Tags:
  1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    20160504-140540-bmkv0.

    In a story widely repeated over the past two days in the Chemtrail community, a May 2, 2016 article by "Baxter Dmitry" claims that court documents reveal a judge has removed a child from her mother's care because the mother believes in the chemtrails conspiracy theory.

    The story is written as is this just happened. It also claims "court documents" as a source. In reality there are no court documents, and all the information in the story first showed up in some comments made on a chemtrail site in December 2014:

    http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/flaming-arrow-package/
    Already it's clear that any court order was not due simply to a belief in chemtrails.

    There are more details posted the next month:
    With full details in her blog, listing the many fringe beliefs she held, and other issues that might contribute to a loss of custody.

    So it seems that she did not have her child taken from her because of chemtrails, but rather custody of the child was awarded to the other parent. Such things are not uncommon, and are based on a number of factors that impact the welfare of the child. Clearly Vandb has multiple things going on that the judge took into consideration.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2016
    • Informative Informative x 5
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. narcosys

    narcosys New Member

    The only evidence you provide about the decision, is her comments on her blog. All of which stem from her claim about chemtrails.

    You say it wasn't that her child wad taken Cause of her comments about chemtrails bit rather custody was awarded to the other parent.

    I'm sorry but that is a [silly] explanation.

    The custody decision is the RESULT of the court case, not the CAUSE. What is the reason that the custody case was initiated to begin with. You are obviously using your personal and biased opinions to pass judgment on this woman. You are not taking a practical and objective approach using any kind of critical thinking skills and bringing forth any other evidence to make a truly informed decision.

    The only result of your post is showing her argument and provide that as proof, and then pass judgement yourself
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Infowars provides a link to her Facebook, which is all about Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, illuminati, reptilians/satanists etc.
    (i dont want to link it as she has pictures of her daughter and i think this is too embarrassing to put her daughter through).
     
  4. narcosys

    narcosys New Member

    That's infowars, not what she said to the school that started the whole thing. Furthermore, what in the world does that have to do with the safety of the child? Is she being physically or psychologically harmed? No. There is no evidence of abuse, and what her personal beliefs about conspiracies or topics should not have any weight or bearimg on her capacity as a parent to take care of the child.

    This is just another example of the liberal mind thinking you know what's best and any other view than your own is wrong. Isn't the left supposed to be the Champions of equality, tolerance, and hearing other people's beliefs on equal footing?

    The writer clearly displays intolerance and bigotry rather than a true objective and journalistic approach.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2016
  5. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    I grew up in a family where my parents got divorced. One of my best friends in later years also lost custody of his children to an ex-wife who was richer and frankly a little more shallow. So I kind of get how much custody battles, and losing a child in custody sucks.

    Not one to judge, but if she has no money, on disability, going into financial ruin, and blacklisted for employment, she is definitely not in a good position to be raising a child. Her beliefs are just icing on a cake, although one has to wonder about the influence.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I'm not "left".

    The point is.. of the OP debunk, that the lady herself says it wasnt JUST because of chemtrails.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Yes, this is the point. The claim being debunked is that she had her child taken off her because she mentioned chemtrails. Clearly that is not the case. Plenty of people talk about chemtrails publicly and don't have their children taken off them. What appears to have happened here is that the father was awarded custody, and while the full reasons aren't likely to be made public, the fact that the mother appears to show a variety of paranoid behaviour can't have helped her case.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  8. praisekek

    praisekek New Member

    I'm not sure why people should be denied custody because of their beliefs at all. If the claim was "I lost custody because of chemtrails", and the truth is "I lost custody because I believe in chemtrails, and other conspiracy shit"... uh, that sounds pretty much just as bad. Where do you draw the line? Kids taking beliefs from their parents is pretty normal. For example, my dad's a conservative, and our family is all Trump supporters, I'm sure there's a lot of judges who hate Trump - if I was a teenager, would that somehow be grounds for losing a custody battle? It reminds me of couples in the UK who lose their kids for supporting UKIP. [.. PP ..]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2016
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    I think you're missing the nature of the "debunk".

    This story is being spun that the child was taken by the courts ("snatched" as one site puts it) because Ms. Vandb mentioned "chemtrails" at the school. From her own posts, it seems clear that there was an ongoing custody dispute with the child's father. Again, from her own blog, there had been some sort of incident at the school, and the school had provided evidence in the custody dispute, as seems perfectly reasonable for a school to do.

    Ray Von
     
  10. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    (bold by me)

    It seems to be a reasonable explanation, not silly.
    Becca herself, repeats the term "custody", which implies just that, a custody decision, awarding care the next "able" family member....here being the father. The reasons and details?......she doesn't say for sure. Mental stability and income ability, is taken into consideration.
    Taking this further....it's kinda sad that Becca is blaming "chemtrails" as the primary excuse, as the reason for her daughter's award of custody.
    Her FB page speaks about her home being burnt-down in April 2015 (while in foreclosure for months), and a gofundme campaign for financial help. (while still acting in the custody of her daughter (?? see below)
    http://www.gofundme.com/w9h773c
    20160503-130901-x1ld2.
    (the above pic is from her gofundme pitch.)

    Note, it's confusing that her claim of her daughter's custody was lost in December 2014, yet her gofundme page is from the later date of April 2015. It's possible Becca was referring to the loss of her "daughter's belongings", in the house......but she leaves that fact rather ambiguous.

    Increasingly, Facebook posts are used as evidence in court.....especially in marital or custody disputes.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2016
    • Informative Informative x 2
  11. praisekek

    praisekek New Member

    how long does it take for moderators to approve posts?
     
  12. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

  13. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Until we wake up, exercise, make coffee, drink coffee, then wander our way through the internet over to metabunk. It's just first posts that have to be approved.
     
  14. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Does "the left" actually say this?

    I sure can't speak for "the left," but I don't know many people--left or right--who think
    all beliefs are "on equal footing."

    I sure don't. A lot of people believe absurd, easily disproven things...whatever they see on YouTube...
    why on earth would I take those as seriously as more rational, fact-based, informed views?
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    If two parents are contesting custody and one is exhibiting behaviour at the school gates that concerns a parent to the extent they feel the need to report it to the school, I'd say the court would be negligent if they didn't take it into account.

    Which couples lost their kids for supporting UKIP? The only case I've ever heard of were fostering. Not saying I agree with it, but that doesn't stop me suspecting that's bunk.

    Ray Von
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    possibly a bit OT, but how many couples in the UK have lost their kids for supporting UKIP?

    Are you sure it wasn't just the ONE couple of FOSTER PARENTS who had non British children fostering with them? and Rotherham Borough Council thought their cultural needs were not being met by being fostered with parents who supported a party with a policy that sought to exclude people exactly like these children? The council also said they would be happy to place other children in the care of these parents (just Indigenous British Children though)


    this would be the SAME borough council at the centre of the Rape scandal where they didn't prevent systematic rape by a group of Pakistanis for fear of being branded racist.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 3
  17. narcosys

    narcosys New Member

    I'm not missing the point. But thinking further beyond, the reason the whole thing started was because someone started the ball rolling on this because of the chemtrail mention.

    No investigation should have been started solely on this woman's belief. There were no complaints of abuse or child endangerment. It is a slippery slope to deem parents unfit solely based on their beliefs, especially if they happen to be against mainstream.
     
  18. narcosys

    narcosys New Member

    Because the lefts argument against a right thinking person is that they are intolerant and bigoted. When the left displays these traits much more prominently and viciously.
     
  19. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    Again, other than the misleading news articles, where are you getting the belief that the whole thing started because of the "chemtrail mention"? Her blog post specifically brings up the point that her ex-partner had a lawyer, and she didn't - that doesn't seem to indicate that the State/school initiated proceedings or an investigation, more that her ex-partner was contesting custody.

    That's the point I believe your missing, which is also the point made to debunk the misleading news articles.

    Ray Von
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  20. narcosys

    narcosys New Member

    Obviously the information is biased, but there is no mention that a court proceeding was initiated before this event. Given that her account of the situation and updates cover a long period of time, it could go either way, but it is beforehand that it was started before hand and that the father got a lawyer after the fact. Schools will call both parents when events arise that they deem alarming. I know this because my daughter's school (several states away) will call me and notify me of situations.
     
  21. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    Because Becca started this chemtrails mention, as the reason of her plight......and the alternative news pages decided to repeat a one-sided story (with no useful links), possibly to seek extra traffic to their site(s). (a motive for repeating the story).

    None of the sites repeating this story, say it is "over a year old" story.
    None of the sites repeating this story, add updated or recently found info.
    None of the sites repeating this story, suggested that there "may be more to this story".
    It makes me wonder......how credible is the story, if all sides are not examined ?

    Narcosys....do you agree with any of this ?

    I'm sure the poor child's father is aware of Becca's postings, and thankfully he is not posting his daughter's or wife's dilemma on social media. (as far as we know).

    Terribly unfortunate, is that the mother is using "chemtrails" as a cause to rally her beliefs using her daughter as a sympathetic cause.......and that alternative media is using Becca's story, to promote the same.
    Eventually in time, her daughter will read all these widespread posts, and come to various conclusions not yet known, when she is old enough to understand.

    Also disappointing, is her that mother is so strongly conspiracy oriented, that she refuses to stop posting conspiracies.....one reason that got her daughter awarded away from her. (according to Becca's own posts)
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 3
  22. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    No, if you read what Becca posted, it isn't at all. She lost custody of her child, for reasons which we don't know other than on her say so. She claims that taking about chemtrails led to her being "banned from the school premises", which may be true, but she then makes the leap from that to custody.

    So, the child's father has a stable job as a scientist with the university. The mother, by her own admission, has no money, is behind on her mortgage and is subsisting on $900 a month disability allowance. These are factors that would surely be taken into account when deciding which parent can best care for the child, are they not?

    (And isn't it amazing how many of these people who claim the government is evil and corrupt are happy to accept government handouts such as disability allowance?)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  23. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    Given the story seems to go back some time, it's possible she regained custody? There appears to be a girl of about the right age in the original of that photo.

    I've not seen all the reports, did any of them have any actual court information? If it's based only on blog posts, it's also possible it was made up.

    Ray Von
     
  24. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    I don't know about the US but in England and Wales cases heard in a Family Court are closed hearings and digressors are subject to contempt of court penalties. If the same in the US it would be virtually impossible to get an argument from both party's.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    but you don't know that's what really happened. Even her own posts don't really explicitly state that.

    She mentioned chemtrails. A man said she was screaming paranoid ideas. Maybe he embeliished, maybe she really WAS screaming her ideas in a way that frightened other children and possibly her own daughter, and she either genuinely thought she was being calm or chose to downplay this so as to paint herself as the victim. We don't know. We weren't there.

    She states the school teamed up with the father. That MIGHT mean they started the ball rolling or it MIGHT mean there was an ongoing custody battle and he chose to use this incident as evidence against her.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    She does specifically say CPS weren't involved. Wouldn't that be who the school had to involve if they wanted to initiate any kind of action directly?

    Ray Von
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    According to her.

    Clearly, there are other issues of which the belief in Chemtrails, the "cabal", Sandy Hook was false, being "blacklisted" etc...are likely symptoms. She is divorced, out of work, on disability (what disability?) and promoting fringe beliefs at a school. Not a solid foundation for a happy outcome. Her beliefs are fringe and yet she accepts them as fact. What does that say about the decision making in the rest of her life?

    You have no idea if the "ball" had been rolling before and she is a well known parent with issues that endanger her kids. Lets hear what the father, the "unidentified man", other parents and school admin say before making too many conclusions.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    Presumably. I find the whole thing very odd that it is only appearing as "news" NOW, rather than a year and a half ago when it first happened.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    I think moderators only approve the first post when you join.
     
  30. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    Also likely, is that she retained an attorney at some point, and the logical suggestion by an attorney would be, "don't post your legal problems or related opinions social media".
    This is just a "what-if" situation....I have no evidence to back-up this idea. It's simply sound advice, if regaining custody is a priority.
     
  31. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Just added a another debunked point to the OP (bold below)

     
    • Like Like x 1
  33. narcosys

    narcosys New Member

    See my post above yours. I do agree some of her views are extreme, but if true, I still disagree with taking a child solely based on views.
     
  34. narcosys

    narcosys New Member

    No, the school can call the other parent directly when no proof of actual abuse had occurred but there are concerns.
     
  35. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    I could find no court info.
    If she had since regained custody before (or after) the fire, and was since living in a van or shack (her words)....that's not a situation for raising a daughter when there are other more qualified parents available.
    This is all speculation though.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  36. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    ....and that is is the overwhelming view here......that there are other extenuating circumstances, which are lightly mentioned and hinted in her posts.
    This likely is not "just about her views", but other circumstances, where her views also came into play.
    It's combination of facts and situations.
     
  37. narcosys

    narcosys New Member

    They are excellent factors in determining custody. What started the proceedings? That's what in really want to know. Another post above i said it is obviously bias, but the only thing to go off of. Therefore yout cannot debunk it without all the information. The 'debunker' made tons of assumptions to get to his point.
     
  38. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    he is debunking the text of the article. Metabunk examines specific claims of evidence. He didnt assume anything, he is using her own words.

    https://www.metabunk.org/posting-guidelines.t2064/
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  39. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    I have just been reading Baxter Dmitry;s other stories on Your newswire.

    One about a Radio 1 DJ, (blacked face out but it's Nick Grimshaw in the picture) claiming to have been felt up in the toilets by the ghost of Jimmy Saville. One about the Queen at her birthday party openly hinting that 4 more celebrities would die this year as they aren't illuminati and have too much influence. and specifically making a point of threatening Elton John.
    One about how the pope has quietly upped Swiss Guard numbers from 100 ish to nearly 12,000 and is preparing them for war, (despite the fact that he previously did not renew the contract of the previous chief as he was too strict)

    oh, and LOTS of stuff about Prince being murdered.

    Considering the quality of journalism and even writing in these other articles, I doubt very much he found any actual court documents, especially as already mentioned, there is absolutely NO information that has not already been posted elsewhere by Becca Vandb herself.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  40. narcosys

    narcosys New Member

    He couldn't have debunked her claims using her own words cause she claims it started with the chemtrail comment.

    He claims by his first comment is clear the chemtrail comment is not the reason, yet that's all she mentions. Assumption right there.