Disturbing Details in the Flimsy Case Against Mother Amy Fabbrini

August 07, 2017

WRITER

The case of Amy Fabbrini, an Oregon mother whose children were taken away after the state declared her IQ was too low to parent effectively, has touched Glenn deeply.

“It's just so outrageous what is happening,” Glenn said.

Jason Buttrill, head researcher and writer for The Glenn Beck Program, met with Glenn last week to “get down to the absolute nuts and bolts” on what exactly is going on with this case.

The state has alleged that Fabbrini and Ziegler aren’t fit, even though there is no evidence of abuse or neglect. According to court documents, Oregon has alleged that Fabbrini doesn’t understand the basic needs of her children and can’t be a safe parent.

Heartbreaking: Glenn Sheds Tears With Mother Whose Children Were Taken by the State

After hearing from a listener who works for CPS and digging deep into the court case of Fabbrini, it turns out the case is even worse than they originally thought.

“We have seen all of the documents,” Glenn said.

Buttrill discovered that Fabbrini, along with the child’s father, both graduated in the middle of their class. Beyond that, there are actual quotes from case workers claiming that Fabbrini is “lazy, dirty and retarded.” There is even speculation that one of their children might be diagnosed with autism, therefore the court is hoping to give the child to a family with more means that is better able to take the child to a specialized school.

“This cannot stand,” declared Glenn. “The state cannot take children away because of low IQ. They cannot take children away because of a possible diagnosis in the future.”

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

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep