Watch for Updates

.

“Child is without parents to care for and meet

her needs due to parents refusal to engage DCF

and/or hospital staff in planning for the care

and well-being for the child at discharge.”

.

Shara Michelle promotes the parents’ version of their child custody dispute with the State of Connecticut.  Many informed observers have challenged that narrative.  I am one of them, and this is my story, and Shara’s story, about that, for what it’s worth.

My discussion with Shara, in a one-on-one exchange, began on September 16, 2019 in a thread on a FaceBook page at the following link:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/kenthovindsworstnightmare/permalink/1320697618099364/

This historic event, I figured, is worthy of memorialization here.  Shara may have done as well as any could have, including the parents of Baby Sofia (identities still appear to be suspect), as an apologist for the anti-government, anti-CPS claims that have been being made in the case.

.

PROPOSITION

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT WAS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY JUSTIFIED IN TAKING CUSTODY OF BABY SOFIA AND IN RETAINING CUSTODY OF BABY SOFIA.

ROBERT BATY: AFFIRM

SHARA MICHELLE: DENY


ROBERT BATY’s FIRST AFFIRMATIVE:

.
Not knowing Shara’s intentions or specific problems relating to the proposition, I will try to start slow and we’ll see if Shara is seriously interested in a substantive discussion of the matter and, if so, we can identify one or more of her problems with the State action(s) which may be discussed here.
.
Shara’s bantering with others is continuing as I prepare this first affirmative presentation. I am not now keeping up with all of that banter.
.
Connecticut law provides for the removal of children from their guardian(s). I have noticed that, in other cases, Shara and those like her, have refused to accept the existence and application of such laws. If the law does not allow for the taking of a child, such as Baby Sofia, the other facts don’t matter.
.

So, I think it appropriate to start with some presentation of the law and to find out if Shara wants to voice any objection thereto. If we can’t agree as to the existence of the law, if such there be, and such for which the law might provide, the other facts don’t matter.

.

So, let me propose that:

.

(1)

The State of Connecticut has the legal
authority to remove a child before harm
occurs in order to protect children whose
health and welfare may be adversely
affected and not just children whose
welfare has been affected.
.
(2)
Mental health may be a factor used by
the State in removing a child.
.
(3)
The State may take immediate custody
of a child without court approval.
.
(4)
In Connecticut, newborns may be removed
by the State if there is no guardian willing
or able to provide appropriate care for the
child.
.
(5)
Where challenged, the State has a burden
of proof obligation to establish its case
beyond a reasonable doubt.
.
.
I will await Shara’s acceptance of this thread as the venue for advancing the discussion she seemed so desperate to engage and what, if any, objection she might take to the above claims and why she might taken exception (deny) one or more of them.
.
SHARA MICHELLE’s FIRST NEGATIVE:
.
“Predictive neglect” is not neglect.
.
.
ROBERT BATY’s SECOND AFFIRMATIVE:
.
Not unexpectedly, Shara Michelle has failed to present a legitimate response to my first affirmative. I will, however, proceed and maybe she will get up to speed in her future responses, if she does not abandon her obligations in this important public discussion.
.
Shara mentions something she refers to as “predictive neglect”, does not define it, and does indicate how it applies to any of my claims.
.
Shara’s responsibility in such a discussion as this is to respond to my claims and attempt to rebut them if she does not accept them; not run off into the weeds with evasions and deflections or other irrelevancies.
.
Let me proceed even slower than my first affirmative and simply try to get Shara to deal with one claim at a time.
.
I wrote, in part:
.
(1)
The State of Connecticut has the legal
authority to remove a child before harm
occurs in order to protect children whose
health and welfare may be adversely
affected and not just children whose
welfare has been affected.
.
That’s my claim, and if Shara does not understand the claim I can add definitions to such terms as she may indicate she does not understand as to what I mean. She did not indicate any misunderstandings in her first negative.
.
I propose that Shara can either accept my claim or explain what exception she may take to it. If she objects to my claim, I will either accept her reasoning for its rejection or explain why her objection is not compelling and maintain my claim.
.
.
SHARA MICHELLE’s SECOND NEGATIVE:
.
Show me facts that support the reason for justifiable removal by the state of Connecticut of baby Sofia.
.
The page will be blank.
.
.
ROBERT BATY’s THIRD AFFIRMATIVE:
.
Shara, if you would like to take the affirmative and argue the following proposition to my denial, I can set that up for you:
.

PROPOSITION FOR DEBATE/DISCUSSION

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT WAS NOT LEGALLY OR FACTUALLY JUSTIFIED IN TAKING CUSTODY OF BABY SOFIA AND IN RETAINING CUSTODY OF BABY SOFIA.

SHARA MICHELLE: AFFIRM

ROBERT BATY: DENY

.

Till then, this is what we are doing in this thread:

.

PROPOSITION FOR DEBATE/DISCUSSION

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT WAS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY JUSTIFIED IN TAKING CUSTODY OF BABY SOFIA AND IN RETAINING CUSTODY OF BABY SOPHIA.

ROBERT BATY: AFFIRM

SHARA MICHELLE: DENY

.
As I stated earlier, your obligation, Shara Michelle, is to deal with my affirmative and respond either accepting my claims or offering your rebuttal thereto.
.
I have begun my presentation in support of my position with a consideration of the law. I need to know what, legally, it might be that you disagree with and why; as it applies/relates to the Baby Sofia case.
.
If the law does not support the removal of a child in Connecticut, with possible application to the Baby Sofia case, it doesn’t matter what else was going on; the removal would be illegal and my proposition would fail.

.

So, in this very important public discussion, I give you another opportunity to give an answer as to whether you agree with my #1 claim repeated below and, if not, why not. If you do not agree, I will consider your rebuttal and either accept it and change my position or explain why I think your rebuttal fails.
.

(1)
The State of Connecticut has the legal
authority to remove a child before harm
occurs in order to protect children whose
health and welfare may be adversely
affected and not just children whose
welfare has been affected.
.
.
SHARA MICHELLE’s THIRD NEGATIVE:
.
Peter and Suzy are excellent parents to two beautiful boys.
And deserve to be the same to their beautiful baby girl.
And Sofia deserves her parents, brothers and extended family and her great grandfathers art in her nursery.
.
.
ROBERT BATY’s FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE:
.
Part of the proposition before us is that
.
– “the state of Connecticut was
– legally justified in taking custody
– of Baby Sofia”.
.
It seems Shara Michelle, as is her habit, cannot even bring herself to admit, for purposes of this discussion, that there is a law in the state of Connecticut that allows for the removal of children
.
– “in order to protect children whose
– health and welfare may be adversely
– affected and not just children whose
– welfare has been affected”.
.
My proposition stands unrebutted by my adversary in this matter, Shara Michelle.
.
Should Shara decide to actually engage this discussion in good faith, and either admits to the existence of such a law or explains why I should reject my proposition, we will be prepared to advance this discussion.
.
Should Shara maintain her refusal to engage this discussion in good faith and refuse to meet her obligation to follow my affirmatives instead of heading into the weeds with evasions, deflections, irrelevancies, it looks like this discussion may be at an end, or very close to it, without Shara ever showing up to contest my claims in the case of Baby Sofia.
.
.
SHARA MICHELLE’s FOURTH NEGATIVE:
.
“May be affected” so, the state of Connecticut removes family members because they “may be” neglected at some time in the future?
.
Is this imminent or any time in the future?
.
.
ROBERT BATY’s FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE:
.

My claim below remains outstanding and unrebutted by Shara Michelle:

.

The State of Connecticut has the legal

authority to remove a child before harm

occurs in order to protect children whose

health and welfare may be adversely
affected and not just children whose
welfare has been affected.
.
Shara and I might have had many things to discuss as they relate to the Baby Sofia case, but Shara has yet to show any good faith and offer any legitimate response/rebuttal to my affirmative claims.
.
The prospects of seriously getting into the weightier matters are looking slimmer and slimmer with each failure of Shara to meet her obligations to deal with my affirmative claims and so advance the discussion with the prospect of actually changing my mind.
.
I’ll give Shara another opportunity to either acknowledge my claim as correct or submit a fifth negative that actually explains her refusal to do so, her denial, for my consideration and further response as necessary.
.
.
SHARA MICHELLE’s FIFTH NEGATIVE:
.
So, what you are saying is:
.
“the state of Connecticut has the ‘legal right’
to kidnap your infant if they decide she or
he is beautiful and they can make up some
xxxx lie of some kind of neglect that ‘may or
may not’ occur in the next 18 years?”
.
.
ROBERT BATY’s SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE:
.
No, Shara!
.
What I affirmed was clear enough and posted repeatedly for your consideration, Shara. It is:
.
The State of Connecticut has the legal
authority to remove a child before harm
occurs in order to protect children whose
health and welfare may be adversely
affected and not just children whose
welfare has been affected.
.
I could be wrong about that. That’s part of the fundamental issues to be discussed/resolved/considered in evaluating the merits of the State’s case regarding the removal of Baby Sofia.
.
You either acknowledge that there is such a law, or you don’t. It has nothing to do with your personal opinions about the propriety of the law, if it should exist, or the application of the law, if it should exist.
.
SHARA MICHELLE’s SIXTH NEGATIVE:
.
And I said: Robert Baty so, what you are saying is:
.
“the state of Connecticut has the ‘legal right’
to kidnap your infant if they decide she or he
is beautiful and they can make up some xxxx
lie of some kind of neglect that ‘may or may not’
occur in the next 18 years?”
.
.
ROBERT BATY’s SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE:
.
My claim is, and has been, without rebuttal or even a legitimate response:
.
The State of Connecticut has the legal
authority to remove a child before harm
occurs in order to protect children whose
health and welfare may be adversely
affected and not just children whose
welfare has been affected.
.
Shara, maybe it would help if you would do this; cut and paste what I actually posted and then indicate with your one word position as to whether your “affirm” or “deny” my statement as to the existent law in the State of Connecticut.
.
If you deny it, then you can explain to me your reasoning and I will either accept your position and change mine, or I will explain why I think your reasoning fails to rebut my claim.
.
.
SHARA MICHELLE’s SEVENTH NEGATIVE:
.
The health and welfare of baby SOFIA
was NOT adversely affected before
removal.
But it is AFTER removal.
.
.
ROBERT BATY’s EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE:
.
Shara, you are continuing to take a course in further refusal to meet your obligations to respond and deal with my affirmations.
.
My outstanding, unrebutted claim is:
.
The State of Connecticut has the legal
authority to remove a child before harm
occurs in order to protect children whose
health and welfare may be adversely
affected and not just children whose
welfare has been affected.
.
Before advancing the discussion, you need to clearly and unequivocally state whether or not you join me in making that affirmation and, if you disagree, explain your reasons for disagreement.
.
If you disagree, and I accept your reasoning, I will change my position and we can proceed accordingly. If you agree with me, then we can try to advance the discussion based on that foundation.
.
.
SHARA MICHELLE’s EIGHTH NEGATIVE:
.
“Before” what harm that did not occur yet and when was this imaginary harm scheduled to occur? .
.
ROBERT BATY’s NINTH AFFIRMATIVE:
.
The debate moderators have “called it” and the discussion will be terminated upon this notice that Shara Michelle has continued to fail to meet her obligations in this discussion, including simply affirming or denying my following affirmation so that any disagreement related thereto might be discussed and, hopefully, resolved and the discussion further advanced.
.
The State of Connecticut has the legal
authority to remove a child before harm
occurs in order to protect children whose
health and welfare may be adversely
affected and not just children whose
welfare has been affected.
.
– Robert Baty: Affirmed
– Shara Michelle: (To Affirm or Deny)
.
This discussion may be reopened if Shara decides to show some good faith, affirm or deny my claim, explicitly, unequivocally, and indicate an interest in advancing this discussion.
.

Update September 21, 2019

Shara and I have reached an agreement!

https://www.facebook.com/sharamichelle.art/posts/3603027756389362

Update September 22, 2019

https://www.facebook.com/sharamichelle.art/posts/3603027756389362

.

Update September 23, 2019

Suzy and Peter “Theodoro” refuse to give an answer on 2 fundamental issues crucial to understanding the case of Baby Sofia as it has presently developed.

Link to Shara Michelle’s page where following posts occurred:

https://www.facebook.com/sharamichelle.art/posts/3603027756389362

Link to Suzy Theodoro’s page and thread where following comments were posted:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2384479835004691&set=a.136999889752708&type=3&theater

Suzy’s alleged husband and alleged father of Baby Sofia followed Suzy’s lead in posting the following to his FaceBook page, with comments noted (go to link for complete set of comments):

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10111521806853589&set=a.10101653694020809&type=3&theater

.

Update September 24, 2019

Miscellaneous comments from Connie Reguli, Lydia Hubbell, Susan Cobb, and Shara Michelle on Suzy’s and Peter’s pages in threads at the following links:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2384479835004691&set=a.136999889752708&type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10111521806853589&set=a.10101653694020809&type=3&theater

.

Update September 25, 2019

My note to Shara Michelle as posted to her FaceBook thread at:

https://www.facebook.com/sharamichelle.art/posts/3603027756389362

TEXT OF ABOVE POST

.

Shara,
.
I notice my name still up in lights on Peter’s and Suzy’s pages and that Connie and Lydia were chiming in and that, even this morning, you were making like you thought you knew the law and the Constitution.
.
So, I thought I would give you another opportunity to clearly and explicitly indicate where your stand as to 2 fundamental matters important to understanding some of the law applicable to the Baby Sophia case.
.
Let me know, if you are ready, whether you “affirm” or “deny” each of the propositions:
.
Proposition #1
.
The State of Connecticut has the legal
authority to remove a child before harm
occurs in order to protect children whose
health and welfare may be adversely
affected and not just children whose
welfare has been affected.
.
– Robert Baty: Affirmed

– Peter Theodoro: (To Affirm or Deny)

– Suzy Theodoro: (To Affirm or Deny)

– Shara Michelle: (To Affirm or Deny)
.
Proposition #2
.
They are not even supposed to be
able to file a petition to TPR Baby
Sophia’s parents until she is 15
months old.

– Suzy Theodoro: Affirm

– Peter Theodoro: (To Affirm or Deny)

– Shara Michelle: (To Affirm or Deny)

– Robert Baty: Deny

.

September 25, 2019  9:54 AM MT

.

Attachment to above post is:

Woman identified as “nurse” above claims she is Baby Sofia’s “physician” in one of the videos below.

.

Links to Baby Sofia’s mother’s videos:

Update September 27, 2019

Link to Shara Michelle & Davian Breedlove Call

https://www.facebook.com/groups/kenthovindsworstnightmare/permalink/1329953513840441/

Link to Shara Michelle’s Big Reveal

https://www.facebook.com/sharamichelle.art/videos/3627901823901955/

.

September 29, 2019

“Child is without parents to care for and meet

her needs due to parents refusal to engage DCF

and/or hospital staff in planning for the care

and well-being for the child at discharge.”

.

October 3, 2019

It appears Baby Sofia’s mother and alleged father are taking legal counsel seriously and keeping their mouths shut and staying off social media.  However, Joyce Farrell Catalano has posted a 1 hour video this morning indicating today’s hearing was continued till later this month or maybe early in November.

Link to Joyce’s captured video as posted to the FaceBook group “Kent Hovind’s Worst Nightmare”:

.


.

Screenshots of Shara’s Negatives

.

.

Shara Michelle’s FaceBook Page Address

https://www.facebook.com/sharamichelle.art

Another Article on this Site about Shara Michelle

http://kehvrlb.com/shara-michelle-freedom-public-press

The Baby Sofia – Baby Holm Article on this Site

http://kehvrlb.com/baby-sophia-baby-holm

Baby Sofia’s Mother’s FaceBook Page Address

https://www.facebook.com/blue.gunderson

Discussion of “Predictive Neglect” in Connecticut

Connecticut Predictive Neglect Article

Connecticut Child Removal Document

Connecticut Child Removal and Neglect Document

Connecticut Pro-Forma TPR (Termination) ORDER

Connecticut Pro-Forma Termination Order

excerpt

.

.



.

https://www.facebook.com/rita.barrowstaley

 

Alleged father of Baby Sophia

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10111418343070839&set=pb.8836936.-2207520000.1569462426.&type=3&theater

.

Update November 7, 2019

It has been variously reported that today’s hearing was a Permanency Hearing and a Termination of Parental Rights Hearing.  Some may think both are the same, but they are not, and so it remains to be seen just what today’s hearing was all about.

.

.

Update November 10, 2019

This may be as close as we get to a real report of what happened in court last week, and it appears the mother and alleged father are further indicating they don’t expect to have the child returned to their custody.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2478195175633156&set=a.179937888792241&type=3&theater

.

Update November 20, 2019

Shara gives up the Baby Sofia story!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3806128529412616&set=a.3713772958648174&type=3&theater

Bwahahahaa!  Maybe she has.  Maybe not!

.

Update November 21, 2019

Shara changed her mind and now says she’s back on the Baby Sofia story!

.

Connecticut Statutes Annotated – Legal Reference

https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_319a.htm#sec_17a-101g

.

 



 


Comments

Shara v. Robert on the taking of Baby Sofia! — No Comments

Leave a Reply