GLENN: There is a story out of Oregon we've been telling you about all last week of Amy Fabbrini and her children. They have been taken away from a girl who we have been told, the state says is -- has too low of an IQ to be able to take care of her own children. The more we get into this case, the more we are, like, something is just not right here. And last Friday, I had a meeting with Jason Buttrill, who is with me now, and he's our lead researcher on the Glenn Beck Program, and we had a kind of come to Jesus meeting on Friday because we all had concerns. And we were, like. Okay. We have to get down to the absolute nuts and bolts on this. We need to go up. We need to see everything. We need to meet everybody. We need to know for sure before we go any further on this. Because it's just so outrageous what is happening.

So they were working on that over the weekend, and I get this forwarded to me from Jeffy. Do you know this guy, Jeffy? Or is he just reaching out to you?

JEFFY: No, he was just reaching out.

GLENN: So he's a guy, he wrote, like, five or six pages. I'm just going to give you a couple of highlights. He wrote five or six pages and said, look, I work for child protective services.

PAT: He's an attorney for them.

GLENN: Yeah, and he said I've seen this from the inside and, you know, don't jump on any bandwagons.

So here is word of caution. I want to just take you through this because what he points out were exactly my questions on Friday. And we have an update for you, and it's a pretty stunning update.

He says word of caution. Glenn, I understand your gut reaction is to defend parental rights and be wary of the state, and this is wise. However, the statements you make, the overgeneralizations, and your assumptions are alienated to a whole group of people that have a horrible job.

First of all, I want you to know if you work for CPS, I don't think you're a horrible person. I think you have a horrible job. I really do. I don't know how I would do it. But I want you to know I would bet 95 being probably overgenerous on the other direction, 95 percent of cases that CPS deal with, they probably get right. But when they get those 5 percent wrong, we should all be concerned. This is like death penalty stuff. It's not, like, hey, the electric chair works 95 percent of the chair. 95 percent of the people, they, you know, they were rightly accused and rightly judged and rightly killed.

Yeah, it's that 5 percent that is concerning because this is a death sentence for a family. But I don't think that C PS, the people the people are bad. I've worked in both rural and metropolitan areas as an attorney in child cases. All the sex abuse, domestic abuse, blah, blah, we do not have time -- now, listen to this because he underlined it. We do not have time to worry if someone has a low IQ or wants to teach their children at home. We deal with parents who are the worst of the worst. We try to save those people from terrible circumstances, including sex trafficking, as you do. There are thousands of us who get up every day to save children in horrible situations. Please stop overgeneralizing.

Well, I don't believe I have overgeneralized. I do not like CPS because of the 5 percent of cases that we have dealt with. The -- when there is a problem, it is devastating. Most of us aren't out to get your kids. I don't think you are either. Just like most people are not out to take my guns. But there are those with that agenda, and that is disturbing.

We work with parents to get their kids back. We're overworked and have too little resources. We know this is a system that is only a Band-Aid against greater moral and social problems.

Two. I'm sure that there are state workers who are everything you expect them to be. The Fabbrini situation may be the one where you're right. And if you are, I stand beside you denouncing it. However, there are a few red flags that I noticed.

Listen to these carefully. One, this story lies on a conspiracy, the CPS, state, court, the parents' attorneys, possibly the children's attorneys if they were appointed, all know that Fabbrini can care for the children, but simply think she's not smart enough. Is this possible? Yes. However, highly suspicious, even in small town. Maybe this town is rotten to the core and completely corrupt. Again, I don't think so. Being skeptical, how did you know all the individuals are corrupt and Fabbrini aren't being honest? Two, Fabbrini and her friend worked for the state and fired are the ones telling you their children were taken away because their IQ. My guess is you've never seen the filed against her. I would imagine that you have no proof that the state worker was fired for simply standing up for Ms. Fabbrini, unless you have your only getting one side of the story. She may be totally honest in this matter and the can state may state she has a notice IQ but the state has no evidence it affects her ability to parent. I have never heard of such a case. I have had many cases where parents lie about the abuse and neglect, and I must remain silent as to what the true combinations are and the evidence I have against them.

I have doubts, three that Ms. Fabbrini does sound completely coherent. Ms. Fabbrini claims the state won't let her have her kids because of low IQ. She is clearly coherent and articulate. So the premise of her story is that there was never any danger to her children but the state got ahold of her IQ and claimed that based on her IQ alone, she could not care for the children. The court. CPS, state, and attorney then ignored the fact that she is intelligent, articulate, and coherent. Internal Revenue time she brought forward proof just by showing up, they would go back to the IQ. Glenn, this is either absolute evil or ridiculous.

You may hate CPS, but this story is absurd. I may be wrong. I can tell you that in impersonal, there must be more to this story. I would ask you another question. Ms. Fabbrini's story is absolutely true. Why she has not sued the state. Can you imagine the state? State takes be able because fully capable home has IQ over 70. If it was motivate of self interest. Please note that I am just being skeptical. I do not deny that this could happen. We should be wary of a state having too much power. Just don't demonize all of us, blah, blah, blah, this state makes all of us who try to protect children look bad.

STU: That's a great e-mail, by the way. A great listener who is looking out for the show and trying to give us a broader picture. That's --

GLENN: And it's exactly what we were talking about on Friday. Because I said the same thing. Guys, that just doesn't happen. Until I see it with my own eyes, I need to see what's going on. And I need to -- I need to talk to everybody going on.

Jason, I have now seen the documents. Can I read this? Summarize this?

JASON: I would paraphrase.

GLENN: Paraphrase this. They are -- there are four conditions the state of Oregon is going after these child.

JASON: This is their case.

GLENN: This is their case. This is the documents that we have seen from the court.

One, the dad has limited cognitive abilities. Two, the mother is unwilling or unable to be a custodial resource.

Three, the mother has limited cognitive abilities. Four, the mother doesn't understand the basic needs of her child and lacks the skills necessary to be a safe parent.

That's the case. That's the case. So what this guy just said, you know, he's never -- well, you have now. We have seen all of the documents. That is the case, and I'm going to go a step further in a minute. But first, can you go through those four things with us, Jason?

JASON: Yeah, and I -- just like you said. I had the same reservations. I was, like, there's got to be something we're missing. You know, what's being reported is obviously not the story, so I want to go in to see the actual court documents that basically say, no, this is what happened. I'm assuming as soon as we see that, we're going to see some kind of crazy incident that happened. And that's the real basis of the case.

Well, we did some digging around after that meeting, we had a source come forward, and we've seen everything. I mean, everything. We've seen everything from their IQ levels, we've seen transcripts of past educational facilities, we've seen everything.

GLENN: Yeah. Just so you know, they graduated -- both of them graduated in the middle of their class.

JASON: With average grades.

GLENN: Yeah, average grades middle of the class. So if you're too stupid, then why did they get a diploma -- what does that say about all the other kids that will eventually be parents?

Okay.

JASON: So the limited cognitive abilities right off the bat. That's two of their main cases and actually their main case on this is completely out the window. If you're basing it off of their IQ, which some psychologists that tested them just gave them this number. I mean,ios how that's admissible in the court, and I also see that it's completely refuted because they graduated in the middle of the class, just like I graduated in the middle of my class. Am I a case worker at this place as alleged to have said, am I retarded? Can I not care for my children?

GLENN: So imagine a case worker, and we have the actual quotes. Imagine the case worker saying this person is lazy, this person is a mess. What was the second one?

JASON: Lazy, dirty.

GLENN: Dirty.

JASON: Retarded.

GLENN: And f'ing retard. Now, imagine, that's the case worker who's writing this up. And followed it up with quote I will never -- I will never let this person have their child. I will never allow them to have their child. Okay? After calling somebody an f'ing retard, I will never allow them -- and, by the way, when that was said, Jason, what else was happening with the case worker? What was he doing?

JASON: He was outlining for the parents, setting up -- so, yeah. And I just want to add in that this -- what this was said is potentially very explosive. It's an alleged statement, and we're actually following up to get more background on this specific person and his statements. But at the same time, this allegedly was said, he or she is putting out a plan, like he's supposed to do by the state, to give them their kids back. So the statement is "I will never let this person have Eric have his kids. But at the same time, he's saying, well, look, complete this class, complete this class, have these visits, and we will reunify your children with you."

GLENN: Now, the reason why he says that's explosive is because this person has allegedly, we have -- this isn't allegedly, but we have not gone into their cases yet. But we have had others step up who happen to have the same case worker who are saying I am not willing to go on the record, unless you guys are seriously going to finish this because this guy will never let us have our children. We have the same kinds of problems with this case worker.

Several parents, several people going through it, same exact case worker. They didn't know who the case worker was. We do. They don't.

JASON: So that points -- those are the biggest points. One and two. So basically your worst fears about this case, it just couldn't be about IQ. No, we're looking at the documents right now. We can tell you that is their case.

Now, point three, which I noticed you did give me a look on one of them. She's unwilling or.

GLENN: Unable to have custodial resources.

JASON: I thought that was odd, so I made a follow-up call on that. That stems from the interview where the case worker said that Amy wanted to put the kids up for adoption. But that is refuted, and it's very obvious now that she's not willing to put the kids up for adoption. She's not willing. She's fighting.

GLENN: So then there's this:

The mother does not understand the basic needs of her child and lacks the parenting skills necessary to safely parent the child.

Now, this is marked new allegation.

JASON: Yes.

GLENN: Can we talk about this?

JASON: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. Go ahead.

JASON: This is the most frightening thing in the case, in my opinion.

GLENN: Terrifying.

JASON: This was added in as a new allegation, and it says in the documents new allegation in parentheses. They have no cases to stand on at this point. So now they're prolonging this out. It has been four years that he's been with the foster care parent. So this goes to -- they had some doctor say that the kid -- and I think this is brand-new information that he might be diagnosed with autism.

GLENN: Might.

JASON: Might. They're not sure because he's still so young, they won't be able to really tell for another couple of years. So they don't really know. But he might. So in that case, because of the means of the family, they're not the richest family. Because of that, they think that, well, he'll be better off with a family with more means. That has the means to send them to, you know --

GLENN: A special school.

JASON: So he can develop at a faster rate. It's an allegation. It's alleged. None of this is -- I cannot believe this is even in a court Doc.

GLENN: And since when have we turned into a country that says a parent has to give up their child, even if they do have autism and give that child with autism with a wealthier family because they'll be able to provide. I feel horrible for the foster parents. I feel horrible for the foster parents because they've done the right thing, and now they've bonded with this child. I feel horrible for the child. But this cannot stand. The state cannot take children away because of low IQ. They cannot take children away because of a possible diagnosis in the future