I guess it doesn’t always apply:
A pregnant woman accused of killing her 6-month-old daughter in 2004 must give her newborn to social services when it is born, a judge ruled Wednesday.
I understand the reason for this: to protect the child from possible harm. (“Police say Towns has Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy”) However, the mother has just been accused, not convicted. She has entered a plea of not guilty. And the judge released her on $10,000 bond, partly because she has no criminal record.
Was there no other alternative to turning the child over to social services?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
She was released on bond because she was not considered a threat to anyone else. Now she IS a threat to someone else.
The article mentions nothing about her being a threat as a reason for the release on bond. She’s already pregnant – and the release just took place.
Do you think they would release her if they thought she was a threat to society at large? I don’t. Being a threat is part of the consideration for setting bond. She is a threat to the child, and should be separated from the child.
I agree. DSS can place the baby with a relative if the agency can find someone who is suitable. But this woman should not be allowed to have any contact with the child, unless it is shown to be safe. The law permits the removal of a child who is at risk of being abused or neglected by a parent who has abused or neglected another child in that parent’s care. This provision was added to the law because parents who seriously harmed their children, and had their residual parental rights terminated, sometimes went on to have other children, who were subjected to the same mistreatment. One chance is more than enough on this one — the child must be protected.
When I was in college, I did a six month internship in Child Protective Services in a New York suburb. I can back up what other commenters, especially VAB said.
Normally, I agree with the law that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
And in this case, releasing this woman on bond only proves that she is not a flight risk or a threat to the community. What she is accused of, Munchausen syndrome, is an emotional disorder where the person causes her own child to get sick. She would do things like slowly poison the child or inflict wounds so that the child needs constant medical care. Meanwhile, she, herself, would appear to be the doting, caring parent.
A person who has this disorder would not necessarily be violent or pose a threat to other people so the judge could order bail. But she could still be a very real threat to her own child.
Because the safety of a dependent child is at stake, Social Services did the right thing. If the mother, at her trial, is declared not guilty, no doubt she will get custody of her child back. But a child’s safety should be paramont.
As I said, I understand why it was done. I’m quite familiar with Munchausen syndrome by proxy. My question was why Social Services? Why not a family member or something?
Good point. Kids are not supposed to be in foster care if there are suitable family members available and willing to care for them.