A 21 year old woman was taken to Graham Hospital for a drug related problem.The woman had taken several Tramidol (SP?)before visiting the park with her 2 year old son and was smoking incense while at the park when she collapsed and was unable to move.Keep in mind this was witnessed by several adults.I could care less about what the woman was doing to her own health,but there children present.Not just her child but six (6) others also.
I believe the law is if someone is doing drugs so close to children it is considered “CHILD ENDANGERMENT”.Now,lets see if the CPD or the Park Police will charge her with this: Seven (7) counts of child endangerment,driving under the influence of drugs,using illegal drugs in a public area.And then let’s see if CDL will put this in their Police news. If no charges are brought up I beg of all Canton residents to protest about this,these are OUR children this wacko woman has endangered .
UPDATE:::
OK,this is bull shit! I just found out the woman was’t charged with anything!
Reason:::
It isn’t illegal for an adult to smoke the type of incense she was smoking!(THIS LAW HAS TO BE CHANGED)!
Also,This same woman was arrested last night for beating on a patient at Grahm Hospital,what in the fuck is wrong here in Canton?Fulton County?Illinois? Let me tell you what….our legal system has so many loopholes in it it isn’t funny!
I’ll keep you updated on this,my investigation has just started.
As always I have omitted the names to protect the innocent.
UPDATE::: 08/13/2011
Yea chalk one up for CDL,,well at least 1/2 they did post this 1/2 of the story I started above:
http://www.cantondailyledger.com/news/police_and_fire/x27446522/Local-woman-arrested-for-domestic-battery-resisting-peace-officer
Sorry people but this is crazy shit lol.
UPDATE:::08/24/2011
As stated above the woman was hospitalized because of drugs August 10th at Big Creek Park in Canton.But now comes the real strange shit!
August 19th the same woman was hospitalized for a possible overdose or alcohol poisoning according to the rescue call in Duncan Mills (or Duncan Town whichever you prefer to call it.actual call stated East Duncan Town Road)! This case is a puzzler indeed because the courts decision for the father of the children were given the physical and residential Custody of the children after the first time she was hospitalized. Yet somehow yesterday August 23rd she managed to get a paper from the same judge residing over the prior decision giving the children back to the mother.
As of this moment the father is on his way to the courthouse with his papers (not only the court papers but also papers from the DCFS stating that the father was granted the physical and residential Custody of the children). He has not seen the actual papers she presented to the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office but that’s ok, the deputy that escorted her to get the children stated they never read the papers either and advised him to take his papers to the courthouse the next day(today August 24th) to show them to the States Attorneyto try to rectify this terrible injustice.
I couldn’t make to the courthouse today but I will keep you updated on this when I here more later today.
UPDATE:::08/24/2011
Ok,I just got a call from the fathers mother from out side the courthouse after their visit to the States Attorney.They found out that Jessica Huskey had used an old OP and had it stamped! Witnesses at the office said they remember when she brought the OP and one of the women working there stamped it without looking at the date! This is inexcusable the lady evidently just seen the judges signature and made an unwise assumption! The sad part is why the hell didn’t the Sheriffs Department catch this? Can anyone smell a bit of STUPIDITY in our justice system?
My advise to this young man is get an OP against her for him and the kids and get a good lawyer to work on why this could happen!
UPDATE:::
Ok,now that everyone got their stories straight,I must apologize to the office lady at the Courthouse. Jessica did not bring the OP to the courthouse,she went thru the list of records in this case and had them make a copy for her.And as a copy is given the clerk has to stamp it with the seal and date the copy is received.So not knowing what she was going to use it for the clerk was totally innocent of anything she had done.
UPDATE11/25/2011
Ok,here is some things I dug up through the freedom of information act.
Jessica Huskey from the earlier post above has a court date December 1rst 2011.
She faces seven(7)counts of neglect and abuse(listed below).The minors names have been omitted.
FIRST CHILD
The minor herein above named is neglected/dependent minor for the following reasons:
A. COUNT I: That the minor,a minor under 18 years of age,is a neglected minor
pursuant to 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b),whose environment is injurious to her welfare in that the respondent mother has substance abuse
issues which have not been adequately addressed.
B. COUNT II: That the minor,a minor under 18 years of age,is a neglected minor
pursuant to 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b),whose environment is injurious to her welfare in that the respondent mother has ingested cannabis
during times when she was sole caretaker for the minor child.
SECOND CHILD
The minor herein above named is neglected/dependent minor for the following reasons:
A. COUNT I: That the minor,a minor under 18 years of age,is a neglected minor
pursuant to 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b),whose environment is injurious to her welfare in that the respondent mother has substance abuse
issues which have not been adequately addressed.
B. COUNT II: That the minor,a minor under 18 years of age,is a neglected minor
pursuant to 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b),whose environment is injurious to her welfare in that the respondent mother has ingested cannabis
during times when she was sole caretaker for the minor child.
THIRD CHILD
The minor herein above named is neglected/dependent minor for the following reasons:
A. COUNT I: That the minor,a minor under 18 years of age,is a neglected minor
pursuant to 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b),whose environment is injurious to his welfare in that the respondent mother has substance abuse
issues which have not been adequately addressed.
B. COUNT II: That the minor,a minor under 18 years of age,is a neglected minor
pursuant to 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b),whose environment is injurious to his welfare in that the respondent mother has ingested cannabis
during times when she was sole caretaker for the minor child.
C. COUNT III: That the minor,a minor under 18 years of age,is a neglected minor
pursuant to 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b),whose environment is injurious to his welfare in that the respondent mother ingested synthetic
cannabis during at time when she was the sole caretaker for the minor child,rendering the respondent mother incapable of caring for the minor.
It will be interesting to see how the judicial system will rule in this.
I will start a new post on this case as it develops.
