MO: Missouri child abuse law ruled unconstitutional
Fern5827
Because the law sets NO STANDARDS for abuse or neglect.
http://www.donttakeourkids.com
http://www.CPSWatch.com Lots of chapters in Midwest.
MO
IA
KS
IL
Kane
> http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/6745546.htm
>
> Because the law sets NO STANDARDS for abuse or neglect.
>
We can always count on you to screw up in your favor, can't we,
Alfalfa?
You and dah judge make the same error. That people that are mandated
to report are required to evaluate. They are not. Thus this ruling
will fail on test.
So you really want to hold up such an example, a nurse that made a
decision to go it alone, that ended in the death of a child as an
example of *good* law?
The rule on reporting is, in most states, quite explicite. It states,
when in doubt report. It doesn't say, report only if you are sure, and
have made a diagnosis of abuse. If you can't find any other causes for
injury, report.
Nurses, doctors, and others, if not trained specifically in child
abuse and neglect issues, are notoriously ignorant of causes. They
know it and so refer cases on as they are directed by law, either to a
superior or to CPS.
I myself have had to report new kinds of instruments of torture to
states AGs and CPS so that they could recognize these new marks and
injuries for what they were, the creation and use of new tools for
beating children.
But we'll let this article stand as a nearly perfect example of the
thinking of low life's such as you. Tah, Tomato.
By the way, you once again lied in the subject line. It isn't what you
say it is. It is only the reporting law that was so ruled, and watch
it go down real fast on appeal.
So much for your, "We are winning, Kane" "You and yours are losing."
Sure, Potato.
Kane
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Thu, Sep. 11, 2003
Mo. Reporting Law Ruled Unconstitutional
CONNIE FARROW
Associated Press
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. - A Missouri law requiring health care workers,
teachers and clergy to report suspected child abuse to police has been
ruled unconstitutional.
Greene County Circuit Judge Calvin Holden also dismissed two
misdemeanor charges filed under the law against an emergency room
nurse who treated a 2-year-old boy who later died of a head injury
caused by violent shaking.
Nurse Leslie Brown was believed among the first to be prosecuted under
the so-called "mandated reporting law." Brown, 40, faced one
misdemeanor count each of failing to report evidence of abuse to
children services and of failing to report it to a doctor at the
hospital where she works.
Medical workers from across the nation rallied behind Brown, many
saying they feared the case would lead to second-guessing of the way
they do their jobs and further overburden state workers with
unnecessary investigations.
Prosecutor Darrell Moore said he would appeal. "This is not just about
one particular nurse," Moore said. "It is about an issue that's more
important - protecting our children."
Brown's attorneys argued Missouri's law was discriminatory and flawed
since it failed to set a standard for what should be considered
suspicious. The attorneys argued Brown acted reasonably, given the
information she received.
Brown treated foster child Dominic James on Aug. 10, 2002. Rescue
personnel noticed dime- to quarter-sized bruises along Dominic's spine
and expressed their concerns to a flight crew airlifting the boy. The
crew then told Brown.
Brown did ask the boy's foster mother about the incident, according to
authorities. Brown told police she was satisfied with the explanation
that the bruises were caused by leaning back in his booster seat.
Dominic was released from the hospital on Aug. 14 and returned to his
foster parents. Four days later, Dominic returned to the hospital with
more severe injuries and died Aug. 21.
John Dilley Jr., Dominic's foster father, has pleaded not guilty to
second-degree murder in Dominic's death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2003 AP Wire and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.kansascity.com
Fern5827
>You and dah judge make the same error. That people that are ma
Too bad you don't have the power of the Judiciary behind you.
Guess you know MORE THAN the JUDGE, WHO IS RULING ON BOTH THE FACTS AND THE LAW
IN THIS CASE.
>The rule on reporting is, in most states, quite explicite. It
Usually the statute reads something like injury which carries 'IMMIENT RISK OF
DEATH."
Course, CPS runs in when a Daddy yells at an errant child.
>It doesn't say, report only if you are sure, and
>have made a diagnosis of abuse. If y
This judge ruled the law WAS TOO VAGUE.
Get it?
>Nurses, doctors, and others, if not trained specifically in child
>abuse and neglect issues, are notoriously ignorant of causes.
Really they have spent from 3-12 years of training. I guess Art History major
cw's KNOW BETTER than folks who have DEDICATED THEIR LIVES TO TRAUMA AND
MAYHEM.
>I myself have had to report new kinds of instruments of torture to
>states AGs and CPS so that they could recognize these new marks and
>injuries for what they were, the creation and use of new tools for
>beating children.
>
Really, gee that would be JUICY JOURNALISM. THE TYPE THAT ANY PAPER WOULD
PRINT. Let's give us a cite, Blow hard.....
>You and yours are losing."
>Sure, Potato.
>>> Heh, did you read about the FBI and corruption. How about Medicaid FRAUD?
How about Stumbo v DSS?
Face it, CPS is the most DISHONORED INSTITUTION IN The US.
I suggest you read the ABA Journal, April 2003 issue.
As usual, your arguments are long on invective and short on FACTS OR CITES.
Your mouth embellishes your lack of credibility, references and organization
and merely inflicts stupid ad homs.
Guess you were mistreated in FC to have such a hostile outlook on life......
....Hmmmmmm.........
Kane confirms what we all know:
>Subject: Re: MO: Missouri child abuse law ruled unconstitutional
>From: pohakuy...@subdimension.com (Kane)
>Date: 9/13/2003 7:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7ed8d1be.03091...@posting.google.com>
Kane
>Kane blows hard, again:
Gee Plant, I thought you were above name calling.
Do you know that your Pal in Plant Husbandry, Doug, thinks it's
childish to name call? Funny he never mentions it concerning YOUR
posts, only mine. Oh well.
>>You and dah judge make the same error. That people that are ma
>
>Too bad you don't have the power of the Judiciary behind you.
Actually being a fully enfranchised citizen, and a tax payer, I DO
have the power of the "Judiciary behind" me. Big time.
I get to comment on their decisions. I get to write my congress
critters about them, I get to even write the president or chair of the
court where this doofus sits and complain. I have. But then I found
out some things I'll let you learn on your own. I give hints in this
reply. Read on.
>Guess you know MORE THAN the JUDGE,
While far too many (for my taste) judges do think they are god, they
are not. They have been shown on occasion to be either in error, or
incorrect on appeal, and overturned. Watch this one go down, as I
predicted in my post.
Of course this one could have been correct...but it isn't the case you
think or claim it is...not even the case the reporter claims.
>WHO IS RULING ON BOTH THE FACTS AND THE LAW
>IN THIS CASE.
You are just all excited and yelling and screaming and, I presume,
jumping up and down and waving your Limbs, because you erroneously
think this agrees with your malicious attack on child welfare workers.
>>The rule on reporting is, in most states, quite explicite. It
>
>Usually the statute reads something like injury which carries
'IMMIENT RISK OF
>DEATH."
That's quite explicite. But no, that is not what the law reads. It
reads more like, ANY suspicious circumstances. And it's pretty
clear...don't guess. When in doubt report.
Mmmmm...but yours is an approximate summation, and damn fine for a
Plant. Keep it up. Maybe your nose will shrink and you can be a real
little boy one day. .
>Course, CPS runs in when a Daddy yells at an errant child.
Really...opps. there goes that nose again.
Please post a citation or two that supports the claim the CPS removes
children for daddy yelling at "an errant child." Please be sure, so
you won't waste yet MORE of our valuable time, that Daddy didn't do
anything else along with the yelling or only yelled once or twice,
with no life threating in the wording. Okay?
>>It doesn't say, report only if you are sure, and
>>have made a diagnosis of abuse. If y
>
>This judge ruled the law WAS TOO VAGUE.
Did he?
That is NOT what the article reports. No quotes of him are offered.
None. It is the opinion of the reporter that that was the reason. And
the claim of the defendants attorney, but NOT what is reported done by
the judge.
Well, and if he did then he was wrong.
It is impossible to write a law that precludes the need for
investigation. And investigation and how it proceeded were the real
issue. The nurse failed to do as the law required....not diagnose, but
report.
I made that point.
All laws would then be unconstitutional. My calling in a bank robbery
and it being investigated then reported would be unconstitutional.
Just because I wasn't sure it was a bank robbery before I called.
>
>Get it?
Sure. Do you?
>>Nurses, doctors, and others, if not trained specifically in child
>>abuse and neglect issues, are notoriously ignorant of causes.
>
>Really they have spent from 3-12 years of training.
In child abuse matters specifically?
They are NOT so trained. They do get chances to get specific training,
often from police connected sources, but they don't go to much of it.
Then in this case, were that true, (though it's not) this nurse
screwed up big time. If she was that good and ignored the marks on the
childs spine and made an assumption to believe the foster parent (car
seat marks, my ass) then she should be in jail this very day.
Hopefully along with the foster parent. There is no way a child can
get dime to quarter sized bruises on their back from a carseat.
The point was, she is to be let off the hook because the judge, and
not you, KNOWS it's impossible to make such an assessment without
expertise. She skinned by.
She failed to go to the experts by the usual route, obeying the law.
And likely the judge, just like you and I, have a high regard for the
profession of nursing. She's being cut a break here.
>I guess Art History major
>cw's
What was your major, Daisy?
And would you say the same were the folks majored in human service
work? As many of them do that are hired by CPS?
How do you feel about teachers teaching out of their subject area, by
the way?
> KNOW BETTER than folks who have DEDICATED THEIR LIVES TO TRAUMA AND
>MAYHEM.
I know few nurses that have the knowledge of all the instruments and
methods of torture that parents are known to use on their children in
child abuse cases. That would be asking far too much of them. WHY ARE
YOU YELLING, BY THE WAY?
I know a lot of PS workers that are extremely well trained in child
abuse trauma causes. Way better than medical room personnel. Remember
ER nurses and doctors see all kinds of trauma, adult, child, many
causes.
PS workers see one kind and one kind only, that suspected of being
abuse caused. Day after sickening day, day in and day out, all hours
of the day and night. They are far better suited to sort this out than
ER personnel. Just stands to reason given the same length of time
experiencing cases.
A few years back I was the principle in a nationwide alert to a new
instrument of torture entering the child welfare scene.
I informed every AG and every CPS office in the nation about it. The
medical profession was totally unaware of it, and in fact had reported
injuries to children of which they could NOT identify the cause. Turns
out it was what I found. Unfortunately their knowledge was confined to
autopsy. No residue that could be identified....until I pointed out
the source. Nylon fibers. When they went back they found them. They
missed them before...too small, almost invisible, lacking any
pigmentation.
>>I myself have had to report new kinds of instruments of torture to
>>states AGs and CPS so that they could recognize these new marks and
>>injuries for what they were, the creation and use of new tools for
>>beating children.
As I said, and you of course, ignored.
>>
>
>Really, gee that would be JUICY JOURNALISM. THE TYPE THAT ANY PAPER
WOULD
>PRINT. Let's give us a cite, Blow hard.....
No, actually the newpapers and TV pretty much ignore such things. Doan
tried that same ploy I think I remember. Silliness as usual. All kinds
of things that are important to you or to me are of little interest to
advertiser driven media.
Here's the actually cite and instrument I reported. Currently there is
a move among non fundie Christians to get this out of circulation:
http://www.homeschooldigest.com/pradv.htm
You'll love it I'm sure.
People I show their brochure to on how to use this discipline tool
laugh at first thinking I'm joking, or that it's a joke item. It isn't
and I'm not.
>
> >You and yours are losing."
>>Sure, Potato.
>
>>>> Heh, did you read about the FBI and corruption. How about
Medicaid FRAUD?
> How about Stumbo v DSS?
>
>Face it, CPS is the most DISHONORED INSTITUTION IN The US.
No it isn't. The IRS is. You are just focused on your little part of
the world, and that strange landscape of your Plant mind.
>I suggest you read the ABA Journal, April 2003 issue.
Why don't you quote it for us. I usually don't go running off checking
every cite Plants make. You'll have to do better than this.
>As usual, your arguments are long on invective and short on FACTS OR
CITES.
Really? What was it about this post of yours that would require me to
go looking anywhere?
It was a citation of a media article about a judge's ruling, not the
ruling itself or even a scholarly law school review and analysis of
it.
Am I supposed to go find another media citation? The source you rely
on mostly?
I don't think so. rrrrr
>Your mouth embellishes your lack of credibility,
I don't keyboard with my mouth. I use my fingers.
You use your Twigs.
> references and organization
>and merely inflicts stupid ad homs.
My referances are far more often scholarly than yours are, Nasturtium.
Or research originated data sources rather than the Montel Specials
you cite.
>Guess you were mistreated in FC to have such a hostile outlook on
life......
Spoiled rotten, thank you very much. Loved and petted and hand fed and
hugged. Great family. I'll be grateful to Emily and Hank for the rest
of my life. Their children are still my friends, and friends of my
parents. That's how foster used to be done most often.
Sorry you didn't get the same.
But then my folks loved me too. That's why they asked some friends to
keep me while they finished WWII responsibilities and resolving the
stresses of those times.
Your reading comprehension needs brushing up. If you are going to lie
about me at least read up so you can at least sound credible.
>....Hmmmmmm.........
>
>
>Kane confirms what we all know:
Really?
Why yes I do, now that you mention it. I confirm you are a silly
Plant, with hardly a serious or useful thought, beyond your obvious
malice for just about everyone, every demographic, and every sensible
consideration.
Read what you cut and paste more carefully before you do and you'll
avoid these embarrassing moments where all YOU do is make unsupported
claims, and expressions of your misunderstanding of the real world and
how it works.
Read on folks, with my apologies for the length of this response. I
did not snip anything in the event you had enough interest to look and
see what a ditz this Plant is.
>
> >Subject: Re: MO: Missouri child abuse law ruled unconstitutional
>>From: pohakuy...@subdimension.com (Kane)
>>Date: 9/13/2003 7:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <7ed8d1be.03091...@posting.google.com>
>>
>>fern...@aol.com (Fern5827) wrote in message
>>news:<20030912210814...@mb-m21.aol.com>...
>>> http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/6745546.htm
>>>
>>> Because the law sets NO STANDARDS for abuse or neglect.
>>>
>>
>>We can always count on you to screw up in your favor, can't we,
>>Alfalfa?
>>
>>You and dah judge make the same error. That people that are mandated
>>to report are required to evaluate. They are not. Thus this ruling
>>will fail on test.
Does it look to you like I didn't read this article, as you claim?
So let's examine it again...for further thought and consideration.
Contemplate, dear Hosta, contemplate.
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------
>>
>> Posted on Thu, Sep. 11, 2003
>>
>>Mo. Reporting Law Ruled Unconstitutional
>>
>>CONNIE FARROW
>>Associated Press
>>
>>SPRINGFIELD, Mo. - A Missouri law requiring health care workers,
>>teachers and clergy to report suspected child abuse to police has
been
>>ruled unconstitutional.
According to the article, to which I will confine my review,
sourcewise, henceforth, claims that the law to report is
unconstitutional. If one looks carefully at the law and even what the
judge is said to have ruled you'll see this is sloppy
reportage...something on the order of the fictitious "subject" fields
you post. No such ruling was made.
>>Greene County Circuit Judge Calvin Holden also dismissed two
>>misdemeanor charges filed under the law against an emergency room
>>nurse who treated a 2-year-old boy who later died of a head injury
>>caused by violent shaking.
If the prosecutor has a brain he or she will be damned sure to appeal.
Misdemeanors though usually aren't important enough for an appeals
court to consider, but we'll have to wait and see.
Actually, given the nature of the injuries by bet is NOT shaken baby
syndrom, but Baby Slamming. That is throwing a child down hard against
a surface, thus jarring the brain against the inside of the cranium,
but hey, I wasn't there, so it's a guess....but it gives you an idea
of what I DO know about these issues.
She was a fool not to report. I suspect there's far more to this story
than this reporter is willing to post. Or her editors, given it's an
advertising driven medium. Eh?
>>Nurse Leslie Brown was believed among the first to be prosecuted
under
>>the so-called "mandated reporting law." Brown, 40, faced one
>>misdemeanor count each of failing to report evidence of abuse to
>>children services and of failing to report it to a doctor at the
>>hospital where she works.
The law being what it is, that would seem like a logical charge. Now
it may be that the ruling pertained not to the law, but to form the
charges took. As a matter of fact that is often the issue in such
cases. Law okay, charges poorly written or mistakenly propogated
according to the evidence later presented in court. Like she didn't do
what was claimed.
>>Medical workers from across the nation rallied behind Brown, many
>>saying they feared the case would lead to second-guessing of the way
>>they do their jobs and further overburden state workers with
>>unnecessary investigations.
The medical workers are worried about the state workers? Please...
They are concerned for themselves, a perfectly understandable
position, but not highly defensible given the risks involved.
Like they are under not risk of breaking the law if they DO report and
are if they don't. What's the risk?
>>
>>Prosecutor Darrell Moore said he would appeal. "This is not just
about
>>one particular nurse," Moore said. "It is about an issue that's more
>>important - protecting our children."
Mmmmm...sounds logical to me. The attempt to do away with reporting
laws is one of the most wrong minded biases represented in these ngs.
It won't reform CPS. How such reports are handled is the proper place
to apply pressure.
>>
>>Brown's attorneys argued Missouri's law was discriminatory and
flawed
>>since it failed to set a standard for what should be considered
>>suspicious. The attorneys argued Brown acted reasonably, given the
>>information she received.
Could be. Could be. That doesn't make the law wrong or
unconstitutional. Only that she lacked enough of the right kind of
information. That was the area of the ruling.
I think the reporter might have been stretching to say that the judge
agreed with all of the lawyers argument, including the
constitutionality of the law.
The lawyer claimed it, the judge didn't agree as far as this source is
saying.
>>
>>Brown treated foster child Dominic James on Aug. 10, 2002. Rescue
>>personnel noticed dime- to quarter-sized bruises along Dominic's
spine
>>and expressed their concerns to a flight crew airlifting the boy.
The
>>crew then told Brown.
So tell us, Expert Petunia, would you say that a trauma clinic or ER
staffer should assume that such marks reported to them by others and
easily examined should be ignored and the possible perp just be
believed out of hand?
How many conditions or events do you think could happen to a child in
a car seat would leave non abuse caused marks like these?
>>Brown did ask the boy's foster mother about the incident, according
to
>>authorities. Brown told police she was satisfied with the
explanation
>>that the bruises were caused by leaning back in his booster seat.
Really? I wonder if she knew the foster parent?
>>
>>Dominic was released from the hospital on Aug. 14 and returned to
his
>>foster parents. Four days later, Dominic returned to the hospital
with
>>more severe injuries and died Aug. 21.
Well, well, well. Now does anyone wonder why suspicious marks need to
be reported?
How often have YOU, Parsnip, complained that CPS didn't follow through
on even less evidence than this and a child died? Eh?
Or have you or your cohorts never made such a claim or indictment of
CPS?
But you want to let a nurse off the hook because she is better
trained. Right.
>>John Dilley Jr., Dominic's foster father, has pleaded not guilty to
>>second-degree murder in Dominic's death.
Must have been the carseat.
Now that we are drawing this little exchange to a close, though I
welcome your comments, I point you to the poor titling of this
article, and you falling for it and going the sloppy reporter another
faulty step.
This was NOT, according to the body of the article, a ruling that the
law was unconstitutional. We actually don't know WHAT the cause of the
ruling was.
Notice that the only referance to the judges ruling quoted by Connie
in this article is:
">>Greene County Circuit Judge Calvin Holden also dismissed two
>>misdemeanor charges filed under the law against an emergency room
>>nurse who treated a 2-year-old boy who later died of a head injury
>>caused by violent shaking.
"
That "also dismissed" suggests that a constitutional ruling was made,
and certainly one of the arguments put forth by the defendants
attorney was on constitutional grounds, but where does it say exactly
what the judges ruling was?
Now if you have further information that DOES establish the judge made
his ruling on constitutional grounds, you are free to post it.
The burden of proof is yours, and the if it were true you AND the
judge, as I previously mentioned, are ditzes.
But I think you are going to have to carry that honor alone. I suspect
the reporter, like so many, is expressing a serious bias and
misleading the public.
>>© 2003 AP Wire and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
>>http://www.kansascity.com
Serves your purposes though, right?
Am I correct in assuming a "no comment" from you, other than one of
your usual diversionary attempts to claim I'm just using ad hom
arguments?
r r r r
Stoneman.