it would be merely a matter of awarding custody to the competent parent, not a termination of parental rights. Maybe if one were notorious, and an adoption was in the works, there might be a termination proceeding against one of the parents, but that would not involve taking custody away from the legally competent parent or terminating the competent parent's parental rights. Unless maybe the foster family is trying to adopt the two kids away from both parents? So what's going on there? We still don't know.

A big question will hinge on whether the state can show domestic violence in the home between Jon Irish and Stephanie. The couple is denying it. I know enough social workers to know that they attempt to get their subjects to let their guard down, to spill intimate details to them, and become their [fake] friends. Never confide in a social worker. They often have already drawn a picture in their minds and will use whatever you say as brushstrokes to paint it in living color. The question is, was the alleged violence ever documented with the police, resulting in charges (and, preferably) medical evidence? If they can't show convincing evidence of violence between Jon and Stephanie, then they overshot their wad and blew their case. All couples quarrel. Getting at what really happened will be difficult in hindsight.

And, the attitudes of the government are really showing here. In order to be 22 and have three children and the oldest be 3, Stephanie must have been almost continuously pregnant since she was 18. I can tell from a distance what the reaction to that must have been. (Even though she was legally married!) When I had my custody battle, I'd been a Mormon housewife for the prior decade. I'd had 4 children in 6 years (all planned like that for medical reasons, no accidents) so they assigned a custody evaluator who was a staunch feminist, career woman, and from a very different and very liberal religion. I had a tussle on my hands, you may be sure! I'm certain that attitudes like this have entered the equation here.

The government may also be using the still extant legal marriage as a convenient crowbar to get the child away. After all, they were able to remove the previous two.

We still don't know a lot about what happened with this family before their faces were in the news. To me, this is still not a simple "They took my baby because I'm an Oath Keeper" case. Also, attitudes towards mere gun ownership in the Northeast are much different than in other parts of the country, so that factors in. Yes, the government's attitudes towards the right wing are showing, but there were also problems of some sort in this family (and I really also mean, Stephanie and her still-legal husband). This will be a tough one to work out.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/2 ... k-our-baby

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx ... 5ae2329cbc

When the reason given in the affidavit document was because he was a member of the Oathkeepers and refers to the organization as a militia, then the government, in this instance, has painted a lot of people with a tainted brush.

I think that this comes back to the leaked Missouri memo that reportedly was based on many of the the recommendations and "findings" of the SPLC.

Representatives of the SPLC sit on the DHS board( these are paid postions) and it makes me curious to know if the homegrown terror recommendations of veterans, christians, people with bumper stickers and people that are against illegal immigration of Missouri memo have been incorporated into programs active that target American citizens for their opinions, not actions.

That the SPLC would have any weight or standing is indeed disturbing. This is the same sort of thing as the way lobbyists get inside access, way more than you and I (mere voters and taxpayers, after all).

I'm going to stand with new hampshire CPS on this one. How many children have been killed by their own parents in this country and only after they are dead do we say, where was CPS ? There are absolutely more issues at play here than gun ownership or being an oath keeper.

Children's saftey comes first poltical idielogy second.

I have come across some information that needs to be looked at.

This was written by the neighbor of John Irish...Or at least this person claims to be John Irish and Stephanie's neighbor.

If this person is telling the truth, we have been sadly fooled.
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/07/ ... -hospital/

507.Do you people really think that the state just jumps in randomly on this kind of thing?

Really?

Have any of you had your kids taken for being involved in Oath Keepers? No?

I didn’t think so.

Irish beats Stephanie. They might appear in this video like a cute couple, but that’s because they’re a couple of social degenerates who act that way.

By the way, they also live off of welfare. Good, upstanding Founding Fathers types, eh?

Last year, they lost custody of Stephanie’s other two kids because Irish beat them. Not spanking, mind you. I’m talking about a slap that I heard from across the street, and a red mark on a 2-year-old’s face that had the plain outline of his hand.

She claimed that the 1-year-old did it. Then she claimed that he slipped and hit a doorknob. Any fool could line it up to Irish’s hand.

The state took the boys away, and I doubt they’re ever coming back. I pray that they don’t.

You want to know why the state took the baby?

The baby’s life was in danger. Not because her parents have anything to do with OK. Not for politics. Not because of his Second Amendment rights. Because John Irish is a mean, violent, abusive, criminal son of a bitch.

Defend him if you want. When more of this story comes out, you’ll look like fools who leap to conclusions.

Maybe OK shouldn’t have been listed in the affidavit. Fine. But while your panties are in a knot over that, there’s a real baby whose life is in real danger because her bio-father is a real lunatic.

I hope never to see her in this neighborhood.

Comment by Irish's Neighbor — October 9, 2010 @ 2:51 pm

The state should not have named the Oathkeepers as a militia group and named the organization in the affidavit as a reason in a custody case. I believe it is slanderous to the rest of the people in the organization and could be later used to set precedent.

I make a motion that we all join Oath Keepers.

Originally Posted by Newmexican

The state should not have named the Oathkeepers as a militia group and named the organization in the affidavit as a reason in a custody case. I believe it is slanderous to the rest of the people in the organization and could be later used to set precedent.

Maybe they shouldn't have , maybe the CPS worker felt that it was revelant .... doesn't really matter ... from what i can gather the entire blow up over the oath keepers , proably came from the oath keepers themselves and some of their more unsound memebers ..

If the oather keepers had done their due dillgence they would have EASILY seen that this irsh guy was a scum bag NOT worth tarnshing their name over ..all of the information now coming to light appears to paint him as a nut job ....

what they should have done was let out a press release saying that they do not condone violence , that the saftey of children is of the utmost imporantce and that CPS is held in deep respect by them as the last defence of helpless children ... They could have then publicly set up a fund FOR THE CHILD ... if they wanted to dig deeper into this , they should have done it quitely behind closed doors with no fan fare whatsoever ..

maybe they wanted attention , i hadn't heard anything about the OK for a long time , i know that some of these groups crave attention .. but this is the type of attention that one should not desire ....

I keep watching this on the news. I think the mother needed top notch legal help and counseling starting about two years ago, but didn't get it. They don't do a termination of parental rights just for the heck of it. Without knowing who is at fault here, I can still say with certainty that something, somehow, got way out of hand here and has been for a very long time for this to happen. It's not like someone phoned in a tip, "hey, Jon Irish is active with Oath Keepers" and child protective services said, "Wow, we better seize that baby as soon as it's born because of Oath Keepers." That is not what went down here, but some people in the news stories are acting like that's what it is.

There is a video with the parents speaking out on this incident at the link.

Concord Hospital protest against baby kidnap (video)
* October 9th, 2010 4:35 am ET
An emergency peaceful protest at Concord Hospital was held Friday due to the state of New Hampshire forcibly removing, with the aid of the hospital, 15-hour old newborn, Cheyenne Irish, from her parents.

The baby's father, John Irish, alleges all the charges for the removal are trumped and he does not know why according to his statement at the protest. (See Oppression by Oath Youtube video below, posted by Adventures In the Free State)

Adventures in the Free State writes:

"A day-old infant was abducted by NH DCYF on 10/7/2010, from and allegedly with the complicity of Concord Hospital, apparently at least partially because her father had affirmed, by association with Oath Keepers, an oath he'd taken to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. An oath government employees take every day. Do they respect their own promises as much? Do you care...?

Mother of the baby, Stephanie Janvrin's former partner and legal husband, David Taylor refuses to sign divorce papers and claims that he is the father of the baby according to statements made at the protest.

"He will not accept or sign the papers" for a divorce. "He just will not do it," she said.

Many women become Targeted Individuals after separating from their partners according to self-support group communications.

One woman at the protest said, "This is suppose to be America, not Nazi Germany. You are not suppose to have your children stolen because of your affiliation with a group."

She said she joined Oath Keepers earlier in the day due to the baby's removal from her parents and that she learned about the protest on Facebook.

One stated reason for the baby's forced removal is her father's affiliation with Oath Keepers that officials described as a "militia group."

The affidavit is "fabricated and trumped up," said Mr. Irish.

The stated reason that baby Chayenne was removed is "abuse and neglect."

During the protest, a sergeant and another law officer of Concord Police Department handed a notice to Mr. Irish advising, "Based on recent circumstances, this is to serve as a notice that you are not allowed to enter onto Concord Hopsital property unless you require emergency services. Should you come onto Concord Hospital property for any other reason, you will be charged with criminal trespass."

The notice was signed by John Sharon, Director of Concord Hospital Security.

The Intel Hub reports that the FBI with bomb-sniffer dogs were at the peaceful protest.

"That’s right, the FBI, with no threat or sign of danger, sent bomb sniffing dogs to the protest. The FBI sent a clear message. People that stand up for the rights of American citizens are now possible terrorists. This Nazi like tactic has been used hundreds of times. The goal is to get the local media to connect the protest to a bomb threat in order to scare citizens who would normally support the parents into keeping their mouths shut.

"The government has taken their tyranny to new heights. DHS is now openly admitting that the Southern Poverty Law Center works for hand in hand with their department. DHS officials in Pennsylvania have hired Israeli agents to spy on law abiding citizens. We now live in a country where you are considered a potential terrorist if you stand up for your god given rights outlined by the Constitution. These globalists will steal your kids, track your family, and poison your water with little to no regret." (The Intel Hub)

http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in ... dnap-video

[/quote]