You Don't File A 51A Report In Massachusetts Without Cause

This Basically Tells The State Children Are Being Abused And/Or Neglected

Last week, a jaw-dropping story unfolded in The Boston Herald.

Around 11am on Saturday, June 17th, emergency services in Boston received a distress call from a public housing apartment located in the southern part of the city. It was reported that an individual at that address was in dire need of immediate medical assistance as they were not breathing.

The Boston Fire Department (BFD), the Boston Police Department (BPD), and emergency medical service personnel all responded to the incident. It appears that the fire department was the first to arrive on the scene.

The incident took place at an apartment within the Mary Ellen McCormack Housing Complex, which is managed by the city. According to The Boston Herald, BFD officers discovered an extremely unsanitary living space, strewn with drugs, alcohol, and adult toys. They also found an unresponsive individual lying on the floor, who was later pronounced dead at the location. While some news sources have speculated that the cause of death might be a drug overdose, this has not been officially confirmed.

According to the incident report filed by the BFD, there were roughly six individuals present in the apartment, and they were described as "appearing to be males." The Boston Herald, in its coverage of the incident on June 19th, mentioned that it had obtained information from multiple sources indicating that these individuals were "dressed as women." Similarly, a report from Law Officer referred to the individuals at the residence as "men dressed as women." WCVB-TV 5, a local news channel, also covered the story and referred to them as "cross-dressing men."

As per The Daily Mail's report, the deceased individual was identified as a "trans woman." NBC10 Boston, a local news station, characterized the deceased as a "young woman" and used female pronouns to refer to them. In a subsequent article published by The Boston Globe, the deceased was described as a 28-year-old woman. However, the article from Law Officer referred to the deceased as a "male adult." Likewise, during a radio interview conducted by Howie Carr with city councilor Erin Murphy, the deceased was referred to as "a guy."

According to the BDF incident report, the apartment was found to be in a highly unsanitary state. The report further noted that all adults present were uncooperative and unwilling to provide useful information. They also denied the presence of any children in the apartment. However, firefighters later discovered four children, aged between five and ten years old, hidden in a back bedroom, deliberately concealed by an adult male.

Boston city councilor and public safety chairman, Michael Flaherty, informed The Boston Herald that a person "wearing a wig" had asserted to be the father of the children.

Based on the available information from the official BFD documentation and limited media reports, it appears that a fatality was discovered in a rundown apartment where a group of individuals who were cross-dressing, or had done so in the past, were involved with drugs, alcohol, and adult toys. The premises also housed four young children who were intentionally concealed from the initial responders. These children were subsequently taken into the custody of the DCF.

However, on June 23rd, the Boston Police Department (BPD) released a statement contradicting the official fire department report and refuting all previous media narratives. According to the statement, the adults present in the apartment were fully cooperative, and there were no drugs or other concerning materials found at the scene. It was also stated that the conditions were not unsanitary, and all the children had a parent present, with no deliberate attempt to hide them from the emergency service personnel.

So we need to ask ourselves a few questions:

Why would the Boston Police Department (BPD) dare to contradict the Boston Fire Department (BFD)? Maybe they just couldn't resist stealing the spotlight or wanted to show off their investigative prowess. Who needs consistent reports anyway? It's not like they're part of the same law enforcement agency or anything. Perhaps they magically uncovered some secret information that the BFD conveniently missed. Or maybe they just love stirring up drama and confusing everyone involved. Whatever the reason, it's always entertaining when departments can't even agree on basic facts.

And isn't it interesting how the BPD conveniently avoids addressing certain key details in their statement? They seem to be masters of the art of omission. While they may refute claims of unsanitary conditions and drug use, they conveniently leave out any mention of the deceased person's gender or the sex of the adults present. It's almost as if they're tiptoeing around those aspects to avoid any potential controversy or uncomfortable discussions. And let's not forget about that 51A report filed with the Department of Children and Families. If everything was truly hunky-dory, why bother with such a report?

Oh, the consequences of ignoring a 51A report? Well, buckle up, because it's not pretty. Ignoring such a report when there are clear signs of child abuse or neglect can land you in some hot legal water. You might just find yourself facing criminal charges, darling. Yes, that's right—misdemeanors or even juicy felony offenses. And let's not forget about the professional consequences. Kiss that fancy license goodbye and say hello to disciplinary action and restrictions on your career. Oh, and did I mention the cherry on top? You might just end up facing some hefty lawsuits, darling. That's right, civil liability for contributing to the harm of a child. So, remember to take those 51A reports seriously, unless you're a fan of legal trouble and losing everything you've worked for.

When a 51A report is filed, authorities have the power to intervene and assess the situation regarding child abuse or neglect. In certain circumstances, if deemed necessary to protect the child's well-being, the authorities have authorization to remove the children from their home. This can disrupt the family dynamic and lead to temporary or permanent separation.

And that’s precisely what happened here - the children were removed from this house, but since transgenderism was involved in this story, the BPD is going out of their way to tell us “oh, it wasn’t that bad!”

Well, isn't it fascinating how the majority of Boston's mainstream media outlets decided to turn a blind eye to this juicy story? Apparently, it wasn't scandalous enough to grab their attention. Only The Boston Herald and a few local stations had the guts to cover it while the rest simply snoozed.

And let's not forget about Boston's esteemed political leaders who seemed to conveniently forget about this incident. You'd think they would be all over it, especially since it involves a publicly operated housing complex. But nope, only three city councilors bothered to speak up initially. Guess the rest were too busy twiddling their thumbs or playing hide-and-seek.

Oh, and the cherry on top? Boston's mayor, Michelle “she/her” Wu, was completely MIA for days. No comments, no statements, just radio silence. It's quite impressive how the champion of LGBTQ+ rights conveniently go AWOL when an incident involving the LGBTQ+ community unfolds. Talk about selective advocacy.

But hey, let's not forget that under Mayor Wu's brilliant leadership, they created the Office of LGBTQ+ Advancement, because clearly, lip service and token gestures are more important than actually addressing real issues.

Mayor Wu finally emerged from her hideout, not to address the actual incident or show any concern, but simply to dispute the reported accounts of the story. Isn't it just wonderful how our esteemed mayor chooses to speak up only when it's to protect her own image or spin the narrative in her favor? Nothing like a little damage control to prioritize over genuine engagement and accountability. Bravo, Mayor Wu, for showing us how to play the game of politics while conveniently sidestepping the real issues at hand.

Again, and it bears repeating: