The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. –Bertrand Russell

A mother in Washington recently had her days-old infant taken away from her for suspicion of child endangerment. Her psychiatrist first called CPS (Children’s Protective Services, a government agency) with the concern that she might attempt to give birth without medical professionals present. Four days after the (normal and unassisted) birth, CPS (seven people strong!) arrived at the family’s house and gained entry by insisting that they only wanted to see that the mother and infant were alive. At that point they decided that the baby had “jaundice and circulation issues” and took the baby for medical care. It turned out that the baby did not have either, but had an eye “infection” and thrush. Because these are not serious issues needing constant medical supervision, the baby was immediately discharged from the hospital.

But not given back to the mother. No, the baby was taken to a foster family.

Thankfully, a court did find that in fact no illegal activities had occurred, and the mother and baby were after several days reunited. But just think of the anxiety and stress this family was put through. Think of the excruciating pain this mother felt at being separated from her baby and not being able to know if the baby was being taken care of well (as rates of abuse have been shown to be higher in foster families than in the general population.) Think of the shock to the baby’s body and psyche, to be removed from its source of life and comfort as it knew it, as if the mother had died or abandoned it. Think of the postpartum depression this will likely bring on, and the bonding and breastfeeding issues.

Who in their right mind thinks that a homebirth (with a good outcome no less) warrants governmental intrusion, and that the declining of medical attention for minor health issues that can be dealt with at home warrants putting a family through this?

The first reaction most people have to such a story is, “We don’t. But CPS is underfunded. They can’t get to the children who really do need help, much less those that don’t. Why would they waste time and resources on separating a mother and child when no actual abuse had occurred? There has to be more to the story.”

Unfortunately, no, there doesn’t. It is true that to give birth unattended by a medical professional is not illegal and is not defined as “child endangerment” in the law, and that for a mother to decline to seek professional medical care for weepy eyes, or thrush, or jaundice for that matter (all very common, and often appropriately dealt with without medical involvement) is also not illegal, nor abusive. But it is fully at the social worker’s discretion to determine whether these things, though not inherently defined as “child endangerment”, constitute it anyway. If the social worker has the bias (as much of society does) that “Anyone who gives birth without medical assistance deserves to have their baby taken away from them” (as I read on an online discussion about this case,) that’s all it takes. They are wrong, of course. But the tragedy is that they don’t have to be right in order to have the power to traumatize a family in what should be a time of celebration and intimacy and love.

What is ironic is that there are so many parenting choices sanctioned by our society that are obviously harmful in terms of violation of human rights or danger or neglect or cruelty: isolating infants and denying them comfort, even when it upsets them so much they vomit from the stress (Ferber,) hurting children physically in order to train them like animals (Pearls, Ezzo, Dobson,) removing sexually functional parts of their bodies for cosmetic or religious reasons without their consent (circumcision,) allowing narcotics into an infant’s bloodstream (epidurals,) injecting foreign proteins and toxic chemicals into their bodies (vaccination,) separating mother and baby at birth so that chemical bonding cannot occur (still common at most hospitals,) feeding babies a breastmilk substitute for convenience rather than medical need, etc. (And it’s worth noting that none of these things are part of the natural wisdom of the natural human, but became popular only because they were and are advocated by “experts”.)

But if you understand that birth for most women is less safe when medicalized or even when simply observed by those who are not normally intimate with the mother, or that professional medical attention is not necessarily indicated for minor health issues, and you act on that understanding, you are practically a criminal.

There is such a huge distrust in our culture of the common person’s knowledge, instincts, and common sense in favor of the professional’s opinion. The professional knows everything. The professional is always right. Therefore you must seek the professional’s input at every step and do his bidding or be considered stupid, crazy, or evil.

Reading about allowed injustices like this, with the general public shrugging their shoulders, or worse yet, agreeing, makes me fearful for some of the unconventional choices my husband and I have made for our children. I have been accused of being paranoid; but when I hear stories like this, I cannot help but feel that my concern is justified. There are not many worse things to me than the trauma that would occur if my children were to become part of the CPS system as a result of someone’s misguided concern for their well-being.