grag claims Lisa's service plan had at LEAST 8 "services, yet...
Dan Sullivan
Services with a third as a maybe.
1 - grag finds employment.
2 - Parenting classes for Lisa and grag.
And the "maybe" 3rd - "Vocational Rehab - Some version of the Services
Plan or Case Plan has this as one of the services required of Greg."
Which would seem appropriate if grag couldn't find work in the field
he was trained in.
But the next sentence in the Motion was "Greg doesn’t qualify for
Department of Vocational Rehab. Not disabled. Great one DHS!"
As if out-of-work people couldn't learn a new trade unless they were
handicapped and qualified for rehab by the Department of Vocational
Rehab.
grag must not realize that when businesses die or get downsized, the
workers don't just stand around wishing and hoping their jobs would
come back.
They learn a new trade.
But as far as grag actually getting a job, they wrote in the Motion
"There has been no
explanation or justification of this. We consider this to be up to us
jointly, as a family, and object to being micromanaged by busybodies
at DHS who have no RIGHT to direct, order or extort such a thing."
Extort a job?
As far as the parenting classes, they wrote...
"The Service Plan directs Greg to attend Parenting Classes. Greg has
had NO HEARING about his guilt or innocence and the courts seem to
afford him NO RIGHTS, while imposing OBLIGATIONS extorted through
threat of TPR.
Greg was the oldest of four children and had about 20 cousins visit,
so served as apprentice parent at a young age. Greg trained his cat
Nosey to do "dog tricks" on command. Cats do not respond well to
negative reinforcement. You can't force a cat to do anything.
Are these parenting classes for purposes of teaching practicality or
to teach anti-spanking propaganda and fulfill the "rescue fantasy" of
the fanatical UNLICENSED caseworkers? Greg would be glad to TEACH a
community ed parenting class, if you would accept this.
Even childless caseworkers could learn something."
And ... they ask the Judge to take a QUIZZ!!
Here are some of the more ridiculous questions...
"1B. Is it legally acceptable to order parents into parent education
classes that preach NO SPANKING rather than teaching how to use
spanking effectively and within IOWA LAW?
1C. Must the large number of parents who do believe in judicious
spanking surrender their beliefs and submit to an anti-spanking
political agenda?
1D. For these parents, wouldn’t it be better to to teach parents how
to spank properly and within IOWA LAW?
1E. Do you know of any parent education that is pro-spanking?
1F. Will the court find that the unavailability of said parenting
classes cannot be held against the parents without violating their
protected right to raise a child according to their consciences and
will, therefore, not be used to support any action to withhold custody
of the child from the parents?
2C. Would you consider that every constitutionalist needs a
Psychological Evaluation?
2D. Would the members of the Boston Tea Party not have seemed surly
and indignant?
2H. Can Suzy Q. Mother forfeit Greg’s constitutional rights?
2I. Is DHS bound by US Constitution amendments 4,5,6,9 and 14?
2J. Does anything in this case rise to a level to justify violating
those Constitutional amendments?
3A. Is it Constitutionally acceptable to deny a defendant family
access to any materials used against them in court?
3B. Does the alleged privacy right alleged in regard to Social History
reports, Video Tape interviews with the child (where no sex abuse
found), and Caseworker Narratives, outweigh the LIBERTY INTEREST
presented by a Child Protection case?
3C. Does this court consider the US Constitution to be something that
caseworkers should know and fully understand? Or a mere
technicality, to be worked around?
4B. Will the court continue to allow DHS to play legalistic games
using Greg’s non-party status, at the expense of our family bond?
4C. Is the letter of the law more important than the spirit of the
law? "
Greegor
Was the previous thread inadequate somehow?
Dan Sullivan
> What is your reason to start a new thread for this, Dan?
Note the subject.
> Was the previous thread inadequate somehow?
Just keeping it simple.
Was it 8+ services that were too much, or was it, according to the
Motion, only two?
Greegor
Dan Sullivan
> See the original thread, dumbass.
GFYS, grag.