Nicole wants everyone to read this.
I almost hesitate to do that because the more traffic the article gets, the more likely HuffPo is to think it’s bona fide, and I hate that.
However, in the interest of fairness. . .
The summary is basically that the author is claiming that CPS and family courts tend to give custody of children to the parent that is less capable and withhold custody from the parent that is more capable.
She’s not talking about CPS taking children from a couple who are together. She is talking about couples who are split.
Her reasoning is that CPS knows that the supposed unfit parent won’t bother to fight for the kid, and the fit parent will, and that will generate revenue for the state in court costs and stuff.
In the article, the author give no sources for any of her claims. She cites one book, which I frankly didn’t bother to look up, and in a minute you’ll see why.
There you have the TL;DR version, even shorter than the so-called short version. I’d hate to see the long one.
So who wrote this screed and how did it end up on Huffington Post?
This is the disclaimer that appeared beside the article. This is not the main part of Huffington Post. It’s the “Contributor platform.”
This is also the main reason why, even though HuffPo is liberal, and even though I often agree with their political view, I consider them a dubious source. I always look up an author who writes anything there. I never just accept it. And most of the time, if HuffPo is reporting it, there are better reports available from more reputable sources.
HuffPo is not the World Net Daily or Breitbart.com of the left, but frankly, it’s not any better than Fox. Read at your own risk. More about that later.
So who is Patricia Mitchell, the author?
Here’s her bio from HuffPo.
I immediately saw red flags. Here they are, starting with the opening sentence. The grammar is atrocious. Just bad. Capitalization all skewed, punctuation horrible, you name it. It’s bad.
She starts by telling us how accomplished she is, how totally gorgeous she is, and how fabulously educated she is, a regular Miss High Society. Well, except for those pesky English courses, in spite of her claim that she minored in English and is a college graduate. I strongly doubt both those claims unless
She’s a “professional photographer,” which qualifies her for nothing except taking pictures (if it’s even true).
And toward the bottom, we see that she is a “child advocate.” She has not a single credential that would qualify her for that title (if it’s even a thing).
So, I went to Google and looked for her.
Dear FSM, I found her.
She obviously found that whole blogging thing hard, as she only produced about five articles in about two years, mostly about her.
The lead article, just so we all know it, is about her, of course.
I will let you guess. Take all the time you need.
While breathtakingly ugly, she seems to have tried a little harder.
But on both sites, she puts her own story front and center.
Have you guessed yet?
Here’s the summary.
She had a brief fling with a guy. They split up. She had a baby, a little girl. She went home to family. Her entire family is mean and all of them connived against her. Family stole her stuff. Mother attacked her with a poker. Dad hit her or something. Sister works for CPS. Family connived to steal her kid and give the kid to the father who lived in a school bus with no electricity or plumbing. In other words, he nauglered it.
CPS decided that he was a better option as parent than she was, which is saying something.
She fought back. She lost. Parental rights terminated.
Oh, and she’d like to raise one million dollars (please donate) so she can fight against evil CPS.
She used about five million words to say that. Read it if you want. The grammar and spelling are just as bad as the bio was.
This is the reason that it’s a very good idea to vet stories coming out of Huffington Post.
Here’s a handy little graphic. People on the right appear to disagree with this assessment, but I think it’s pretty spot on. I found several things interesting when I first saw it.
First, it confirms my instincts about Addicting Info, which I never read anymore at all. It made me question HuffPo more than I ever had before. In addition, I added some reading of The Hill, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist to my reading diet even though they skew to the right.
But mainly, I try to stay within the gray circle in the middle.