by Health Impact News/MedicalKidnap.com Staff

Patricia Tornberg and Steffen Rivenburg, Sr., thought they were going to court this morning, July 17, 2017, to try to bring Baby Steffen’s big sister Annalise home to be with family members and out of foster care. Instead, the judge had them arrested and thrown into jail.

Family members and supporters alike are shocked at the turn of events, and see this as another way for the court and DCS to grasp at any way to justify their actions and deflect attention away from their role in Baby Steffen’s death.

Last month (June 2017) Baby Steffen was taken off of life support against the wishes of his family, and before the family could find a second doctor’s opinion regarding his condition. Baby Steffen was removed from his parents while still healthy, and yet the parents had no say over his medical care or removal from life support.

Tennessee DCS also removed Baby Steffen’s sister, Annalise, from the parents.

Advocate Serra Frank told Health Impact News:

This judge is scrambling to get rid of this mess, and he’s just making it worse.

The hearing was supposed to be about hearing motions for Annalise to be placed with family members.

Grandmother Lisa Rivenburg and two aunts, each willing and able to care for Annalise, were present at the hearing, but the motions were never heard. Judge Wayne Shelton reportedly stated that he did not intend to hear their motions.

See original story and updates:

Secret DCS Court Hearing

Instead, the focus turned to a motion filed on July 1 without the family’s knowledge by Margaret Parker, attorney for DCS, to compel the parents to submit to drug testing. There was allegedly a secret hearing between DCS and the judge on July 10 to hear the motion, but the family was never notified about it.

It was only incidentally that the Rivenburg family learned about the hearing after the fact, when they went to their former court-appointed attorneys’ offices to get their files on July 12. The motion was attached to the back of some paperwork, but there was nothing in the paperwork about any decision on the motion.

Rivenburgs in Court without Legal Counsel

All of the court-appointed attorneys connected with the case, including the Guardian ad litem for Annalise, have quit since Baby Steffen’s death.

The young parents went into court today without any legal counsel. Since their court-appointed attorneys have quit, Patricia and Steffen asked Judge Wayne Shelton for new counsel to be appointed for them today.

He reportedly told them that none of the attorneys wanted to touch the case because of the “notoriety” of the case.

Serra Frank said that when the judge learned that the parents were without counsel, he should have continued the case. They need to be given time to find an attorney. They cannot afford to hire an attorney. Thus, there was no one to argue against the request for drug testing at court.

Why Drug Testing Now?

Since their only knowledge of any request for drug testing came from the motion they found included in the paperwork, Patricia and Steffen asked the court for clarification.

They wanted to know a couple of things about the purpose of the drug testing:

Why was it being requested now, since they have always been in compliance before with all requested drug tests, and neither parent has had a dirty test during their entire ordeal with DCS. Was it even necessary since DCS and the court has made it clear that they intend to terminate their parental rights for Annalise on July 24? What is the point now of the test?

To be clear, they were not refusing the testing; they simply wanted clarification. They were in the hearing without an attorney. They wanted to know if submitting to the testing would help them to get their daughter back. They did not get an answer to that question.

When they were asked to submit a urine sample at court, they told the judge that the did not have to urinate right then. Judge Shelton reportedly told them:

You will by the end of the day.

Then, he had them arrested for contempt of court. There was no bond set, and their family was told they would have to stay in jail until they produced a urine sample.

Steffen Sr.’s mother Lisa Rivenburg said:

I can’t believe my children were arrested for contempt on something they were never served with.

History of Clean Drug Tests

Steffen Rivenburg, Sr., has no drug history, and the only thing that is alleged as a drug history for Patricia is something that never occurred to her would be interpreted as problematic.

She had a positive drug test last May arising from taking a single Lortab before she realized that she was pregnant.

It was a one-time thing, she said, and it showed up in her urine at the obstetrician’s office when she realized she was pregnant and began prenatal care.

When Baby Steffen was born, his Neonatal Assessment Syndrome (NAS) score was zero, indicating that there were no drugs and that he was not born addicted to any substance.

Both parents were drug-tested repeatedly once DCS seized custody of Baby Steffen and Annalise in February 1017, and they have always tested clean.

There is no history of drug use by either parent.

Even so, Patricia voluntarily submitted to drug counseling that was requested by DCS during the process of working out the case plan.

So why, all of a sudden, is DCS demanding that both parents submit to a urine analysis and hair follicle drug testing?

Constitutional Concerns and Civil Rights Violations

The argument could be made that, if they have nothing to hide, then why not submit?

Besides concerns expressed by one supporter that DCS could falsify the results in their attempt to cover up wrong-doing in seizing the Rivenburg children, there are basic Constitutional concerns here.

The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution states clearly:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is a basic American right guaranteed to all citizens. The Founding Fathers recognized that it was not good for government to have free access to search people or their property without a valid reason to do so, and thus secured this protection in the Bill of Rights.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this principle in a case involving suspicionless drug testing for people applying for food stamps. (See case.)

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) states its position on their website: