Story of Iowa mom vs. Department of Health and Human Services might be the craziest thing you’ve ever heard



Emily Donlin is an Iowa mother who is under investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services because her infant’s umbilical cord tested positive for cocaine.

The only thing is Emily has never done cocaine in her entire life. In fact, she’s so holistic she doesn’t even take over-the-counter painkillers or vaccinate her children.

How on Earth did this happen?

Allie Beth Stuckey invites Emily on the show to share her most disturbing story.

Although Emily had a home birth, she took her son Paul into the hospital shortly after his arrival to ensure he was healthy, and fortunately, everything checked out perfectly — initially.

However, two weeks later, Emily’s family received a knock on their door from DHHS saying Paul had tested positive for cocaine.

Naturally, Emily was shocked and confused. She explained that she had never taken drugs and that this must be a mistake.

Their home was proven to have “no safety concerns.” The DHHS agent examined the children and confirmed they “[didn’t] have any behavioral indicators,” and she assured Emily “she didn't see any signs of drug use” in the home.

Yet despite their favorable evaluations, Emily’s family was forced to “undergo a 20-day investigation” that would include a “plan” that required her mother and husband to trade off supervising her when she was with her children.

“Looking back ... I would have done so many things differently,” Emily laments, but at the time, she “felt [she] didn't have any other choice” and “just accepted.”

Despite the upsetting situation, Emily and her family “had faith that the truth [would] come out” since they “had nothing to hide.”

Unfortunately, that’s not what happened at all.

Emily was forced to undergo a three-month hair test that tested for five different drugs, one of which was cocaine, and the test “came back negative” for all five drugs.

“We were like, ‘Okay we're good, right?’” Emily tells Allie.

Unfortunately, the answer was still no.

“We were then told that, well, actually the three-month hair test had nothing to do with the positive test and proving my innocence; it had everything to do with a second allegation, which we weren't told about ... that there were drugs in our home,” she explains.

Thus Emily’s negative hair test proved that there were no drugs in their home. But it did not disprove her son’s initial positive test at the hospital.

“About a week later, we received in the mail the report saying I am founded for a case of child abuse, and I am now on the child abuse registry,” Emily explains.

As a result, she was told she must fulfill certain “voluntary services” to avoid a court order, but the social worker refused to tell her what those services would be unless Emily agreed to them.

When Emily continued to press for information about what voluntary services she was agreeing to, the social worker said, “It sounds like you're declining services, [and] when you decline services, then you go to a China [case],” which stands for “Child in need of assistance” and moves the case into “the judicial system.”

Once the case escalated to a China case, “We received court appointed lawyers — both my husband and I” and “our children received a guardian ad litem,” which “is a lawyer that represents our children's best interest in the court,” says Emily.

Somehow, they still didn’t lose hope.

Before their court date, Emily submitted “25 pieces of evidence” proving her innocence, including “a 12-month hair test” she paid for herself that covered “the entirety of [her] pregnancy.”

But this negative test was still not enough to prove her innocence.

In the hearing, the court ordered “a retest on the original sample (the umbilical cord) and a DNA test on it” to ensure the sample actually belonged to Paul.

They also determined that Emily would undergo “voluntary services,” which they finally explained would involve “two monthly visits with DHHS,” “a random drug test,” as well as “a “substance abuse evaluation” and “treatment plan” should she test positive on the randomized drug test.

However, during their first mandatory DHHS visit, the social worker told Emily that their department was recommending she undergo the evaluation and treatment plan before the drug test was even conducted, denying the court’s original order.

They tried to “get the manuscript from the trial” to prove the judge’s original orders but were denied.

Having lost faith in the entire system, Emily decided to reject the evaluation and treatment plan, knowing she was innocent and in no need of intervention.

She completed the drug test, which was another three-month hair test, and like all her other tests, “it was negative,” and she fulfilled her obligation to meet with DHHS twice, thus checking all the required boxes laid out in the first court hearing.

A few days before the second hearing, Emily and her husband received DHHS’ filing, which included “eight recommendations,” one of which was to have “the custody of [their] children moved under the Department” (meaning foster care), even though at this point, Emily had taken “seven negative tests” and fulfilled all of the requirements outlined in the first hearing.

When she followed up with the hospital about the retesting of Paul’s umbilical cord, she was told she needed to contact that lab that conducted the test, but when she called the lab, they refused to work with her and told her she needed to go through the hospital.

She also found out that the “25 pieces of evidence” she submitted to the court hadn’t even been reviewed. In fact, the court claimed it “didn’t even know [she] did this 12-month hair test.”

At this point, Emily and her husband were left with literally nothing except prayers.

And clearly, it worked.

“They dismissed our case” in the second hearing, Emily says, and thankfully, the DHHS (probably because they had no real evidence) did not pursue a contested hearing.

While Emily getting to keep her children is excellent news, she is still currently on the list of registered child abusers.

To hear the full story and learn where Emily is at now, watch the video below.


Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Boston City Councilor and son injured after she crashes unregistered car into house while driving on revoked license, reports say

Boston City Councilor and son injured after she crashes unregistered car into house while driving on revoked license, reports say



Boston City Councilor Kendra Lara and her son were injured after she crashed a car into a home Friday while driving with a revoked license, multiple outlets reported.

"Thankfully Councilor Lara and Zaire are expected to make a full recovery. She asks for privacy at this time," a statement from Lara's spokesperson told the Boston Herald.

Zaire, Lara's 7-year-old son, was riding in the backseat of the car. Though he was wearing a seat belt, he was not in a booster seat as required by law, according to a police report acquired by WCVB. The police filed a neglect report to the Department of Children and Families as a result.

Names were redacted in the official report. The names were visible in a draft police reported acquired by the Globe, however, according to the New York Post.

Zaire was taken to the Boston Children's Hospital where he received "several stitches," according to a statement from Lara's chief of staff Lee Nave acquired by the Boston Globe.

The car collided with the home after going through a metal fence and driving over bushes in the yard, according to the police report. The report also notes Lara was driving with a revoked license and that the car was unregistered, without insurance, and had an expired inspection sticker.

Self-avowed Socialist Kendra Lara, 33, and son Zaire were in an ambulance when officers arrived. Lara reportedly told officers she had swerved to miss another car pulling away from the curb and could not hit the brakes fast enough to avoid colliding with the house on 803 Centre Street in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts.

She also claimed the other driver "did not check their mirrors or assess the situation before pulling out."

The other driver disputes that claim, according to the report. The other driver says he did not pull away from the curb because he saw Lara's car approaching "at a high rate of speed." He claims Lara passed him and "suddenly turned left," crashing into the home.

Lara is expected to be summonsed on several charges, WHDH reported. The charges include operating a motor vehicle without a license and operating an uninsured motor vehicle.

Lara's most recent tweet was Friday around 1 p.m., the day of the crash. It was also the day long-awaited Supreme Court opinions addressing student loan debt forgiveness and First Amendment-protected civil liberties were released. In the tweet, she shared an article in The New Yorker arguing for ending the Supreme Court "as we know it."
— (@)

Lara apologized after invoking an antisemitic trope in June 2022. She had tweeted about an appellate court ruling that required state contractors in Arkansas to pledge not to boycott Israel, MassLive reported.

According to her profile on the City of Boston's website, she is "anchored by a socialist vision."

TheBlaze reached out to Councilor Lara for comment early Sunday afternoon, but did not hear back in time for publication.

Watch coverage from WBZ below of Boston City Councilor Kendra Lara's reported crash into a Jamaica Plain home.



Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

As States Ban Parents From Resisting Their Kids Going Transgender, Will Congress Step Up?

Congress must pass legislation to stop state governments from trampling parents' rights to protect their kids from radical sex theory.

Virginia Democrat Plotting To Take Kids From Parents Who Won’t Trans Them Is Just Saying The Quiet Part Out Loud

Everything Democrats say they believe about LGBT youth demands that children be taken from parents who do not affirm rainbow identities.

Left-wing 'journalist' calls Child Protective Services on Republican Virginia state Senate candidate Tina Ramirez



Leftist David Leavitt called a hotline on Monday in an attempt to report Republican Virginia state Senate candidate Tina Ramirez to Child Protective Services.

Leavitt, who describes himself on Twitter as an "Award-Winning Multimedia Journalist," trolled various Twitter accounts that celebrated Columbus Day. "Why are you celebrating torture, rape, murder, and enslavement?" Leavitt wrote in response to Columbus Day posts from sitting GOP U.S. lawmakers, the Yonkers Police Department, Ramirez, and others.

He also posted the question on another tweet from Ramirez, which was not at all related to Columbus Day — Ramirez fired back, "I teach my daughter real American history. I refuse to join the radical left’s campaign to erase history."

"Can someone please call child care services on Tina Ramirez who's teaching her child to be a racist?" Leavitt responded.

\u201cCan someone please call child care services on Tina Ramirez who's teaching her child to be a racist?\u201d
— David Leavitt (@David Leavitt) 1665435391

"Mighty bold and liberal of you to lecture a Hispanic mother with a black daughter on racism. What's next? Are you going to lecture me on women’s rights?" Ramirez replied.

Leavitt apparently decided to take it upon himself to make the call, because he posted a series of tweets lamenting how long he had been on hold with the child abuse hotline — it is unclear whether Leavitt ever spoke to anyone on the hotline to report Ramirez

"The Virginia State hotline for child abuse has a 10+ minute hold and is experiencing 'high call volumes' with 14 callers ahead of me. This is absolutely unacceptable. How many people try to report child abuse and hang up? How many children will continue to be abused?" he tweeted. He later noted that the hotline had "a 60+ minute hold & is experiencing 'high call volumes' with 14 callers ahead of me."

\u201cHaving a black child doesn't make you any less racist\n\nhttps://t.co/QnrkB39TTq\u201d
— David Leavitt (@David Leavitt) 1665435391

Ramirez described Leavitt's behavior as "appalling."

"He waited an hour on hold, tying up the lines of our CPS professionals trying to help Virginia’s children. The radical left is willing to put our children at risk to cancel conservatives," she tweeted. "It's no surprise that a member of the radical left is willing to go so far as to call CPS on a single mother - simply because they want to erase history. The radical left doesn’t want parents making decisions for their own families," she added.

\u201cIt\u2019s no surprise that a member of the radical left is willing to go so far as to call CPS on a single mother - simply because they want to erase history.\n\nThe radical left doesn\u2019t want parents making decisions for their own families.\n\n3/4\u201d
— Tina Ramirez (@Tina Ramirez) 1665451525

CPS allegedly investigates parents after 6-year-old boy completes marathon with family



Child Protective Services reportedly investigated two Kentucky parents after their 6-year-old son ran with them in a marathon.

What are the details?

The Crawford family — consisting of parents Kami and Ben and their six children — competed as a family in the Flying Pig Marathon, an annual race that takes place in Cincinnati on the first Sunday of May. The marathon is a qualifying event for the Boston Marathon.

The family completed the 26.2-mile marathon in 8 hours and 35 minutes.

But now they're being accused of "child abuse," according to WCPO-TV, because their youngest child — 6-year-old Rainier — competed in the event. Last Friday, CPS even visited the family home to interview the family.

The Crawfords explained in an Instagram post that CPS "arrived at our home unannounced and interviewed our children, parents & grandmother."

"This is a scary process because usually children are interrogated away from parents, against their will, and their answers determine the agency's legal right to take away the kids," the post added. "CPS requires SPECIFIC actions be reported like times, locations and specific abuses. Since these do not exist people had to make them up."

The specific complaint claimed the parents dragged their young child for more than 13 miles until they reached the finish line, "pulling him against his will." But eyewitnesses who were present during the marathon, and their own video footage, contradicts the allegations, the parents explained, adding that their son's only complaint was that he wanted to finish the race in less time.

The Crawfords said two social service agents who spoke with their family determined "that we have nothing to worry about."

In an interview with "Good Morning America," the parents defended their decision to let their young son run the marathon. They explained each of their children chose independently to compete, and none of their children were forced to do anything they did not want to do.

What do doctors say?

Pediatrician Dr. Christopher Bolling told WCPO that young children should avoid some exercise methods typically reserved for teenagers and adults, such as resistance training, because their bodies are rapidly growing. But he said running is typically OK, although a full marathon is "unusual."

Meanwhile, pediatrician Dr. Jay Lovenheim told NBC's "TODAY Parents" that running a marathon is "fine" for young children.

"If they’ve been training and taking rest days and they’re being monitored and there’s no signs of heat exhaustion — I really don’t see a whole lot of risk," Lovenheim said. "I’d be a little more concerned if they were running regular marathons. One marathon is fine.

Parents of 6-year-old who ran Flying Pig Marathon respond to backlash www.youtube.com

Tucker Carlson faces backlash after he urges viewers to call child protective services on parents who make their kids wear masks outside



Fox News' Tucker Carlson is facing heavy backlash after he suggested viewers call child protective services if they see children wearing masks while playing outside.

Carlson's advice comes the same week that the CDC announced that the risk of spreading COVID-19 outside is low in most cases.

What did he say?

During a segment on Monday's "Tucker Carlson Tonight," the host said that people should call authorities if they see children wearing face coverings outside — a move that he called "unacceptable," "dangerous," and more.

Carlson explained that "neurotic" liberals are complicit in spreading coronavirus fear by wearing masks while outside and insisted that it was his viewers' job to "brush them back and restore the society we were born in."

"As for forcing children to wear masks outside, that should be illegal," Carlson opined. "Your response when you see children wearing masks as they play should be no different from your response to seeing someone beat a kid at Walmart. Call the police immediately. Contact child protective services. Keep calling until someone arrives. What you're looking at is abuse, it's child abuse, and you are morally obligated to attempt to prevent it."

Daily Beast contributing editor Justin Baragona shared a clip of Carlson's remarks on Twitter and captioned it, "Tucker Carlson is now telling his audience to harass people who wear face masks outside. If they see children wearing masks, Tucker says the response should be no different than when you see a kid being abused — 'call the police immediately, contact child protective services.'"

Tucker Carlson is now telling his audience to harass people who wear face masks outside.If they see children wear… https://t.co/LYi6TeesQx
— Justin Baragona (@Justin Baragona)1619482915.0

What has been the response?

“Tucker Carlson wants to cancel parents who make the decision to have their child wear a mask," Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) wrote on Twitter in response to Carlson's remarks. "The right wing cancel culture is out of control. Who are what are they going to try to cancel next? Major League Baseball? Oh wait ..."

Tucker Carlson wants to cancel parents who make the decision to have their child wear a mask. The right wing cancel… https://t.co/gKJtOM35Bo
— Ted Lieu (@Ted Lieu)1619500390.0

Former Michigan libertarian representative Justin Amash tweeted, “If you don't want to wear a mask outside, then don't," Amash wrote on Twitter. “If you do want to, then go ahead. Respect other people's choices, including the choices of parents. Absolutely do not call the police or contact child protective services. Leave people alone as you want to be left alone."

On Wednesday, Dr. Anthony Fauci hit back at Carlson's "bizarre" advice.

During an appearance on CNN, the infectious diseases expert said, "I think that's self-evident that that's bizarre. I don't want to get into a back and forth with Tucker Carlson, but it's almost self-evident. ... You're talking about child abuse, really? Come on."

Joseph Robertson, executive director of Citizens' Climate International, tweeted, "Tucker Carlson is attempting to coordinate terrorist attacks on American soil. He is inciting violent acts, specifically intended to put lives at risk, even as a virus that has killed more than 575,000 Americans & 3 million people around the world mutates & becomes more dangerous."

He added, "What Tucker Carlson says in this act of incitement could lead directly to thousands of deaths & also to incidents of direct physical violence. Fox News has an absolute moral & legal responsibility to end his television career & turn him over to prosecutors."

CNN analyst and former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa added, "This is really, really dangerous. Listen to his tone of voice, and what he's instructing. He's moving from his viewers passively consuming his propaganda to having them act on it — against their neighbors. He's testing his audience's compliance."

The Equality Act Would Make Protecting Your Child An Act Of Bigotry

Protecting children from confusion or from harmful experimental 'treatments' is neither abuse nor neglect, but under the Equality Act, it would be treated as such.