A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

[Fwd: [WTMFamilies] We are ALL at risk...TAKE NOTICE]



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 6th 03, 07:51 PM
Virginia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [Fwd: [WTMFamilies] We are ALL at risk...TAKE NOTICE]



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [WTMFamilies] We are ALL at risk...TAKE NOTICE
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:48:34 -0400
From: "Becqui"
Reply-To: WellTrainedMindFamilies



I am forwarding this e-mail along to homeschool groups we belong to because
this is the school lessons my kids have been having for the past 4 months.

Take notice, because what you will read below can happen to ANY of you at
any minute...just ask us....we are still in the middle of this nightmare and
it could go on easily for at least another year if not more. And there has
been threats that CPS will make our kids attend public school this fall
against their will as our CPS worker does not believe that young kids should
be homeschooled (that is a direct quote!). Made me truly wonder what we
where celebrating on Friday.

Pray not only for us, but for ALL the kids wrongly removed from their loving
parents arms (many many times with no proof or basis of abuse). If you
want to read more, let me know as I have probably over 100 cases from both
Michigan and around the country that I can forward to you.

Becqui and kids



Beware the Child Protectors
by William Norman Grigg

When Salt Lake City police and caseworkers from the state Division of
Child and Family Services (DCFS) surrounded the home of Janet Adolf
on June 4th, they were not responding to an accusation of child abuse
or neglect. The armed raid had been staged to seize Mrs. Adolf's
eight-year-old daughter, who wasn't at home -- although her three
terrified siblings were. According to Mrs. Adolf's attorney Michael
Humiston, the order had been issued because he had advised
caseworkers of his intention to monitor their visits to Mrs. Adolf's
home in order "to protect Janet's rights."

As the case is described by Humiston, Mrs. Adolf's problems began
when her eight-year-old daughter was "intimidated" into making
allegations of sexual abuse. Although the family's original
caseworker, Kirk Soderquist, "tried to tell the court that there was
no basis to the allegations," the youngster was removed from her home
and temporarily placed in foster care; Soderquist was removed from
the case and replaced with another caseworker.

"What Rights?"

After a month in a foster home, the child was returned to Mrs. Adolf
and a second caseworker was assigned to make regular home visits.
Humiston left a message with DCFS announcing his intention
to "coordinate" the visits, so that he could be present to
protect "the family's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights." According
to Humiston, when this was explained to Judge Sharon McCully of
Utah's Third District Juvenile Court -- who issued the order that led
to the June 4th raid -- she exclaimed, "What rights?"

Humiston, an attorney from Heber City, Utah, contends that the State
of Utah has conducted "a systematic reign of terror." "By law,
parents can be anonymously accused, and never get to face their
accusers," observes Humiston. "There's no right to a jury, no right
to remain silent, and no presumption of innocence. Worst of all, all
proceedings are conducted in secret. The State regularly terminates
parents' rights without ever showing that the parents are unfit."

In early March, Humiston filed a $500 million class-action suit
against Utah Attorney General Janet Graham and several other state
officials on behalf of five families whose children had been seized
by the DCFS. According to Humiston, the amount of damages sought in
the lawsuit is equivalent to the amount of child welfare subsidies
received by the state of Utah since 1994.

The situation described by Humiston is by no means unique to Utah.
Across the United States, thousands of families have been ripped
apart by child "protection" bureaucracies. Parents in such
circumstances find that if they have been "hot-lined" -- that is,
reported anonymously by a dutiful citizen, teacher, or acquaintance --
they enjoy none of the rights and immunities associated with due
process. Acting in the "best interests of the child," social workers
can terminate parental rights on a whim, and order police agencies to
enforce those whimsical decisions at gunpoint.

Even more ominously, child "protection" agencies across the nation,
following a totalitarian blueprint and fueled with taxpayer dollars,
are seeking to create a compulsory "home visitation" system, through
which agents of the state will be able to subject parents to regular
scrutiny -- and determine whether or not children, as "state
property," will be permitted to remain with questionable parents.
Supporters of this concept have worked stealthily for nearly a
quarter of a century to create a national home visitation network.
Should they succeed, armed raids similar to the one mounted against
the home of Janet Adolf may become quite common.

"Village" Takeover

During her recent "listening tour" of central New York State, Hillary
Rodham Clinton had scheduled a visit to Elmira to call attention to
that city's "early childhood intervention program" -- the Pre-natal
and Early Infancy Project (PEIP). Christopher Caldwell of the neo-
conservative Weekly Standard, who covered the First Lady's Senate
campaign swing, explained that PEIP is a child abuse program
that "involves sending social workers on regularly scheduled pre-
emptive visits into the homes of children whose parents are deemed to
put them `at risk' of wrong parenting."

In her ghostwritten manifesto It Takes a Village, Mrs. Clinton
gushes, "I cannot say enough in support of home visits" by government
social workers. After all, she declares, "Keeping children healthy in
body and mind is the family's and the village's first obligation,"
and in those "terrible times when no adequate parenting is available
... the village itself must act in place of parents. It accepts those
responsibilities in all our names through the authority we vest in
government...."

Insisting that in matters of suspected abuse or neglect of
children, "a child's safety must take precedence over the
preservation of a family that has allowed abuse to occur," Mrs.
Clinton contends that "social workers and courts should make
decisions about terminating parental rights of abusive parents more
quickly, rather than removing and returning abused children time and
again." Government-authorized "home visitors" of the type extolled by
the First Lady are authorized to pass judgment on the "adequacy" of
parents, and to summon child protection workers should it be decided
that the "village" must now "act in place" of inadequate parents.

Like most advocates of home visitation programs, Mrs. Clinton invokes
the tragedy of child abuse to justify state intervention within the
home. However, as the Physicians Resource Council (PRC), an affiliate
of the Alabama Family Alliance, documents in a new study entitled The
Parent Trainers, "most advocates of home visitation ... clearly state
that their goal is to institutionalize home visitation services for
all new parents." Deborah Daro, a former research director for
Prevent Child Abuse America (PCAA), candidly explained that the
objective "is to bring home visitation services to all new parents."
The U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, which was
empanelled by George Bush in 1991, reached the same conclusion,
calling for "the sequential implementation of a universal voluntary
neo-natal home visitation system" (which by strict definition could
not be at once "universal" and "voluntary").

Home visitors -- who are also called Family Support Workers (FSW) --
serve three missions, according to the PCAA. First, "being a teacher
is central" to the FSW's mission. Second, "the home visitor is also a
friend, adviser, and advocate for parents," and is responsible for
helping forge links between the family and local "community service"
agencies. "Finally," states the PCAA, "the home visitor is a monitor"
who is expected to develop a "collaborative relationship" with the
local Child Protective Services (CPS) agency, and in that capacity
she is expected to "set up regular consultation sessions with CPS to
review `high risk' cases" and to take "appropriate actions ... when
abuse or neglect or imminent harm are suspected." One FSW explains
that "because so many of our families are at risk of child abuse and
neglect, our watchful eye can see the potential for danger before it
becomes a real problem and do something about it."

In other words, home visitors/FSWs are the designated "watchful eyes"
of the state within the home, empowered to "teach" parents, shepherd
them into the suffocating embrace of the welfare state, and arrange
for the seizure of children from parents deemed unsuitable.
Furthermore, since enrollment in most home visitation programs begins
with the birth of the child (and in some, enrollment begins before
birth), the clear purpose is to make the state, by way of the home
visitor, the custodian of first resort for the children involved.

"We must remove the children from the crude influence of families,"
Soviet Communist Party educators were instructed at a conference in
1918. "We must take them over and, to speak frankly, nationalize
them." Dr. C. Henry Kempe, the most influential American advocate of
home visitation programs, subscribed wholeheartedly to that concept.

Dr. Kempe was co-author of the ground-breaking 1968 book The Battered
Child, which inaugurated the contemporary "war on child abuse."
Kempe's work was cited as authoritative by the U.S. Advisory Board on
Child Abuse and Neglect, and by the American Academy of Pediatrics
when it recommended in 1998 that pediatricians should "advocate at
the local, state, and national levels for the funding ... of quality
home-visitation programs." Not surprisingly, Kempe also earned
favorable mention in Hillary Clinton's It Takes a Village. What makes
Kempe's influence troubling is the fact that he was an unabashed
proponent of the totalitarian view that children are "state
property," and that home visitation should be "a compulsory,
universal service" imposed on American families. In a June 9, 1975
lecture to the Ambulatory Pediatric Association in Toronto, Dr. Kempe
set forth his vision of a system intended to enforce "children's
rights" within the home -- a vision remarkably similar to the one
expressed by Hillary Clinton in her law journal writings and in It
Takes a Village.

"A free society does not want to interfere with the rights of parents
to ... raise their children in any way they desire," observed
Kempe. "But, far too often, children are considered the property or
chattel of their parents, many of whom think that they are entitled
to dispose of them at will." Invoking the common-law maxim, "A man's
home is his castle," Kempe insisted that "all too often the child is
a prisoner in its dungeon. It is a dungeon of constant anger,
dislike, aggression, or even hatred."

While most people would acknowledge that such dismal, tragic
circumstances do characterize the plight of a relatively small number
of children in our country, Kempe insisted that the conditions he
described were normative rather than exceptional, and thus justified
a "limited intrusion into family privacy by society" in the form
of "health visitors." Such visitors would be regarded as "fully
capable of determining which children are at risk, whether they are
thriving adequately or not doing well," and help to "form a bridge
between these families and the health care system." Regular
intervention in the home would continue until the child reached
school age, at which time "many of the health visitor's duties will
be taken over by the teacher, the school nurse, or the school nurse
practitioner."

Kempe emphasized that the regime he described would not be limited to
troubled families; rather, participation in the home "health visitor"
program would be compulsory for all, "similar to the concept of
compulsory, universal schooling": "It seems incomprehensible that we
have compulsory education, with truancy laws to enforce attendance
and, I might add, imprisonment of parents who deny their child an
education, and yet we do not establish similar safeguards for the
child's very survival between birth and age 6."

Lethal Guardians

It is important to recognize that Kempe, in well-established
totalitarian fashion, assumes that parents are more dangerous to
children than strangers acting as officers of the state, which is,
after all, the most powerful instrument of organized coercion and
lethal violence. Once again, Kempe's priorities are in harmony with
instructions given in 1918 to Soviet educators, who were told: "From
the first days of their lives [Soviet children] will be under the
healthy influence of Communist children's nurseries and schools.
There they will grow up to be real Communists."

Kempe also emphasized that a stealthy, incremental approach would be
necessary in order to construct a nationwide home visitation system.
The program could begin in "any state, or any of our 3,362 counties,"
he told his audience in Toronto. Furthermore, he admonished advocates
to be flexible enough to adjust their proposals to meet local
conditions. "If it should turn out that local or state health
departments are not very interested or are unwilling to undertake the
health visitor program, there may be other approaches for its
implementation," he observed. Pointing out that the state of Michigan
had "placed the charge on the [state] Department of Education to
assure that everyone is `educable,'" Kempe explained that this
mandate "gives the Department the right to provide screening
procedures and comprehensive health care to make every child school-
ready."

This same approach has been used by the federal government in recent
years to justify intervention in the home at ever-earlier stages in
the life of a child. The Clinton Administration's Goals 2000 -- which
was an outgrowth of a national education agenda created by the Bush
Administration in 1989 -- provides millions of dollars in federal
subsidies for state early-intervention programs, all of which are
justified by the supposed need to ensure that children arrive at the
doorstep of government schools "ready to learn."

State Property

According to Kempe, "those of us who are qualified to assess and
correct the problems that produce child abuse and `failure to thrive'
should have the authority to intervene effectively for the good of
the suffering child." The range of interventions anticipated by Kempe
is limitless, given that he explicitly described the child as the
property of the state.

During the 1992 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton provoked
widespread criticism for her suggestion that children should have the
right to "divorce" their parents -- but, once again, she was merely
building upon Dr. Kempe's work. "When marriages fail, we have an
institution called divorce, but between parent and child, divorce is
not yet socially sanctioned," Kempe commented during his 1975
lecture. For parents deemed unsuitable by the state, "voluntary
relinquishment [of parental rights] should be put forth as a
desirable social act -- to be encouraged for many of these families,"
Kempe declared. "When that fails, legal termination of parental
rights should be attempted."

From Kempe's perspective, parents exercise authority over their
children only by the grace of the state, and the state has the right
to revoke parental authority at any time: "Where the state is
supreme, the particular problem is easily managed; in a dictatorship
each child belongs to the state and you may not damage state
property. The really first-rate attention paid to the health of all
children in less free societies makes you wonder whether one of our
cherished democratic freedoms is the right to maim our own children."

Of course, it is nonsense on stilts to say that children who live
in "less free societies" have been the beneficiaries of "first-rate
attention." When Kempe offered this paean to totalitarianism, the
world had not yet beheld the horrifying spectacle of the state-run
orphanages in Communist Romania, in which thousands of children lived
and died in unimaginable filth and squalor. Nicolae Ceausescu, the
Transylvanian despot who ruled Romania until he was murdered by his
outraged subjects in 1989, articulated a statist philosophy of child
care nearly identical to Kempe's, insisting that the individual
Romanian child "is the socialist property of the whole society."

Communist China's child care policies are also in harmony with
Kempe's vision of the child as "state property." A Chinese population
control commissar explained in 1979: "China is a socialist country.
This means that the interests of the individual must be subordinated
to the interests of the state.... Socialism should make it possible
to regulate the reproduction of human beings so that population
growth keeps in step with the growth of material production." Since
children are "state property" in Red China, those conceived without
authorization by the state are either killed in the womb, murdered
through infanticide, or confined in state-run orphanages.

Steven W. Mosher, one of the world's leading experts on Red
China's "one-child" policy, describes that nation's government-run
orphanages as "killing fields." Human Rights Watch-Asia reported in
1989 that Chinese orphanages have a mortality rate of at least 72
percent, with medical neglect and malnutrition the leading causes of
death. Most of the children consigned to this hell are girls; an
account recently smuggled out of China described a case in which a
starving girl child, desperately seeking surcease from starvation,
attempted to eat the flesh from her own arm.

Such is the fate of children blessed by the "first-rate attention"
provided by the "less free societies" extolled by Kempe as models for
an American child care regime.

Foot in the Door

Dr. Kempe was the founding director of the Kempe National Center for
the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect at the
University of Colorado. Kempe's successor, Dr. Richard Krugman,
served as chairman of President Bush's U.S. Advisory Board on Child
Abuse and Neglect, which recommended "the sequential implementation
of a universal voluntary" home visitation system.

In 1985, the state of Hawaii enacted the "Healthy Start" program, a
home visitation program that identifies "at risk" families through
screening at birth. Healthy Start literature acknowledges that the
program "evolved from the work of the Kempe program in Denver."

A recent evaluation of Healthy Start conducted by a panel of Ph.D.s
found that for families enrolled in the program, "no overall benefits
emerged on child development; the child's home learning environment;
parent-child interaction; well-child care; pediatric health use for
illness or injury; child maltreatment ... or maternal life skills,
mental health, social support, or substance abuse."

However, the program was successful in its chief covert objective:
the insinuation of state agents into the private affairs of a
majority of Hawaiian families. Healthy Start officials, according to
the PRC report The Parent Trainers, are now "screening over 52
percent of all new births in the state and provid[ing] services to
roughly 20 percent of all newborns and their families."

In 1992, Hawaii's Kempe-inspired Healthy Start program was used as
the template for the Healthy Families America (HFA) initiative, which
was created by Prevent Child Abuse America (PCAA) in conjunction with
the Freddie Mac Corporation and Ronald McDonald Charities. PCAA, it
will be recalled, seeks a "universal, voluntary" home visitation
program, and the organization boasts that "virtually all 50 states
have a public/private sector task force" promoting home visitation
services under various program names. "In California," notes the
PRC, "programs are called `Welcome Home Baby,' Georgia's program is
known as `First Steps,' Colorado's `Bright Beginnings,'
Illinois' `Good Beginnings,' Massachusetts' `Good Start,' and
Arkansas' `New Beginnings'...."

To those state-level examples, a recent report published by the David
and Lucille Packard Foundation (a major corporate supporter of home
visitation programs) adds Missouri's "Parents as Teachers" program;
the "Nurse Home Visitation Program" -- based on Elmira, New York's
PEIP program -- which has been put in place in Memphis, Tennessee and
Denver, Colorado, "and [is] now being replicated nationally";
Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters
(HIPPY), "which seeks to prepare 3-year to 5-year-olds for
kindergarten and first grade"; and the Comprehensive Child
Development Program, "a five-year federal demonstration program that
worked with poor families in 24 sites to promote children's
development, parents' ability to parent, and family self-
sufficiency." Irrespective of the program title, all elaborate on C.
Henry Kempe's malignant design of using home visitation programs as
an incremental means of nationalizing children as "state property."

The PCAA reports that "Healthy Family" sites, under various names,
are operating in 42 states and the District of Columbia. A recent
survey by the organization found that one in five parents with
children under the age of one received some type of home visitation
service in 1997. Furthermore, the organization's effort to make home
visitation universal received a tremendous boost in the federal
budget for fiscal year 1999: The PCAA received $33 million through
the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, and an additional $14
million for "research and data collection." The organization's 42
state chapters also have access to Children's Trust Funds, which are
financed through surcharges on marriage licenses and birth
certificates, fees for vanity license plates, and check-offs on
individual state income tax returns.

In addition, the PCAA "was instrumental in the reauthorization of the
Family Preservation and Support Services Program (renamed the Safe
and Stable Families Program)," points out The Parent Trainers.
Federal funding for that program, which totaled $275 million in
fiscal year 1999, is projected to increase to $305 million by 2001 --
and a large portion of that amount will be devoted to cultivating and
expanding government home visitation efforts.

Testing for Child Abuse

In order to determine which newborn children are "at-risk" and thus
qualify for home visitations, observes The Parent Trainers, state-
based "Healthy Family" groups must "gain access to medical records of
women who are pregnant or have just given birth. To complete this
phase, HFA programs employ `Family Assessment Workers' (FAWs) who
will screen and assess mothers to determine their risk status." In
some cases, an FAW "is designated as a temporary, volunteer employee
of the hospital (when she is on hospital grounds) to allow her access
to medical records. In other cases, a member of the hospital staff
may agree to do the initial record screen and then make referrals to
the FAW. Or, the FAW may not have access to medical records, but may
be allowed to enter hospital rooms and administer `verbal screens' by
asking postpartum mothers directly to answer the questions on the 15-
point initial screen."

The questions in the initial screening deal with the mother's marital
status and history, education, socio-economic status, family
background, and the like. A "positive score on any two" of the items,
notes a PCAA document, will result in a referral for an "in-person
interview" involving the "Kempe Family Stress Checklist" (FSC) -- ten
open-ended, invasive questions presented to both parents. The FSC is
supposedly designed to determine a parent's propensity toward child
abuse. On each question the parent receives a score from 0 (no risk)
to 10 (highest risk). According to Hawaii's Healthy Start training
manual (a model for state-level programs nation-wide), "a total score
of 25 or above for either parent places a family in the high risk
category, eligible for Healthy Start home visitor services." However,
as The Parent Trainers points out, "A score of 25 ... is fairly
standard. In other words, if either parent is classified as
a `moderate' risk on any five of the ten issues listed above, that
parent would be considered a high risk and in need of home visitation
services."

Among typical FSC questions can be found inquiries regarding "harsh
punishment"; PCAA literature emphasizes that spanking is considered a
form of abuse. Having been "suspected of abuse" is another risk
factor for a parent, as is being "in the midst of multiple crises or
stresses," having "unrealistic expectations of the child's behavior,"
or perceiving a child's behavior as "difficult or provocative."
Clearly the FSC is designed to define most -- if not all -- parents as
placing their children "at risk." This is to be expected, given that
the objective of "Healthy Start" and its offspring is a universal
system -- based on voluntary enrollment if possible, but employing
coercion if necessary.

The FAWs charged with conducting "screenings" and arranging for home
visitations are generally volunteers who may have had only a few days
of training. No specialized academic background is required to become
a FAW; a high school diploma or its equivalent is sufficient. (One
PCAA survey found that one-quarter of all FAWs had no college
training.) FAWs are encouraged to lure parents into visitation
programs by offering bottles, breast pumps, or other helpful gifts to
parents as a pretext for a post-hospital visit. "Comments made at a
recent HFA national conference indicate `creative outreach' may also
include sending flowers to the reluctant mother on Mother's Day, or
even sending flowers to the mother of the mother, if it appears she
is the source of resistance," observes The Parent Trainers. "It may
also include taking the reluctant mother out to the beauty parlor if
this may gain her confidence and make her feel obligated to
participate in the program."

To illustrate the success of such tactics, an Arizona program
reported that "90 percent of mothers offered the program accept HFA
services." Furthermore, PCAA urges FAWs to make "persistent outreach
efforts" for several months, if necessary, until reluctant
families "have explicitly indicated that they do not want the
service." Recalcitrant parents, according to PCAA, are "often at
greatest risk and, therefore, are in greatest need of the service."
Should Kempe's vision of compulsory home visitation to protect
children be consummated, it stands to reason that rebellious parents
would be the first to have their children taken from them -- as the
case of Janet Adolf's family in Salt Lake City would seem to
illustrate.

Levels of Involvement

As is almost always the case with any grand, malevolent scheme, the
Kempe-inspired home visitation campaign makes malicious use of the
worthy motives of otherwise decent people. Diana Lightfoot, director
of the Physician's Research Council and co-author of The Parent
Trainers, explained to The New American: "There are three levels at
which the home visitation scheme is working. At the first, most
immediate level, we have the social workers or FAWs themselves, who
usually have no agenda beyond doing what they consider to be the
right thing -- fighting child abuse, helping children get a good
start, helping parents who may be overwhelmed. And of course, these
are all very commendable motives."

At the second, intermediate level, continued Lightfoot, "we have the
state departments of social services and other government officials
who know some part of the larger picture and consciously deceive the
public about what's going on, but they believe that their noble end
justifies the unethical means they employ. For a lot of state
officials, the chief motivation is money; there is a lot of taxpayer
money being thrown at the states by the federal government for these
programs. At the top level we have the ideologues -- the Hillary
Clinton, Janet Reno, and Donna Shalala types -- who have an
ideological commitment to create a certain type of society, and are
willing to use the power of the government to re-structure the
traditional family."

Dr. Sam Watson, Lightfoot's co-author, remarked to The New American
that "Kempe, despite his reputation as a great humanitarian, praised
totalitarian states and urged that we adopt a totalitarian child care
policy. This is also very much the mindset of the current
administration, and much of the institutionalized anti-child abuse
and `children's rights' movements. The model and demonstration
programs that are springing up all over the country are the product
of that same mindset as well. In some states, money from the state
lottery is underwriting home visitation programs; in others it is
money from the tobacco settlement. These sources of revenue have been
a real windfall for advocates of home visitation."

"The seed of Kempe's vision has been planted, it has been watered
with taxpayer money," Lightfoot stated. "Whether it will grow to
fruition depends upon the American public. It is vitally important
that we educate families and parents about the dangers of home
visitation programs, and the totalitarian nature of the vision behind
those programs."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/19...o18_beware.htm



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here
http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705081972:HM/A=1652963/R=0/SIG=11tvulr8i/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60178275&partid=3170658



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/.

--
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas.
Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape!
http://shopnow.netscape.com/

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
misc.kids FAQ on the Pregnancy AFP Screen and the Triple Screen [email protected] Pregnancy 0 July 29th 04 05:16 AM
misc.kids FAQ on the Pregnancy AFP Screen and the Triple Screen [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 June 28th 04 07:41 PM
misc.kids FAQ on the Pregnancy AFP Screen and the Triple Screen [email protected] Pregnancy 0 March 18th 04 10:11 AM
misc.kids FAQ on the Pregnancy AFP Screen and the Triple Screen [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 March 18th 04 10:11 AM
misc.kids FAQ on the Pregnancy AFP Screen and the Triple Screen [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 February 16th 04 10:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.