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.

What Happened When The FBI Interviewed Me About The Smear Campaign Against Brett Kavanaugh

Given all this evidence of partisan corruption at the Bureau, I was naturally apprehensive about my interview.

Jason Whitlock compares 'groundless' BYU racial heckling allegations to lies that 'got Emmett Till killed'



BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock on Monday compared the discredited story that a Brigham Young University fan hurled racial slurs at a black Duke volleyball player to the false allegations made against Emmett Till, a black boy who was brutally murdered in 1955 in Mississippi after a white woman claimed he had harassed her.

In an appearance on "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Whitlock lambasted the mainstream media coverage of an alleged racial incident at an Aug. 26 volleyball match. A non-student fan was banned by BYU officials after the family of Rachel Richardson, a Duke volleyball player, claimed she had been called the N-word multiple times during the game.

On Sept. 9, BYU said it had completed an investigation into the alleged incident and concluded there was no evidence that anything inappropriate was shouted. The school lifted the ban on the fan who was falsely accused of hurling racial slurs.

"This story never made sense. From day one, it was obvious this young woman's godmother, with her own racist past over social media, concocted, exaggerated this," Whitlock told Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

\u201cNo mention of how good I look?\u201d
— Jason Whitlock (@Jason Whitlock) 1663095532

He accused biased news reporters of seizing on "fake racial incidents" to cover for the "anti-black racism" of the Democratic Party. Whitlock accused Democrats of telling faith-based black voters they must "hop on board with every satanic movement" when it comes to abortion and transgender issues.

"If you understand the history of black people, there's nothing more racist than that," Whitlock said. "They don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about these make-believe scenarios that never made an ounce of sense."

He continued: "This game was televised. This volleyball match was televised, no one made a sound. No one looked in the stands. No one acted as if anybody was being heckled [with] racial slurs. This was a game of telephone between this 19-year-old girl and her godmother, and the media just ran with it."

Whitlock concluded by comparing the controversy to the lynching of Emmett Till. Till was a 14-year-old black boy who, in 1955, was brutally murdered by two white men after Carolyn Bryant, a white woman, said Till had groped her, made crude remarks, and wolf-whistled at her. Till's murderers, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam, were found not guilty of the crime by an all-white jury but confessed to the crime a year later in 1956. They were not retried. Decades later, Bryant admitted the accusations were false.

"This to me, Tucker, is no different than the Carolyn Bryant woman in 1955 in Mississippi," he said. "This type of accusation, groundless accusation, is what got Emmett Till killed. And at BYU, they originally accused a special needs young man of doing this without any evidence, based off this woman's word ... her godmother, who wasn't there, and her father, who wasn't there. They gathered up a lynch mob and blamed it on this 19-year-old kid.

"These guys don't want to end racism. They want to cover up their own racism and then impose racism on people they don't like."

Here's more on the controversy:


Joe Biden Said Anita Hill Is A Liar. So Why Would He Ask Her About His Supreme Court Nominee?

Since the Hill-Thomas hearings, the left has pushed a baseless story that Joe Biden unfairly treated Anita Hill. This is balderdash.