Anyone have some input on Writ of Attachment procedure??
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
I've posted here before but have since changed my account info... I
just really don't want my ex googling me for the fun of it. Much of
this is not really CPS specific, but I've tried the legal groups and no
one answers, and I've searched and searched for this info online to no
avail. It all started due to CPS though, so hopefully you can forgive
it being slightly off-topic.
Some of you may remember the story.
Long story shorter, well a little:
CPS was investigating the home of the non-custodial father, due to
allegations made against another adult in the household by her angry
husband (she'd left him).
At time of investigation, child was on a VISIT with dad. Mom had (has)
primary custody. Specifically, they have joint managing
conservatorship with mom listed as Primary Managing with the right to
designate residence, etc. Dad had visitation rights spelled out in a
visitation schedule.
Normally child spent weekends at Dad's, rest with mom. In this one
instance, mom had asked dad to keep her a bit longer in order to get
some stuff done that necessitated the longer visit. It was summer, and
dad was fine w/it.
Mom had been generous with visitation from day one, long before court
order issued, and went above and beyond what she was "required" to do
in the interest of her child having a good bond with father.
Ok, enough background. CPS comes to Dad's house, investigates, leaves,
comes back a few days later, proceeds to "remove" all the children. By
"remove" in this child's case, I mean they coerced Dad into a
"voluntary" kinship placement. No court order, since they got it to be
"voluntary". Dad at no time called MOM to let her know what was up
until AFTER the child was with his sister (whom CPS approved for
placement).
CPS then drew up safety plan with Dad, which was in direct violation of
a court order because it stipulated that child remain with aunt,
despite fact that mom had custody.
You guys remembering this now?
I wrote asking for help on getting father to produce the child. Safety
plans and CPS action is believe to be WAY overwith... and Dad has run
off with child, after successfully hoodwinking mom about CPS all along
and threats of foster care and all that jazz.
Well this is still ongoing, because mom has been unable to locate Dad
for almost 7 months now. It's bordered on insane; police won't even
register her as a "missing child" because, in their words, "she's with
her father". Court order NEVER changed. Dad tried, right after going
into hiding, to modify for full custody, but then didn't show up for
court, TWICE, and his petition was thrown out.
Office of Attorney general has been zero help, only said "Get an
attorney".
Police have consistently been of zero help, as I said, wouldn't even
list her as missing so that she would be entered in the NCIC and so
that mom could get the big missing kids organizations to help.
National Center for Missing and Exploited children wouldn't help, said
the same as the police!
Local welfare offices wouldn't offer up any info to locate father (and
child) without subpoena for info.
Legal Aid -- no help.
Low cost attorneys? Nope.
Finally, found an attorney willing to help Pro Bono. Yay! Met with
him earlier this month. His first action was to subpoena CPS worker
and her records, the worker who kept child from mom in the first place
when this all started. Ended up not needing her info though... read
on.
Mom has searched nonstop and FINALLY, last week, was given info from a
source close to the father (but in disagreement with what he has done)
as to his current whereabouts. He is still in the county, but in
another town, and mom was given a physical location and address.
Sounds good, right? Attorney has obtained a Writ of Attachment to pick
up the child by law enforcement.
Attorney has also filed motion for contempt for numerous violations of
the court order by Dad, requesting jail time, probation, supervised
only visitation, compensatory time for all the time he has had her in
violation of the order, lump sum payment of all child support arrears,
you name it. Hearing for that is set for June.
Here are my questions that atty. can't answer right now because he's
always busy ;-) -------
Does anyone know what a ballpark time frame is for the police to
execute the Writ of Attachment? Do they have X days to do it, or how
does this work? It was granted by the judge at the end of this past
week.
Does anyone know if the Writ will get the Dad in jail too? Attorney
mentioned that he thought/hoped that WOULD happen, but is it the Writ
that causes this?
Does anyone know if the Writ allows police to SEARCH for the child on
the premises, or is this a case where Dad could just say she wasn't
there, or not answer the door and delay it forever and then take off
again?
Is there ANY protection against the expected onslaught of CPS false
reports that will most likely be initiated by Dad if the child is taken
from him? Would it do any good to let CPS know it is anticipated and
why?
Reportedly (according to the source who revealed his whereabouts), the
Dad was injured and spent "several months" in the hospital. During
this time the child (age 3) was left with a new girlfriend Dad has,
and a man the Dad is living with (friend), both adults most likely
strangers to this child. Is there any way that can be held against
him, even after the fact?
Would the fact that he has abducted the child be worth a CPS report
against him, even after the child is returned? Can parental abduction
be classified as emotional abuse?
Finally, is there ANYTHING that can be done about CPS' involvement in
all of this? I have read the handbook, they violated their own rules
left and right. Most importantly, though, by A) failing to notify
mom that an investigation involving her child was taking place (and
they had ALL her info in their own system from previous case and her
child had been interviewed) and B) putting a safety plan into effect
that DIRECTLY violated an existing court order by keeping baby away
from mom who had court-ordered primary custody, and doing so without a
court order of any kind to change that. I don't see how the
"voluntary" placement by Dad could fly.
It seems to me like they clearly assisted Dad in absconding with a
child that he had no right to take. I believe Dad chose to keep mom
out of the loop because he could then place her with his sister and
retain control, and he led CPS to believe mom was "nowhere to be
found". CPS never bothered to check on the validity of this... even
though there was a recent closed CPS case from 2 months before and all
mom's contact info was current!
I don't know what the odds are of getting anywhere with this, but mom
would very much like SOMETHING to happen to the CPS workers involved
because of that. They didn't even bother to contact her, not from the
start, refused to answer calls all during that case, and never notified
her once the child was "returned" to Dad. Because of the CPS action,
this child has been without her mom, who never had any allegations
against her WRT this child, for over a YEAR. It infuriates me. But
anyway.
I appreciate any replies, and I know, it's not legal advice, and I'm
not seeking such, etc. etc.
Sherman
to Show Cause" for contempt which can carry criminal sanctions. YOU can go
search for the child, have the dispatch number of where the document - the
Writ was delivered, (a court certified copy of the Order on your person at
all times), locate the child (have a responsible person - 3rd party,
uninvolved) with you) and call to have the writ executed upon the child and
they may just deliver directly to you.
I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice! Just been there, done
that and it worked. I delivered a certified copy of the Court Order to the
closest LE office near where the child was known to be - myself, with a
witness. I had the clerk sign a receipt for it too.
AFTER you have the child safe and with you, start with any of the other
stuff if you want.
Keep yourself safe. And sane. Best of luck,
Sherman.
<lovemake...@community.hipmama.com> wrote in message
news:1149064216.3...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
Sherman wrote:
> First things first. Get the kid. First. Your attorney can file an "Order
> to Show Cause" for contempt which can carry criminal sanctions. YOU can go
> search for the child, have the dispatch number of where the document - the
> Writ was delivered, (a court certified copy of the Order on your person at
> all times), locate the child (have a responsible person - 3rd party,
> uninvolved) with you) and call to have the writ executed upon the child and
> they may just deliver directly to you.
>
>
Hi, and thanks for replying.
The only thing is, the lawyer has said to wait and he will have the
police do it. He's said not to do anything independently. Is this bad
advice?
I am just trying to find out if there is a general time frame, from
when the Writ was granted to when it is executed. The lawyer said
they'd call or just bring her home directly when they have her.
What's the difference between the "Order to Show Cause" and the current
Motion for Contempt or whatever it is that is causing the hearing in
June? The Motion lists all the violations of the court order and asks
that he be held in contempt on 20-something violations.
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
Attorney (actually Atty's secretary) called and said that they (police)
would be attempting to execute the Writ tomorrow morning. Good news.
However, they will not be returning the child directly to mom right
away. WTH? They want mom to come to courthouse if/when child is
retrieved.
What is this about??? Secretary wasn't sure why.
What will happen at the courthouse and why can't they just give the
child to mom? Anyone?
dragonsgirl
<lovemake...@community.hipmama.com> wrote in message
news:1149112678....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Odd.
Sounds like there might be some pending cases on this child.
>
Greegor
about child abuse and encourage them to abscond
with the children?
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
Not that we are aware.
Of course, seeing as how they (CPS) refused to communicate with Mom
during all of the investigation and safety plan period, who knows what
they thought. According to the Dad, CPS originally said that they
wouldn't return the child to mom even if she could "be found" (though
she wasn't lost!) because she had a "CPS history". They were using
reasoning that they needed to "approve" her as a "placement" which is
nuts because of the circumstances and she was fit to have her the week
prior!
A friend suggested that this "retrieve child at the courthouse" thing
is just a formality to keep everything recorded and legal and ensure
that the child is returned to MOM, and no one else. I hope so... but
now I'm all freaked out.
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
dragonsgirl wrote:
> >
> Odd.
> Sounds like there might be some pending cases on this child.
> >
Ack.. you mean CPS? How could that be?
Nevermind, I guess anything is possible, and if this has taught me
anything, it's that NOTHING works the way it's supposed to and there is
no such thing as "justice", really. Lots of laws on the books that no
one will enforce.
Guess there's nothing to do than wait and see... I'd really hoped to
hear that this was just standard "reunification" procedure, but perhaps
not.
Charles Fibson
"Sherman" <Sher...@adelphia.com> wrote in message
news:Y-CdnXTs4fE...@adelphia.com...
> First things first. Get the kid. First. Your attorney can file an
> "Order to Show Cause" for contempt which can carry criminal sanctions.
> YOU can go search for the child, have the dispatch number of where the
> document - the Writ was delivered, (a court certified copy of the Order on
> your person at all times), locate the child (have a responsible person -
> 3rd party, uninvolved) with you) and call to have the writ executed upon
> the child and they may just deliver directly to you.
>
> I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice!
Of course it's legal advice - despite your disclaimer.
She asked for input on writ - you barked orders at her like -- well --
Dan(iel).
Charles Fibson
office. Its a bold faced lie. Love may do some things, but a family it
doesn't make. Start with a mother and a father, add children of their own
making - you get the idea.
The idea that 'love' makes families is ridiculous - yup - a gaggle of other
peoples children, a little magic 'love' and presto - instat family. Except
when you build a family from 'love'you gotta destroy a real family first.
Just an observation.
Just wondering - are you a caseworker too?
<lovemake...@community.hipmama.com> wrote in message
news:1149064216.3...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sherman
<lovemake...@community.hipmama.com> wrote in message
news:1149112678....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I dunno. Maybe they need a receipt or something?
Sherman
Sherman
<lovemake...@community.hipmama.com> wrote in message
news:1149102975.8...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It sounds like the lawyer has it well under control. Follow his advice.
Sherman
>
0:->
WHACK!!!!
There, now pay attention.
Do YOU have some sort of delusion that your comments are more helpful
than distracting to people that wish to find answers for THEIR very real
problems by coming here?
Do you think if they engage in conversation with YOU about phony
complaints YOU claim against CPS, while feathering a nice nest for
yourself with Lisa, SANS HER DAUGHTER YOU WERE LIKELY THE CAUSE FOR
REMOVING, that this will help them find answers they seek?
Do you think you are a great crusader?
Do you think?
Best wishes, 0:->
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
0:->
Not meaning to mind your business for you, but folks in extremis are
often vulnerable to distraction. It's hard to focus and harder to judge
what is coming at you.
You have gotten thoughtful responses to your questions, then you have
gotten a troll trying to hook you into HIS nonsense....a NON-victim of
CPS pretending to be one.
He came out with ALL the advantages of having the child removed. If he
were honest he'd admit that CPS was his best friend....a GOOD friend to
a man that moves in with a single mother, and proceeds to act in ways
that attract CPS attention AND not only have the child removed, bit
sabotage her return for THREE YEARS...and running.
Ask him if HIS advice and methods got the child home.
Best, Kane
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
I just want to say that I don't respond to extremism... and I am
pretty good at recognizing it. I know from watching and reading for
about a year that there is always an attempt to derail a thread, to
change the topic to suit personal agendas, etc., and I don't have the
energy to fight that. I just ignore it.
So, with that being said, I want to thank those who have come forward
with genuine and honest responses, and to post an update.
This morning we received THE phone call, and we were gloriously happy:
the police had executed the Writ and had recovered the child and we
were to go to the courthouse ASAP!
Trying not to worry to hard about WHY, off we went. The atty's
secretary directed us to meet the atty. over at the courthouse in the
"Presiding Court" courtroom. Hmmm. Okay.
The only thing we can now assume is that Dad called CPS when the police
showed up to execute the writ, or else he had someone in the home call
for him... because they got wind of it and were there in court.
The atty. had spoken to the judge at length. The dad and the baby were
present in a hallway off to the side of the courtroom. The judge was
about to release the child to mom after viewing the court order when
someone (who seemed to be with CPS) told him no. We could only strain
to hear as we were directed to sit in the courtroom but not up front of
course, and all I heard her say was that "It's not like her attorney is
saying, it wasn't like that at all. Dad has done all we've told him
to, we need to wait for the caseworker to arrive".
So he decided to wait, and wait, and wait. The atty. asked him if,
considering how long it had been since Mom had seen the child, if they
could visit while waiting and he said no. His words were "At this
point I cannot trust either of these parents".... so why she was
allowed to remain off to the side with Dad, I don't know.
Caseworker arrived with hoops and lies upon lies. Atty says she is
covering, she knows now that she screwed up in "removing" the child
last year, but has to cover for it, so she proceeded to claim numerous
ways in which we were "uncooperative".
She had a laundry list of things she said she'd asked Mom to do... none
of it true. Not a word. The only thing she asked for back then was a
drug test and promised if the drug test was negative that it would all
be over. She broke that promise and today, claimed that Mom had been
asked to take parenting classes, home visits, counseling, blah blah
blah, yet still affirmed that there was never any allegation against
mom.
Then she claimed that they had known all along where Dad was and
approved of him having her, but that they have been "looking" for mom
for months and that's why this case was labelled "closed
unsuccessfully". Amazing. I'm just floored. How can she sleep at
night?
Mom didn't move until after the child went missing. Mom still has same
phone number. CPS has been to NEW house, on another stupid nonsense
allegation. Different caseworker. Same phone number at both houses
for over 2 years now. Never a single piece of correspondence, never
any responses to MULTIPLE phone calls and attempts at communication by
Mom. NOTHING... and now she claims she could not "find" mom.
Unreal. If it was closed, what is their business there today?
If there is no current safety plan, what is their business there today?
If they still have not nor have in the past EVER modified the existing
court order or taken ANY court action, what was their business there
today, in a custody matter??
Someone, please tell me.
All in all, in the end, the child-stealing father who was the one
investigated in the 1st place and who GAVE this child up under CPS
pressure (to kinship placement) went home with her today.... and Mom,
who never did anything, who never was accused of anything, gets
supervised visitation, has to take parenting classes, and has to submit
to a psych eval and random home visits for 3 months.
Still no court order change. CPS is still operating outside the law,
power tripping, and they are just trying to cover up their HUGE mistake
that cost this child almost a year of deprivation of her mother's care.
The atty. urged compliance... he warned that CPS could and would "sink"
Mom if she fought. He only assured Mom that since the agreement was
made in his presence and the presence of the Judge, that it would be
harder for CPS to wriggle out of it if Mom does all she's supposed to.
Interestingly enough, CPS dropped the drug test issue from last year,
when they claimed a false positive. They were shown the overriding hair
follicle tests today, the ones they claimed before that they never
received. Oh, and when the atty. asked how it was that they couldn't
"find" mom when her number was the same and they had her address, this
one and the last one in their system, and in fact a CW had been to the
CURRENT house as recently as winter of 2005, the only response was
"Well, I'll have to look into that".
That's all, folks. Justice? Hah.
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
Charles Fibson wrote:
> Hi - noticed your handle. It's also a sign that hangs in our local CPS
> office. Its a bold faced lie. Love may do some things, but a family it
> doesn't make. Start with a mother and a father, add children of their own
> making - you get the idea.
>
Um, that's a pretty daft and narrow interpretation.
> The idea that 'love' makes families is ridiculous - yup - a gaggle of other
> peoples children, a little magic 'love' and presto - instat family. Except
> when you build a family from 'love'you gotta destroy a real family first.
>
I really have no patience for this, so I probably shouldn't be
replying.... since I just said I try and ignore this kind of
provocation, but SHEESH. Who said anything about other people's
children? All of the children in OUR family are living with at least
one biological parent but with a stepparent who loves them as if they
were their OWN FLESH AND BLOOD as well. In some instances, a bio
parent doesn't want to be involved.... and if they are doing their own
"family destroying", well I can't help it, but I can try and rebuild
something as close as possible to fill that void.
The idea here is that sometimes your family of origin may not be a
loving one, but we can and do form our own families, as adults and in
other ways. I have friends who are closer than any sister could be.
I have brothers that have no interest in me and never have. Blood does
not define anything except in the courts.
The other idea here being that just because it's not perfect, a family
that is perhaps uncoventional is still worthy. My mother raised me on
her own... she couldn't force my father to love me or spend time with
me, and she tried so hard to do so.... but even though we were a family
of 2, we were still a FAMILY.
My ex came along when my son was 18 months old, but treated my child as
if he were his own flesh and blood. He was not FAMILY to him but he
loved him and treated him as FAMILY. We are split for over 3 years
now but that is still his SON, in his heart.
Get the concept now?
> Just an observation.
>
> Just wondering - are you a caseworker too?
>
Read my earlier post and then go hide in shame for even asking that.
Good grief.
Charles Fibson
<lovemake...@community.hipmama.com> wrote in message
news:1149224167.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Charles Fibson wrote:
>> Hi - noticed your handle. It's also a sign that hangs in our local CPS
>> office. Its a bold faced lie. Love may do some things, but a family it
>> doesn't make. Start with a mother and a father, add children of their own
>> making - you get the idea.
>>
>
> Um, that's a pretty daft and narrow interpretation.
Not for folks with 'real' families.
>
>> The idea that 'love' makes families is ridiculous - yup - a gaggle of
>> other
>> peoples children, a little magic 'love' and presto - instat family.
>> Except
>> when you build a family from 'love'you gotta destroy a real family first.
>>
>
> I really have no patience for this, so I probably shouldn't be
> replying.... since I just said I try and ignore this kind of
> provocation, but SHEESH. Who said anything about other people's
> children?
Who's kids you after - notnyours nutso.
> All of the children in OUR family are living with at least
> one biological parent but with a stepparent who loves them as if they
> were their OWN FLESH AND BLOOD as well.
Two fags do not a family make.
> In some instances, a bio
> parent doesn't want to be involved.... and if they are doing their own
> "family destroying", well I can't help it, but I can try and rebuild
> something as close as possible to fill that void.
Sexua perversion is hardly 'as close as possible'- sounds like reedy lessies
saying gimme the kid.
Take my advice from before. Spare the child the emotional trama, the
lifelong confusion, the increased likelihood of drug addiction, desease,
depession and death. You're a freaking sexual pervert for gods sake - go
about your perverted life - spare the children.
>
> The idea here is that sometimes your family of origin may not be a
> loving one, but we can and do form our own families, as adults and in
> other ways. I have friends who are closer than any sister could be.
> I have brothers that have no interest in me and never have. Blood does
> not define anything except in the courts.
You're a fag with a bunch of delusions. Ge4ttin togeter to practice sexual
perversion does not a 'brother' or 'sister'. Try men and jit - that makes
brothers and sisters. Man hating sexual perverts are hardly 'family' )(in
any REALdefinition).
>
> The other idea here being that just because it's not perfect, a family
> that is perhaps uncoventional is still worthy. My mother raised me on
> her own... she couldn't force my father to love me or spend time with
> me, and she tried so hard to do so.... but even though we were a family
> of 2, we were still a FAMILY.
And you turned out to be a disgusting faggot. You mothers hatred of men -
passed to you - now threatens other children. Sheesh - faggts.
>
> My ex came along when my son was 18 months old, but treated my child as
> if he were his own flesh and blood. He was not FAMILY to him but he
> loved him and treated him as FAMILY. We are split for over 3 years
> now but that is still his SON, in his heart.
>
> Get the concept now?
What - that a coup;e of faggots- sexual perverts - want folks to consider
them 'normal'?? Wait till da Bush is through with them immigrants. You
fags'll wake up then.
0:->
Nice going, lovemakesafamily.
HeeHeeHee....
Here's one you sickos can't fool. Not for a second.
R R R R..
Nice try though Greg, Dennis, Michael, Bob, bobb, and crew.
Like your socks aren't transparent.
0:->
PS, do you know the creator of Hipmama?
K
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
0:-> wrote:
> l
> Nice going, lovemakesafamily.
>
> HeeHeeHee....
>
> Here's one you sickos can't fool. Not for a second.
>
> R R R R..
>
> Nice try though Greg, Dennis, Michael, Bob, bobb, and crew.
>
> Like your socks aren't transparent.
>
> 0:->
>
> PS, do you know the creator of Hipmama?
> K
>
>
>
Okay, lesson learned for me. Don't feed the troll!
Anyway, are you asking me if I personally know the creator of Hipmama?
I know of her, but don't know her personally.
Now, does anyone have any useful input on what happened in court
yesterday? It would be very much appreciated.
Thanks!
0:->
In the past I've advised posters with similar worker problems to do a
few things that help not only cover their own rears, but put the worker
on alert they cannot slough the case or the people involved off.
Communicate by MAIL, even if you have seen them face to face. Create,
when their is any contact, at home, or at the office, a letter, with the
points covered, the agreements made, the disagreements, all clearly, but
unemotionally stated, and request that the worker respond within three
working days if there is any discrepancy with the content of your letter.
Send a copy to the worker, and ALWAYS CC TO THEIR SUPERVISOR. And make
it delivery confirmed by return receipt.
Imagine the thoughts that go through the worker's head when that
arrives. "No shit shall pass uncovered," or words to that effect.
It's the same method THEY are required to use in official correspondence
with critical content. They goof it, often, but don't YOU.
And do this with phone calls as well. Keep good notes, don't be
emotional. Don't try to "casework," that is tell the worker how the case
SHOULD be worked, and be pleasant and friendly.
Seriously. Puts them off because that is what they are trained to do to
put you off.
You will get, as grandma said, a lot more flies with honey than vinegar.
And keep a journal, so that you have some record for yourself of what
OTHERS involved in the case are doing. The child, the parent, the
relatives, the treatment people, lawyers, LE, all involved in any way.
Great if you have to show up in court and answer questions. And can flip
your "Daytimer" open.
Or, I suppose, in a weak moment, you could just chat up Rambo (Greg),
and let him instruct you on how to mount attacks against everyone and
win the day by force. Yeah, that'll do it. 0;->
Nice going, by the way.
And I am more than pleased that yet another person coming for
information here was NOT snagged by the thuggish vampires that have
taken a few over the years here.
If you are, in the future, interested in CPS reform there are places to
go to find like minded people that focus on balance and facts and are
not "anti" CPS but simply wish to improve the issues that you have
found. It's not caused by "evil caseworkers," trust me. Those are rare
as in any profession or enterprise.
Best, Kane
Greegor
In his case the veneer is so thin it's laughable.
Are you being investigated by a Child Protection agency?
Yourself?
Court date?
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
0:-> wrote:
<SNIP>
>> Nice going, by the way.
>
> And I am more than pleased that yet another person coming for
> information here was NOT snagged by the thuggish vampires that have
> taken a few over the years here.
>
> If you are, in the future, interested in CPS reform there are places to
> go to find like minded people that focus on balance and facts and are
> not "anti" CPS but simply wish to improve the issues that you have
> found. It's not caused by "evil caseworkers," trust me. Those are rare
> as in any profession or enterprise.
>
> Best, Kane
>
Thanks.
We are not sure if we will be back in court. Hopefully only if they
(CPS) does not hold up their end of the "bargain" when all the hoops
are jumped through.
I hope we avoid court in the future. I've learned some disturbing
things about the Judge we saw (who handles most/all of the CPS cases)
and how he's in the pocket of CPS, and it's pretty upsetting. Not
much hope of ever getting a "fair shake" there.
I don't have an "evil caseworkers" idea or notion, but I am concerned
with the number I've met already who will lie without a second thought.
It's hard for me to fathom being more concerned about covering your
own ass instead of what is truly best for a child. What I've
witnessed and experienced scares me enough to not trust any of the ones
we're dealing with NOW, at least.
Any thoughts on what to expect with a psych eval? CPS wants one on one
of us. The home visits (haven't happened yet) are making me nervous
too. I feel like even if it's perfect, it won't be perfect enough.
Our home is "normal", but will they care if they are looking for
something to use against us?
0:->
> Kane is a "system suck" who poses as a Parents Rights advocate.
You are a liar. I'm a child advocate. With many years in mental health
work with abused and neglected children. And an active advocate for
Kinship placement to keep children OUT of stranger foster care. I also,
and have said so, advocated for, coached, supported, and fought for
relatives adopting for the same reason. I did that face to face, and I
did that lobbying.
I went up against CPS for the first time in 1976, and backed down a room
full of social workers trying to take a friends boy, a toddler, from her
because she lived rough in a cabin in the woods. Beat their asses.
YOU, Greg, would have loved it. I felt sorry for them. They, like you,
underestimate me.
> In his case the veneer is so thin it's laughable.
In your case, you are a liar, and a child abuser, and a homewrecker and
your own posts will prove it. All the poster has to do is google on The
Motion or The Petition, in the group archives under your name.
Then a quick view of the "house ways and means committee" "testimony"
will seal who the abusive stupid lying little twit is.
> Are you being investigated by a Child Protection agency?
> Yourself?
DO NOT ANSWER THIS MAN IF YOU VALUE YOUR EFFORTS. HE HAS ASSOCIATED WITH
FAKE PARENT ADVOCATES THAT HAVE GIVEN PEOPLE AWAY TO CPS TO PROVE THEIR
CLAIMS AGAINST CPS "WRONG DOING."
> Court date?
Do I need to repeat the above?
Tell him nothing. Tell none of us nothing.
Pick and choose who you trust here and back channel them. NOT this
pissant, or his friends, even the polite articulate ones. I trust none
of them NOT to use families that come here in extreme need, for their
own purposes.
I have NO association with CPS. Nor the courts.
The only thing I do that could remotely appear to be connected, is serve
on a committee of 15 with one member being from a DHS office in my
state, but on the issue of Meth education only.
For nearly three years I've fought these fools here and seem them time
and again try to snare newcomers with questions and needs.
They will attempt to embroil you in OUR arguments, which are NOT your
needs.
I hope you focus on the challenge YOU face, and NOT on what goes on
here. They manage to cripple this ng in some ways by their constant
hassling of those than can help, that have succeeded themselves in
besting CPS and getting their children back, and even having their cases
dropped.
Greg is a loser. Well, his girlfriend is the loser. He's the winner, in
a perverse sense. He got to sit on his ass for three plus years after
the child was removed still, apparently, doing "child care."
And babbling here about how CPS violated "his" rights.
Crock.
He wouldn't marry the mother, nor adopt the child. He would not behave
in a parenting class, would not submit to a psych eval, and spent all
his time calling workers evil, in one way or another.
If you doubt, and are tempted to trust this little self opinionated male
whore, before you do, check his posting history. It won't take many of
his posts to show you the truth.
Best wishes. Kane
0:->
I found myself frustrated at what I too thought were ass covering lies,
until I had dealt with CPS long enough to figure out that elements of
the case must be help in confidence, often even from the players, lest
someone "spill the beans" and a smart attorney use those for various
ways to turn the case. And I don't mean the parents attorney. Too often
I saw attorneys look out for the best LEGAL interests of the child than
for the real child him or herself.
Workers often cannot, by law, tell certain things and when asked a
question would be giving up the answer (I KNOW how to ask those
questions in that form myself) by not answering at all, so give the
closest approximation that will lead away from the answer.
Is it "lying?" In the strictest sense yes. But it's more akin to the lie
that is told to protect others from harm. Most workers would rather take
the abuse they do by this tactic, than give up the interests of the child.
> What I've
> witnessed and experienced scares me enough to not trust any of the ones
> we're dealing with NOW, at least.
I cannot sort out for you who is or isn't trustworthy. I can make the
suggestion I did that tends to create a more "honest" adversary, without
offending. Simply review in writing each encounter, and give them your
understanding in writing and let them know it stands unless they respond
with correction.
You'd be amazed at what you will find out, and what will happen.
> Any thoughts on what to expect with a psych eval?
They are pretty standard. Don't try to second guess what's wanted. I
always figured, when I had one coming up, if I was nuts they'd be doing
me a favor to find it out for me. We never know when we actually are. 0:->
> CPS wants one on one
> of us.
Why not both?
> The home visits (haven't happened yet) are making me nervous
> too. I feel like even if it's perfect, it won't be perfect enough.
> Our home is "normal", but will they care if they are looking for
> something to use against us?
Well, it's creepy having someone come into your home like you were in a
barracks and the drill instructor was doing an inspection.
Can't say what you'll experience, but it's usually nothing like an
"inspection."
There are usually a few items that must pass. You must have food and a
place to store it safely. Potable water (if on a well, you'll be asked
for a health department water test result), a working bathroom of
course, and fire detectors and extinguishers. They give you this
information about what is required in writing before hand, of if you
don't have them, plenty of time to get them after that first visit.
Your living arrangement has to meet certain standard of space and sex
separation over a certain age in sleeping arrangements. These are all in
writing somewhere. You could call and ask for the list.
Your last question is interesting. The answer is no, not if they want to
disqualify you. I've seen them disqualify for something minor because
the something major would damage the family.
Like a wife meeting apart from a husband to admit that she had worked as
a prostitute back as a kid and can she keep that from her husband, and
will it disqualify...and of course, if her record is checked and they
decide it IS good reason to disqualify they will still try to meet her
request (they DO care about family regardless of what others claim) and
find some pissyassed reason to disqualify that is within the guidelines
but wouldn't normally be USED to disqualify...all to protect her
confidential issue.
I watched that come down one time. Interesting. Talking with the worker
I found they do such thing pretty often. My help with Kinship placements
had a LOT of soap opera involved. Makes a worker's life crazy I suspect,
but they do try to honor family "secrets" if they do not endanger the
child.
Here's what you face. If they want to disqualify you they will. If they
don't, they'll work with you on things that aren't too over the line.
Like if you ever killed a child, feloniously, consider yourself gone.
If you had a bankruptcy, or you slapped a girl in a cat fight in high
school and have a "record" for assault, they will work with you.
If you want to hide from your mate that you did, indeed, say as part of
being under the influence, kill someone, they will can your family for
the "assault or "bankruptcy." rather than destroy your family by
revealing you secret.
In the long run, it's like this. If they don't want you, and you have no
reason for being rejected, you have a huge fight on your hands.
If they want you, now get this, they are STILL GOING TO RUN YOU OVER THE
COALS. Why? To see if you are committed.
I mean that last. I watched a thousand or so relatives applying for
foster certification and or adoption certification go through it. One
couple I helped were rich as could be. Had three kids. Seemed rock solid
psychologically...hell, they were retired from a major electronics firm
with well over 2 mil in retirement stocks.
Didn't have to work, but were busy as little beavers involved in all
kinds of work.
I took one look at them when they were referred to me, and remembered
some families that came from criminal backgrounds but made it, and
figure this family would be a walk in the park. NOPE. CPS worked them
over just as hard.
Having swimming pool in the back yard cut no ice with the adoption
worker assigned.
Check back with me and if I see anything that I recognize one way or the
other I'll let you know.
Oh, and just before the placement.....THAT'S WHEN THEY'LL TEND TO GIVE
YOU THE MOST GRIEF. You'll swear they are about to dump you or are evil
incarnate.
And BINGO there they will be on the doorstep with the baby so to speak.
Why...WHY DO THEY DO THIS?
Because, ... well, ask yourself. If you knew that family x was having
its child taken and given to family Z, what would YOU want to know about
family Z, eh?
If you had children and were planning for who would take them if you and
your mate were both lost somehow, which of your family members or
friends would you pick, and why?
And would you just accept their "solemn promise" they'd do right or
would you want a lot more out of them in the way of commitment?
Yes, you are going to be heavily vetted, and the more done, the more
likely you are a good candidate. It's when they DON'T vet you hard that
you have to worry. They may have made up their mind.
Of course, you have a judge in there that's a problem.
I'd rather discuss that off group, if you are comfortable doing so.
Greegor
and tries to excuse it. Once again Kane depicts how the
ENDS that he persues justify even PERJURY on the part
of caseworkers.
If the person seeking help doesn't see by now that you
are a whore for the system, perhaps they aren't real.
0:->
> Kane actually admits that caseworkers LIE THEIR ASS OFF
> and tries to excuse it.
I admit they are required to maintain, by law, confidentiality of
clients, and pursue courses of action on their cases that could be badly
disrupted if they were to reveal their full case plan content before
presenting to the court.
I fully admit they often have the best interests of even the persons
they are not revealing things to that could jeopardize THAT person
should it come out they know the detail being withheld or misdirected from.
Many an attorney has stood up and said something like the following,
"Your honor, it becomes patently obvious that Ms X and Ms Y, having been
briefed by the worker on my poor unfortunately clients history of
prostitution..which she has left forever Your Honor, cross my heart, are
in collusion to steal my poor client's, now on here fifth attempt at
drug rehab, and tenth try at passing the anger management class (isn't
she brave Your Honor?) dear and beloved children, who she stopped
selling for drugs last year, and the year before, and the year before
that, Your Honor, from her. Collusion your honor, between worker M, and
my reforming client. I request this case be thrown on out those grounds
and the children returned from the burn unit, and all sexual abuse
rehabilitation ended forthwith for them."
I exaggerate bit, but on a few Items not one bit.
Horribly abused children HAVE been returned to their parents (and you
and Doug and others dance in their blood) when THESE kinds of casework
mistakes have occurred and a lawyer jumps on it.
If Dan could get children back for parents on far lessor casework flaws
than these, why do you think workers are over resistant to telling YOU
everything, Greg?
> Once again Kane depicts how the
> ENDS that he persues justify even PERJURY on the part
> of caseworkers.
Hyperbole. You lie to BAD ENDS, Greg. As does your cohort.
They refuse the information or lead away from it, to protect the child
and sometimes even the person asking.
I had to time and again tell relatives, "DO NOT ASK THAT...YOU DO NOT
WANT TO KNOW FOR THE SAFETY OF THE CHILD AND YOURSELF."
And some were dumb enough to press the worker anyway. And got "lied" to,
much to my relief. The very end they sought was put at risk had they
known what they wrongly thought they had a "right" to know.
How would YOU maintain confidentiality, Greg?
Go ahead. Tell us that YOU, if YOU were a worker, would spill critical
to the case outcome information, in the interests of "The Truth."
> If the person seeking help doesn't see by now that you
> are a whore for the system, perhaps they aren't real.
My bet is the person seeking help, and no insult is intended here 0:->,
to them, is enough more intelligent than you, to clearly understand what
I am telling them IS in their and the child's best interest.
Be careful and not ask for what may well be critical to the case going
AGAINST YOU, if it was discovered you knew it.
Frankly I am always amused at these events when depicted here, because
if the person could detect the worker was lying they are either highly
intelligent and good critical thinkers, OR they worker is inept at
avoiding spilling the beans and needs more training from their
supervisor in how to divert questions away from the sensitive stuff.
>> I found myself frustrated at what I too thought were ass covering lies,
>> until I had dealt with CPS long enough to figure out that elements of
>> the case must be help in confidence, often even from the players, lest
>> someone "spill the beans" and a smart attorney use those for various
>> ways to turn the case. And I don't mean the parents attorney. Too often
>> I saw attorneys look out for the best LEGAL interests of the child than
>> for the real child him or herself.
>>
>> Workers often cannot, by law, tell certain things and when asked a
>> question would be giving up the answer (I KNOW how to ask those
>> questions in that form myself) by not answering at all, so give the
>> closest approximation that will lead away from the answer.
>>
>> Is it "lying?" In the strictest sense yes. But it's more akin to the lie
>> that is told to protect others from harm. Most workers would rather take
>> the abuse they do by this tactic, than give up the interests of the child.
>>
>>> What I've
>>> witnessed and experienced scares me enough to not trust any of the ones
>>> we're dealing with NOW, at least.
>> I cannot sort out for you who is or isn't trustworthy. I can make the
>> suggestion I did that tends to create a more "honest" adversary, without
>> offending. Simply review in writing each encounter, and give them your
>> understanding in writing and let them know it stands unless they respond
>> with correction.
If you read the above carefully you will see I'm not supporting
"perjury" at all, Greg. That is YOUR lie about ME.
What YOU are busy doing, Greg, is exactly what I pointed out to the
writer, lovemakesafamily, to watch out for. That you and your kind here
would attempt to engage her thread into YOUR issues to disrupt her
effort to find information helpful to her situation.
You have "warned her" with your bullshit, NOW, Greg, TELL HER WHAT TO DO
TO COUNTER THESE PERJUROUS LIES OF THE WORKER YOU CLAIM ARE HAPPENING.
Exactly what advice do you have, that isn't MY advice, on what to do?
Shall she start a fight with the worker...call her names, threaten to
take legal action against her? Report her to the governor's office?
Or would threat of suit be more the style you think she should take.
Your suit has worked out so well, right?
So, are you NOT trying to disrupt her attempt to find help? Or do you
have some advice to offer.
Fill as many pages as you wish.
0:->
Greegor
caseworkers telling lies under oath to be
about keeping info secret until court.
Why, you'd think they don't even write up their
most harmful dirt in REPORTS long before court!
Never mind that the CPS workers are NOT
law enforcement, are NOT qualified, and
actually HAVE botched up cases about
bonafide child molestors with their sloppy
and often vindictive behaviors....
dragonsgirl
<lovemake...@community.hipmama.com> wrote in message
news:1149145487.2...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Doesn't sound like standard reunification to me.
Sounds to me like someone has a case open.
Odd for them to ask you to come to a court house to pick up a kidnapped
child?
I think so...very odd.
I've read another post of yours indicating you did have a hearing with CW
and all.
Big show.
Awful mess.
Apparently there IS a case open on this child.
You need to get records ASAP...find out why there was a hearing at
all...there should have never been one in so far as I can tell...it should
have been a simple case of one parent taking a child they had no legal right
to take...police get the kid back , return the kid to custodial parents, end
of story.
But that is not so in your case.
No CW would be there without there being a "CASE"
They don't just appear out of thin air to court for a case they don't have,
with files on a case that doesn't exist, etc...there IS a case on this child
somewhere.
You need to find out where, who, what, when, etc.
There MUST be more allegations against you...if there were not there would
be no cause to place the child with non custodial father...no foundation for
it what so ever.
Contact DFS immediately and try to get, in writing, the requirements to have
the child returned...you want to know what they are expecting of you and
what their reasoning for placing with dad is.
Other than that, your attorney can direct you. None of us here are
lawyers...the best advice any can give you is to get all the information
about the 'case' that you can, figure out what is going on and why, and go
from there.
>
>
dragonsgirl
<lovemake...@community.hipmama.com> wrote in message
news:1149523342.5...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Home Visit:
Get down on your hands and knees and 'walk' through your home.
Look for ANYTHING dangerous to a small child.
Exposed extension cords, unprotected outlets, sharp corners, etc.
Get a fire extinguisher if you don't already have one.
Some are big on carbon monoxide detectors now too.
Make sure that all saftey issues are addressed.
Make sure there is sufficient food, clothing, space, etc for child.
I once apologized to a worker who dropped by unexpectedly when I was sick
with a cold and told her 'The house is a mess, I've been sick for days with
this and just don't feel like cleaning much'
She replied 'Oh, this place is spotless compared to my house, you should see
it, it's a wreck'.
I never cleaned house for a visit again.
My house is clean, but not always spotless...people LIVE here.
There is always going to be a empty soda can just drained on a table or
today's newspaper stacked up after reading on the window seat waiting to be
trashed, etc.
That's just life.
No filth...but messy, toys on the floor, a towel thrown over the tub side,
etc...well, one has to expect that with a small child running about.
And anything more than that would just look staged anyway.
>
Greegor
0:->
> I like how you "recast" your first statements about
> caseworkers telling lies under oath to be
> about keeping info secret until court.
I might like it too, if I could read it here in full context. Way have
you commented by hidden it by not posting it here, now, in this post of
yours?
How would a worker tell lies under oath before going to court?
> Why, you'd think they don't even write up their
> most harmful dirt in REPORTS long before court!
Mmmm...greegor, a worker that shows up in court without presenting in
writing TOO the court the information ordered by the judge is in contempt.
That information is ORDERED to be kept, both by statute, and often by
the judge if the CPS case is more than 6 months old. Often long before
that time.
> Never mind that the CPS workers are NOT
> law enforcement,
They are under the direction of the court in precisely the way the
police are. If the judge tells a police officer to gather evidence on a
pending case, he or she best damn well do so. Same if the prosecutor,
usually a DA, tells them to gather evidence. They best damn well do so.
> are NOT qualified,
Bullshit. LE's and investigators for CPS train in the same classrooms
with the same instructors at the same time. The demands on a CPS
investigator are nearly the same as an LE.
> and
> actually HAVE botched up cases about
> bonafide child molestors with their sloppy
> and often vindictive behaviors....
They may well have been accused of botching. They might even be sloppy.
But you'd have to stretch just a tad to come up with a valid reason for
a worker to deliberately screw up a case out of revenge.
You are in full babble today, aren't you?
Must be terrified.
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
0:-> wrote:
<SNIP>
> Bullshit. LE's and investigators for CPS train in the same classrooms
> with the same instructors at the same time. The demands on a CPS
> investigator are nearly the same as an LE.
>
Is this necessarily true for all?
I don't think so, because in my state (Texas) they just recently
changed the law to make this happen. The law now states that they must
have LE style training, indicating to me that up until the fall of 2005
they didn't have that requirement.
I've said a million times that I'd much rather be under police scrutiny
or accusation than CPS accusation.... because at least the police
generally need SOME kind of evidence. Not just a "feeling"!
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
dragonsgirl wrote:
>
> Home Visit:
> Get down on your hands and knees and 'walk' through your home.
> Look for ANYTHING dangerous to a small child.
> Exposed extension cords, unprotected outlets, sharp corners, etc.
> Get a fire extinguisher if you don't already have one.
> Some are big on carbon monoxide detectors now too.
> Make sure that all saftey issues are addressed.
> Make sure there is sufficient food, clothing, space, etc for child.
We have a fire extinguisher and of course, smoke alarms... but Carbon
Monoxide detector? Nope. We want one, but they are $40 and we can't
get one right now. Crap.
The main concern I have is that we have it set up so that my youngest
(8) would share a room with the "baby" (okay, she's not but still) age
3, when she comes home. The bedroom is right next to where we sleep.
There are bunk beds and space for both of them to have their stuff and
their clothing. The only other bedrooms (2) are downstairs and each of
the teen boys has one of those. We thought it was important to try and
give them that privacy at this age (13 and 14)... which necessitates
the 8 yo boy and 3 yo girl sharing the upstairs bedroom.
Is the gender/age gap going to be an "issue"? The room is positioned
so that we can see any/all activity at all times, from the living room.
The only other alternative would involved putting my 8 year old in with
my 14 year old and never hearing the end of it (from the 14 year old)
but if need be, we can do it.
We (the adults) sleep on a fold out sofa in the living room, right next
to the one upstairs bedroom. Problem?
We just cannot afford a 4 bedroom or 5 bedroom place at this point.
Even if we could find one (not easy). We both have jobs but they
aren't paying much above minimum wage, and we "make it" okay but a
bigger place would be a big stretch.
The cost difference between a 3 bedroom place and a 4 or 5 here is a
huge jump, at least $250 more than we currently pay. I hope this
isn't going to be an issue.
We had a home visit once on a false/bogus report of an extreme nature.
The neighbor had called and claimed we had animal feces all over,
garbage, didn't feed the kids, left them alone, they were dirty, blah
blah blah. The caseworkers that came out immediately recognized it for
what it was (retaliatory neighbor stuff).... BUT although the house was
pretty much spotless, apparently one of us had tracked in a cigarette
butt from the yard within the past 30 minutes or so, probably in the
bottom of a boot/sneaker, and it was on the floor in the hallway. We
smoke but not in the house. We had a butt can outside.
However, the neighbors and everyone passing by (corner house) toss
butts in the yard. The caseworker saw this on the floor (an otherwise
spotless floor) and about had a heart attack.
It could have come in from HER shoe for all we know, because that floor
was swept an hour prior to them showing up (we didn't know they were
coming, either). We told her it was probably from outside but she
seemed doubtful. *sigh*
I mean, really... there weren't even any ashtrays in the house!
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
dragonsgirl wrote:
> Doesn't sound like standard reunification to me.
> Sounds to me like someone has a case open.
> Odd for them to ask you to come to a court house to pick up a kidnapped
> child?
> I think so...very odd.
> I've read another post of yours indicating you did have a hearing with CW
> and all.
> Big show.
> Awful mess.
> Apparently there IS a case open on this child.
Is that likely almost a YEAR after CPS's initial involvement (or should
I say "interference")??
> You need to get records ASAP...find out why there was a hearing at
> all...there should have never been one in so far as I can tell...it should
> have been a simple case of one parent taking a child they had no legal right
> to take...police get the kid back , return the kid to custodial parents, end
> of story.
Yeah, that's what we expected.
> But that is not so in your case.
> No CW would be there without there being a "CASE"
> They don't just appear out of thin air to court for a case they don't have,
> with files on a case that doesn't exist, etc...there IS a case on this child
> somewhere.
Even on a closed case if Dad called them?
> You need to find out where, who, what, when, etc.
> There MUST be more allegations against you...if there were not there would
> be no cause to place the child with non custodial father...no foundation for
> it what so ever.
The only thing we are "hearing" now (nothing formal of course) is that
CPS is "concerned' about the "situation" that ocurred in the Fall of
2004 involving my son and my GF's son.
There was a finding of abuse by her son against mine. Her son was 10
(but emotionally 8), mine 5. We had six months of services and the
case was closed out successfully. The child in question NOW, the
daughter, was specifically RULE OUT of that investigation and we got a
letter stating that she was not found to be at risk of abuse or neglect
due to the situation between the boys. We gave that letter (along with
everything else) to our lawyer.
CPS saw fit to leave all the children in the home and close the case.
For that matter, when the incident first was disclosed to us, we
separated. My GF moved in with her mom and took her 2 kids with her
while I stayed in our apartment. We were about a mile away but we kept
the kids (the boys) separated 100% and we did NOT move back in together
until the caseworker, her supervisor, AND each of the counselors (one
for each boy plus the family one) approved it.
>From the get go, everyone, CPS, counselors, etc., said that we had done
everything appropriately and proactively and had gone above and beyond
what they would have "ordered".... plus we continued long after
"required" to keep up a level of 110% supervision of the 2 boys so that
they have NEVER been alone together from that time. We even have
intercom/monitoring systems in the house just to be safe. Just to be
safe, my GF's son has remained in counseling and is never alone with
younger kids, period.
CPS and counselors have APPLAUDED our efforts. It's difficult to live
with that level of "watchfulness" but we have done so and will do so
until they move OUT yet we've done so without making either child feel
"punished" or singled out.
The daughters father KNEW about all of that. He never once said
anything, aside from appearing supportive when it happened. He had
every opportunity then to speak up and get with CPS or speak up and
object to his daughter continuing to live in the home or even to go to
court for primary custody, and he didn't do anything. I have every
reason to believe he is making noise about it NOW to get (or keep) CPS
on his "side".
> Contact DFS immediately and try to get, in writing, the requirements to have
> the child returned...you want to know what they are expecting of you and
> what their reasoning for placing with dad is.
> Other than that, your attorney can direct you. None of us here are
> lawyers...the best advice any can give you is to get all the information
> about the 'case' that you can, figure out what is going on and why, and go
> from there.
> >
Thanks. I am hoping the attorney will have better luck getting
paperwork out of the CW than we have had.
On the other hand, the attorney seems to be done. He has told us to
keep in touch and of course he said he'll follow up to make sure CPS
does indeed live up to their end of the bargain once services are
completed, but as far as addressing any of the issues as to how this
whole thing was handled, he is backing down.
Re-reading the court order today (for custody), it was apparent to me
that the father was never even authorized to "place" the child in the
first place.
As the parent with Primary Managing Conservatorship, my GF is the one
with the EXCLUSIVE right to designate the residence of the child...
which is what HE was doing by agreeing to the placement.
Furthermore, he is required (by the court order) to confer with her on
ANY matters that will affect the child's emotional or physical well
being. I would think that would qualify!!
Hmph.
> >
dragonsgirl
<lovemake...@community.hipmama.com> wrote in message
news:1149746889.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> dragonsgirl wrote:
> >
> > Home Visit:
> > Get down on your hands and knees and 'walk' through your home.
> > Look for ANYTHING dangerous to a small child.
> > Exposed extension cords, unprotected outlets, sharp corners, etc.
> > Get a fire extinguisher if you don't already have one.
> > Some are big on carbon monoxide detectors now too.
> > Make sure that all saftey issues are addressed.
> > Make sure there is sufficient food, clothing, space, etc for child
>
> Monoxide detector? Nope. We want one, but they are $40 and we can't
> get one right now. Crap.
I got two at Home Depot for under $40. Simples ones that plug into an
outlet.
>
> The main concern I have is that we have it set up so that my youngest
> (8) would share a room with the "baby" (okay, she's not but still) age
> 3, when she comes home. The bedroom is right next to where we sleep.
> There are bunk beds and space for both of them to have their stuff and
> their clothing. The only other bedrooms (2) are downstairs and each of
> the teen boys has one of those. We thought it was important to try and
> give them that privacy at this age (13 and 14)... which necessitates
> the 8 yo boy and 3 yo girl sharing the upstairs bedroom.
>
> Is the gender/age gap going to be an "issue"? The room is positioned
> so that we can see any/all activity at all times, from the living room.
Yep. You should be worried about that.
I'm glad that you told us about this.
Maybe, in the case of a temporary situation, and with no DFS invlovement,
that would be ok.
When you have DFS involvement, and it's a permanent situation, it's not
quite so ok.
It's nice that you are thinking that the teen boys need more privacy, but
I'm sure that some people won't see it that way.
You need to make other arrangements.
>
>
> The only other alternative would involved putting my 8 year old in with
> my 14 year old and never hearing the end of it (from the 14 year old)
> but if need be, we can do it.
That would not hurt anything, and actually make things easier for you I
would imagine. BTW...14 year olds bitch no matter what.
>
> We (the adults) sleep on a fold out sofa in the living room, right next
> to the one upstairs bedroom. Problem?
I wouldn't think so.
>
> We just cannot afford a 4 bedroom or 5 bedroom place at this point.
> Even if we could find one (not easy). We both have jobs but they
> aren't paying much above minimum wage, and we "make it" okay but a
> bigger place would be a big stretch.
>
> The cost difference between a 3 bedroom place and a 4 or 5 here is a
> huge jump, at least $250 more than we currently pay. I hope this
> isn't going to be an issue.
Well, I don't think the size of your living space is as important as how you
use it.
>
> We had a home visit once on a false/bogus report of an extreme nature.
> The neighbor had called and claimed we had animal feces all over,
> garbage, didn't feed the kids, left them alone, they were dirty, blah
> blah blah.
Oh my gosh, was your neighbor's name Helen? I think I know her! (JK)
The caseworkers that came out immediately recognized it for
> what it was (retaliatory neighbor stuff).... BUT although the house was
> pretty much spotless, apparently one of us had tracked in a cigarette
> butt from the yard within the past 30 minutes or so, probably in the
> bottom of a boot/sneaker, and it was on the floor in the hallway. We
> smoke but not in the house. We had a butt can outside.
>
> However, the neighbors and everyone passing by (corner house) toss
> butts in the yard. The caseworker saw this on the floor (an otherwise
> spotless floor) and about had a heart attack.
That's a bit petty.
>
> It could have come in from HER shoe for all we know, because that floor
> was swept an hour prior to them showing up (we didn't know they were
> coming, either). We told her it was probably from outside but she
> seemed doubtful. *sigh*
> I mean, really... there weren't even any ashtrays in the house!
>
I wonder about your attorney.
Seem to be pretty inactive, as though none of this is a big deal.
How did dad get that baby anyway?
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
dragonsgirl wrote:
>> >
> > The main concern I have is that we have it set up so that my youngest
> > (8) would share a room with the "baby" (okay, she's not but still) age
> > 3, when she comes home. The bedroom is right next to where we sleep.
> > There are bunk beds and space for both of them to have their stuff and
> > their clothing. The only other bedrooms (2) are downstairs and each of
> > the teen boys has one of those. We thought it was important to try and
> > give them that privacy at this age (13 and 14)... which necessitates
> > the 8 yo boy and 3 yo girl sharing the upstairs bedroom.
> >
> > Is the gender/age gap going to be an "issue"? The room is positioned
> > so that we can see any/all activity at all times, from the living room.
>
> Yep. You should be worried about that.
> I'm glad that you told us about this.
> Maybe, in the case of a temporary situation, and with no DFS invlovement,
> that would be ok.
> When you have DFS involvement, and it's a permanent situation, it's not
> quite so ok.
> It's nice that you are thinking that the teen boys need more privacy, but
> I'm sure that some people won't see it that way.
> You need to make other arrangements.
>
Well here's the other thing I wasn't thinking of before...I can't put
the 8 yo downstairs with my GF's son because those two were why we had
services for six months in 2004/05 and they must have constant
supervision and not be alone. So even if the 8 yo was with MY son (the
14 yo), he'd be right next door and downstairs with the 13 yo who he is
not supposed to be alone with. The only way to get upstairs is through
the 13 yo's room.
What *would* fly with them? What if we put a toddler bed in the living
room next to where we sleep? LOL. Then she could just be sleeping in
our "bedroom" (living room) and keep her stuff in the room with the 8
yo? Does a 3 yo have to have a "room"?
It's scrambling my brain now trying to figure it out.
> Well, I don't think the size of your living space is as important as how you
> use it.
>
It is going to be a challenge!
> I wonder about your attorney.
> Seem to be pretty inactive, as though none of this is a big deal.
>
> How did dad get that baby anyway?
He had (has) court ordered visitation. At the time, everything was
hunky dory and friendly and Mom let him have her pretty much whenever
he wanted, not just when the court order said.... so it usually meant
weekends, sometimes 3 day weekends if he had some holiday thing with
his family or whatever.
When CPS came around his place, it was summer, and Mom had asked him to
keep her for approximately 2 weeks or LESS because we were working on
the place we lived in and had stuff all over.
So that was a first time thing, for her to be there that long, but he
was okay with it and they were less than 10 miles away.
What infuriates me to this day is that when CPS first came to his
house, he didn't pick up the phone to call Mom and have her pick her
baby up just in case. Could have avoided all this because they didn't
yank kids out of there until they came back a few days later.
Greegor
The agency has NO STANDARDS.
What would be AOK with one worker would
be written up as a nightmare by another.
You can't meet standards that do not exist.
Smoke detectors and fire extinguishers
are such a good idea anyway that I
wouldn't quibble about them, but
Monoxide detectors are not required.
Don't get one just to please the lawless bastards from CPS.
In fact, WHY are you letting them search your home
without a search warrant?
By letting them in without a search warrant you
turn them loose to run a "fishing expedition"
looking for any little thing to gripe about, if they choose.
Some workers might not, but we did have one
who most certainly did intend to look for anything
she could possibly whip into an issue.
If you make them get a court search warrant,
in order for it to be legal it has to specify exactly
what they are looking for. Even if it is called
a "court ordered home inspection".
If they actually resort to a court order, they
won't call it a search warrant hoping you
won't realize it's actually a search warrant.
If you look up search warrants on the web
you will quickly see that they are illegal
if they lack specifics.
The nature of a "Home Study" or a "Home Inspection"
is what high court judges call a "Fishing Expedition"
and this is EXACTLY what the 4th Amendment to
to US Constitution was designed to prevent!
But if you LET THEM, you are taking the chance that
you didn't get a hostile or malicious caseworker.
If you haven't noticed a caseworker who talks
nice to your face but stabs you in the back
in court, you might not see anything wrong with that
until it's too late!
dragonsgirl
"Greegor" <Gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150007079.3...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
0:->
...gee Greg, do you think she's gone to sleep?
> Home study, home inspection..
>
> The agency has NO STANDARDS.
>
> What would be AOK with one worker would
> be written up as a nightmare by another.
>
> You can't meet standards that do not exist.
>
> Smoke detectors and fire extinguishers
> are such a good idea anyway that I
> wouldn't quibble about them, but
>
> Monoxide detectors are not required.
And you can back this with what foster parenting information manual?
> Don't get one just to please the lawless bastards from CPS.
>
> In fact, WHY are you letting them search your home
> without a search warrant?
Yeah, do like Greg did, and force them to consider you a nut case.
> By letting them in without a search warrant you
> turn them loose to run a "fishing expedition"
> looking for any little thing to gripe about, if they choose.
Let me see now, YOU Greg, want to have a child placed in a home by CPS
without them inspecting the home. Do I have this correct?
And if the child were hurt you'd be the first to scream about CPS
incompetence, would you not?
> Some workers might not, but we did have one
> who most certainly did intend to look for anything
> she could possibly whip into an issue.
You forget, Greg. You are a frothing at the mouth ranting screamer.
The person you address is not. She is not, by the way, a CPS client, but
someone helping their mate get her child back.
> If you make them get a court search warrant,
> in order for it to be legal it has to specify exactly
> what they are looking for. Even if it is called
> a "court ordered home inspection".
And you can be sure this will convince them you are sane.
> If they actually resort to a court order, they
> won't call it a search warrant hoping you
> won't realize it's actually a search warrant.
> If you look up search warrants on the web
> you will quickly see that they are illegal
> if they lack specifics.
If you look up CPS policy and the statutes that support them you will
find they do not have to place a child that is in the temporary custody
of the state (which I suspect by now is true) in a home they have not
inspected.
> The nature of a "Home Study" or a "Home Inspection"
> is what high court judges call a "Fishing Expedition"
> and this is EXACTLY what the 4th Amendment to
> to US Constitution was designed to prevent!
Sorry. You are wrong. Where did you say you got your degree in law?
> But if you LET THEM, you are taking the chance that
> you didn't get a hostile or malicious caseworker.
If you don't they can sit on the child forever. OR place with someone
else who will allow a home inspection.
> If you haven't noticed a caseworker who talks
> nice to your face but stabs you in the back
> in court, you might not see anything wrong with that
> until it's too late!
Yes, CPS is evil, and rather than doing it's job at the order of the
judge and under the law of your state, they "are out to get you."
That, in fact, is what happened to poor Greg.
Follow his example. It's only been what, 4 years coming up on five that
child has been placed out of home and the mother waits, trusting that
her hero will bring suit against the state and get her child back for her.
0:->
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
0:-> wrote:
Hi Kane;
<SNIPPETY SNIP>
> And if the child were hurt you'd be the first to scream about CPS
> incompetence, would you not?
>
Let me just interject here to reiterate that there are currently no
allegations against me or my GF. They are informally stating that
they have concerns due to our case from 2004 which was investigated,
services participated in, and closed successfully in Sprin 2005, but
there are no CURRENT allegations against either of us.
>
> The person you address is not. She is not, by the way, a CPS client, but
> someone helping their mate get her child back.
>
Well technically we are all in the same household so I don't know if
they consider me a a "client" or not. They're inspecting MY home by
default since we all live together....
And I consider my children to be at risk of the interference of CPS,
since they live in the home and one was a subject of the past case.
> If you look up CPS policy and the statutes that support them you will
> find they do not have to place a child that is in the temporary custody
> of the state (which I suspect by now is true) in a home they have not
> inspected.
>
>From my current understanding of things due to an email from our
attorney on Friday, what they have done is issued a Temporary Order
pertaining to custody granting the father Primary Managing
Conservatorship and naming mom and dad as Joint Managing. Basically a
reversal of the court order in effect for the first 3.5 years of the
childs life (even though she was out of the home in violation of that
court order).
In other words, CPS still does not have conservatorship and never has
to our knowledge.
So honestly, I don't see any justifiable reason for asking for random
and unannounced home visits except for the caseworker to cover her own
ass because she made mistakes from day one and now has to make it look
like she had a "good reason".... but regardless, we are in no position
at this point to refuse the request. Seeing as how there are no
allegations against us and they wrongfully removed the child in the
beginning.... but whatever. Here we are.
You know what scares me?
http://www.dcac.org/pages/help_faq.aspx
Check out the lists of "possible indicators" for abuse & neglect of all
kinds, for family and child.
Things like:
"Reluctant to change clothes in front of others", "Problems with
authority and rules", "Overcrowded, unstable living conditions",
"Unwanted pregnancy or child is of wrong sex", "Disorganization",
"Disorderliness", "Multiple stressors", "Lack of resources, especially
financial", "Inappropriately dressed for climate", "Parental history of
abuse (as a child)", "Inconsistent behavior at home and at school",
"bizarre behavior", "Mentally and emotionally immature", "Impatient",
"Hyperactive or disruptive",
Can they be any more VAGUE? My god. I was a mandated reporter for
almost 4 years working as an afterschool program director at my son's
school as well as a substitute teacher. My GF was a volunteer at the
same school for over a year. I still have parents coming up to me to
ask if I'd ever consider returning to that job and to tell me how much
they appreciated the loving care I gave to their children. Not that
that carries ANY weight with CPS, but I digress.
If I'd gone by the suggestions on this page I would have reported EVERY
FAMILY IN THE SCHOOL.
How do they differentiate between an "unwanted pregnancy" and an
"unplanned pregnancy"????
Statistically, how many kids are born from PLANNED pregnancys vs.
unplanned?
How is "uncomfortable changing clothes in front of others" a BAD thing?
When children reach the natural age of body awareness, they start to
desire privacy when nude. I bet if the kid ran around naked and was
not shy at all that would also be an "indicator". I've known both
types of kids.
"Problems with authority or rules"... hello! Anyone have teenagers?
"Inappropriately dressed for climate".... yeah, like my GF's 13 year
old son who loves his new leather jacket (from Christmas) soooo much
that he tries to wear it in June.
"Inconsistent behavior at home and school".... funny, because almost
every kid I know or worked with professionally or even my own is
EXACTLY like this. My two are the type teachers describe as "angels"
and they wish other kids would follow their examples. They are
respectful, engaged, and kind.
At home they are more likely to "let loose" and are just normal KIDS
who will get mad, argue with each other, and occasionally get sassy or
defiant.
"Disorganization, Disorderliness"... lookout! Every ADD ADULT I know.
Me included. Disorganization, disorderliness, doesn't mean the kids
live in filth or do without. It just means that it takes two of us to
keep it all straight. LOL. And sometimes we start dinner and realize
we're out of milk and have to run to the store, or end up doing laundry
early in the morning because we forgot the night before, or have to
call the insurance company for another insurance card for the car
because we lost the first one. Or have to stop at the ATM on the way to
taking the child to school so he'll have money for the field trip. And
THIS is an "indicator" of neglect??? Jeeez.
"Hyperactive, disruptive, bizarre behavior, blah blah blah". My GF's
son fits most of this, at least before he began medication. He has
some NON environmental, bona-fide mental and emotional health issues
(diagnosed) for which he's been under constant treatment and he
functions quite well. Still doesn't stop him from wanting to wear
the leather jacket in June, or the batman cape and michael jackson
glove to school at age 13, or for him to ramble on about ghosts, UFO's,
black holes, astral planes, and a myriad of other subjects in a manner
that makes you think "WTH is this boy talking about???".
"Multiple stressors":
Show me ANY working class family juggling low paying jobs, rent
payments, kid activities, bills, dinner, shopping, and rising gas
prices who doesn't have "multiple stressors" and I'll sell you that
bridge. Throw in a CPS investigation and boom, instant increase in
"stressors" and after enough of them you have the required "distrust of
others" on top of it all.
"Lack of Resources, especially financial". Umm, okay. I guess since
we can always hit the "payday loan" place, we could count that as a
"financial resource"? LOL! Again, are we to start taking kids or
making reports for every family trying to make it on a $7 an hour job?
I imagine if we went back to school ourselves to get out of minimum
wage hell, that could be seen as "Putting parents concerns above the
child's", another "indicator" on the list. After all, it would make
financial resources even more limited for a while. Attention too, as
we'd be studying all the time. Yes, I'm being a bit deductive... but
this angers and frightens me.
Compare this with the following, from a Minnesota county's list of
definitions for abuse/neglect and reasons for CPS involvement:
Some of that is alarmist as well, but at least they try and LOOSELY
define things. I don't think the state of Texas DPRS does that, at
least I've never seen any sort of definitions on their websites or in
the CPS worker's handbook.
The closest bit of info I could find that addresses my current question
(about sleeping arrangements) is in the handbook as it pertains to
foster homes or kinship care and I will just have to use that as a
guide. It DOES state that children over the age of six of opposite
gender may not share a room.
So that answers that. Still doesn't tell me if a living room can be
considered a bedroom and if the child can share that room with parents
(not the bed, just the room).
Sorry to ramble, but this got me rather riled up. There needs to be
some sort of "criteria" for CPS involvement that is specific and clear.
I firmly believe that the reason they are wrongly removing and
interfering with families is because SO much is left up to
interpretation!
For example, we have a friend of the family who thinks it's HORRIBLE
and irresponsible to leave a 13 year old home alone in the afternoon
for 2 or 3 hours after work. What if she'd decided to become a
caseworker and had been told differently but still had that deep seated
belief? If it's specific and in writing then they'd have something
they HAD to follow.
PS, Kane, I contacted you privately... did you get it?
Greegor
such documents that CPS agencies use but which
on the face of it are incredibly idiotic.
A document that agencies in several states use
is called a "Risk Assessment". One version of
it was created by an outfit called
"Structured Decision Making".
The true intent was all about justifying SERVICES,
the pretense was to make decisions OBJECTIVE
and not biased or subjective (personality based).
Long ago I discovered that SDM's web site
said that the risk assessment was NOT to be used
for DECISION MAKING. (Not their very name!)
If you ask them, they will say that their paper instrument
is only to be used by TRAINED people following their
instructions very carefully. (More disclaimer)
But in the REAL WORLD these Risk Assessment forms
are being blatantly misused to decide a family's
guilt or innocence in regard to child abuse/neglect.
Many of the checkoff items (indicators) will be
publicly embarassing for the CPS agencies.
Any ordinary citizen reading the list quickly
realizes what an extreme WITCH HUNT the
"idiot sheet" represents.
These "idiot sheets" or "Risk Assessment forms"
vary a lot from state to state, but are all generally
rediculous.
Living in the country for example marks
a family down one strike.
A single mother gets a strike for that.
Two or more kids? Third strike.
Ever been investigated by CPS before? (regardless of finding!)
Another strike.
It is quite conceivable that a parent is deemed
by a caseworker to be guilty before the worker
even knocks on the door.
Even if the questions and scoring were not rediculous
on that level, there is a huge problem with the
OVERRIDES inserted throughout.
These allow the caseworker to overcome the
supposedly OBJECTIVE scoring, in whatever
direction they choose.
So right there the OBJECTIVITY intent is
inherently thwarted right from the start.
Some states seem to have written or plagiarized
their own versions of these forms, and some are
using risk assessment forms from one of several
contractors.
What it really comes down to is that kids are
generally NOT removed for actual abuse or
neglect, but RISK of abuse or neglect.
The form misapplies statistics to divine how much
risk is involved. It's as if an actuarial table
decides whether a parent is guilty or innocent.
And the worker can skew it all they want.
These pretenses of OBJECTIVITY seem to inevitably
result in a PR disgrace for the CPS agencies when they
are presented to the public.
As you've noticed about the MN "possible indicators"
list, almost any reader quickly recognizes that the
agency is actually running a WITCH HUNT.
As you indicated, if that indicator list were fully applied,
ANY child could be removed for ""investigation"" on a
caseworker's whims or attitude. That's the truly scary part.
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com wrote:
http://www.dcac.org/pages/help_faq.aspx
Things like:
FAMILY IN THE SCHOOL.
"Multiple stressors":
http://www.co.ramsey.mn.us/NR/rdonlyres/146D7B60-7FD5-46C8-8981-33E42...
0:->
I'll check.
And judges routinely, in custody cases order CPS to conduct evaluations
of families and homes.
Has nothing to do with "placement" as per foster or adoption, or client
status.
I just happened to spend a couple of minutes with a divorce lawyer
friend of mine on an entirely different matter, not even a question of
law, but it reminded me of the fact that divorces and child custody
battles often result in a family evaluation for one or both sides.
Court ordered.
Don't know why I didn't remember that in my prior post. Must be failing
. 0;->
Kane
Greegor
> reminded me of the fact that divorces and child custody
> battles often result in a family evaluation for one or both sides.
Who does this and why exactly?
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
0:-> wrote:
> And judges routinely, in custody cases order CPS to conduct evaluations
> of families and homes.
>
> Has nothing to do with "placement" as per foster or adoption, or client
> status.
>
> I just happened to spend a couple of minutes with a divorce lawyer
> friend of mine on an entirely different matter, not even a question of
> law, but it reminded me of the fact that divorces and child custody
> battles often result in a family evaluation for one or both sides.
>
> Court ordered.
>
> Don't know why I didn't remember that in my prior post. Must be failing
> . 0;->
>
> Kane
>
>
I have a friend of a friend who does home studies like that for
custody, pre-adoption, etc. As far as I know they don't use CPS
workers for those things because in fact, the home study is much more
in depth and requires MUCH more in the way of education and background
than the average CPS worker posseses.
It's also quite expensive and entails not just a physical inspection of
the home, but thorough background checks, and a jillion questions and
extensive interviews.
At least here in Texas anyway. CPS does foster home checks and
"client" (I hate that term, implies I want their "business") home
checks and a caseworker we had before never even asked to go beyond the
bedrooms. She didn't even want to see the kitchen or guest room which
I thought odd. A later one wanted to see it ALL. As usual, no
consistency or standards.
0:->
The judge orders it. To determine if the people are fit to parent. And
this case has exactly that problem...an ex- that likely, along with his
rels, do not like this couple and are trying to claim they are not fit.
Wake UP, Greg. Same sex couples have to deal with this shit constantly.
And why aren't you defending the FATHER like you are more likely to do
with same sex female couples, eh?
Are you completely ignorant of everything?
Did you know, for instance that for some time now we have known the
earth orbits the sun, not the other way around?
0:->
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
To clarify further, dad is not even an "ex", but a willing co-parent
who entered into a STRICTLY parental relationship with mom when he
wanted an older child and she wanted a second child.
Not being people with money, there was no artificial insemination
option, but trust me, it was literally a "one shot" deal, no pun
intended, and for the sole purpose of having this child and sharing
parenting responsibilities. No lawyer either. Too bad huh?
Mom had known Dad for years and had no reason to think he wasn't
trustworthy and a good father candidate. Unfortunately some people
don't show their true colors for a long time.
Dad apparently, despite agreeing from the beginning that they were
*just* having a child together, had other designs, and from the get-go
began behaving in a stereotypical, "you just haven't had the RIGHT man
and often enough" kind of way. In other words, and sorry to be crude,
trying to get back into mom's pants despite knowing mom was gay and
despite there being no "romance" in the union at any time whatsoever
and no promise or hint of such.
Dad eventually got frustrated with his thwarted attempts at a "more
significant relationship" and his inability to "turn" Mom straight and
his repeated advances being turned down. That is when he started using
the child in this manner.
THAT is when he took the CPS opportunity and spirited the child away.
In fact, a few days before disappearing, he made one last ditch attempt
at getting somewhere with her and was MUCH angrier and more hostile
than ever before when she turned him down.
Greegor
that is used to justify a home study of any
kind, in essence an investigation into "fitness"
when there is no real reason to question that!
Does getting divorced imply parental unfitness?
Checking parental "fitness" should not be
an exercise in "screening", a witch hunt to
look for dirt. (Skirting 4th amendment?)
Sure, lots of divorces are bitter and contentious,
and if there are any complaints of fitness then
perhaps a home study is a good idea, but
without such acrimony, to simply undergo a
home study just to satisfy some bureaucratic
need for anal completeness of a form is wrong.
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
Greegor wrote:
> I certainly would question the rationale
> that is used to justify a home study of any
> kind, in essence an investigation into "fitness"
> when there is no real reason to question that!
>
> Does getting divorced imply parental unfitness?
>
I don't believe this is standard, at least not here. The home study is
only done when there is a custody "battle".
If the parties part amicably and agree on custody, there isn't an
automatic home study.
0:->
> 0:-> wrote:
>
>> And judges routinely, in custody cases order CPS to conduct evaluations
>> of families and homes.
>>
>> Has nothing to do with "placement" as per foster or adoption, or client
>> status.
>>
>> I just happened to spend a couple of minutes with a divorce lawyer
>> friend of mine on an entirely different matter, not even a question of
>> law, but it reminded me of the fact that divorces and child custody
>> battles often result in a family evaluation for one or both sides.
>>
>> Court ordered.
>>
>> Don't know why I didn't remember that in my prior post. Must be failing
>> . 0;->
>>
>> Kane
>>
>>
>
>
> I have a friend of a friend who does home studies like that for
> custody, pre-adoption, etc. As far as I know they don't use CPS
> workers for those things because in fact, the home study is much more
> in depth and requires MUCH more in the way of education and background
> than the average CPS worker posseses.
Depends on whether a judge orders it, or it's a standard requirement for
custody. Some states do farm out their foster and adoption homes
studies, but you can be sure the vast majority of the people doing them
are ex- or moonlighting CPS employees. Very common practice. Upon
retirement ex-CPS adoption workers (who also worked for a lot of their
career as caseworkers) go to the private agencies and work there. The
pay is better they say.
> It's also quite expensive and entails not just a physical inspection of
> the home, but thorough background checks, and a jillion questions and
> extensive interviews.
Regardless of worker source there are those things. I've sat in on a
number of them. State ones.
> At least here in Texas anyway. CPS does foster home checks and
> "client" (I hate that term, implies I want their "business")
What would you like them to call you that shows a relationship?
> home
> checks and a caseworker we had before never even asked to go beyond the
> bedrooms.
For a pre certification foster home check?
> She didn't even want to see the kitchen or guest room which
> I thought odd.
Incompetent. Or too trusting. Or maybe ...
> A later one wanted to see it ALL. As usual, no
> consistency or standards.
The status of the case may well have changed in the time interval.
I have seen two types of 'pre placement' inspection/homestudies.
One is for emergency placement, usually with relatives or friends of the
family. A quick walk around, a question or two, and out the door. And
the child placed. For later follow-up.
I don't approve of those, but see the necessity in an emergency. The
agency prefers to place with family and friends when they can.
IF the child is found to be going to be staying longer, however, the
REAL foster certification people come in and do their Big Kahuna HomeStudy.
Kane
0:->
You very much need that attorney, even if you have to borrow to hire one.
Kane
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
0:-> wrote:
<snip>>
> Very common practice. Upon
> retirement ex-CPS adoption workers (who also worked for a lot of their
> career as caseworkers) go to the private agencies and work there. The
> pay is better they say.
>
Yes, the woman I know who does these IS an ex-CPS worker. She wasn't a
caseworker. Something else. Can't recall. Supervisor of some sort?
She was rather disgusted with CPS and left.
>> > At least here in Texas anyway. CPS does foster home checks and
> > "client" (I hate that term, implies I want their "business")
>
> What would you like them to call you that shows a relationship?
>
Well I don't know, but client seems pleasant, and this is nothing but.
The nature of the interaction between CPS workers and parents is much
more like that of guardians and their charges, royalty and their
subjects, or even doctors and patients. In other words, it is NEVER
equal. Yes, they may be nice, and yes, they may be fair, but they
still hold all the power and in my experience there is still always an
air of superiority, even if you hold triple the intelligence,
knowledge, and experience that the caseworker does.
> > home
> > checks and a caseworker we had before never even asked to go beyond the
> > bedrooms.
>
> For a pre certification foster home check?
No, sorry to confuse. For a CPS investigation and during a safety plan
requring home visits.
>
> > She didn't even want to see the kitchen or guest room which
> > I thought odd.
>
> Incompetent. Or too trusting. Or maybe ...
Or maybe what?
She was actually older and experienced. The ones who were extreme in
their desire to be thorough (the one who freaked about the tracked-in
cigarette but) were the young'uns, actually. These 2 came to the door
and I thought they were party buddies of the 19 year old girl upstairs!
>
> > A later one wanted to see it ALL. As usual, no
> > consistency or standards.
>
> The status of the case may well have changed in the time interval.
No, 2 different cases. The ones who wanted to see it all was there
investigating a blatantly false report called in by our angry neighbor
(angry because the owed us money and we had the nerve to ask for
it).... and she showed up on a day that out PREVIOUS case worker
happened to be there, incidentally... the one who was relaxed about the
whole thing. Lucky for us I guess, because the original CW then told
the new ones that the allegations were "absurd" and that she'd been to
our house over and over for six months and had surely seen none of the
things we were being accused of (all kinds of crazy stuff).
Again, not meaning to confuse things. We have never been teh subject
of a pre-foster certification or home study. We are just trying to
gear up for the upcoming "unannounced home visits" from the caseworker
and since she has been a problem from day one we want some idea of what
she's going to be looking for... so having no resource or checklist or
guidelines, we are going to check out what they'd look for in a foster
situation instead.
We figure if we can achieve the "foster standard" (as far as the
physical home I mean) then the CW won't have anything to "find wrong"
with our home.
We hope anyway. She seems hell bent on finding something at every
turn, ever since we went head to head with her a year ago when she
tried to pin a false positive drug test on me.
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
0:-> wrote:
>>
> You very much need that attorney, even if you have to borrow to hire one.
>
> Kane
>
Oh I agree, but what attorney?
I mean, I read over and over that most attorneys will not go up against
CPS.... and we got the pro bono attorney who was ALL gung ho and full
of fire to "take them down" but wussed out in court, being a local
attorney and all and dealing with this judge all the time.
Some have suggested we find a civil rights attorney and take this issue
to federal court.
The only attorney we have heard of in our area that will FIGHT CPS is
just out of our reach financially. We have no available credit, our
families have no money, we've wracked our brains for a source for the
funds and it's just not happening.
The "good" atty would probably cost us $7000 up front. We don't have
it. Hell, I barely make that in a year! He won't 'take payments'. We
could manage payments, and I'm looking for a second job as we speak,
but $7000.00?? It's not falling from teh sky.
I just don't know what else to do.
Greegor
> and experience that the caseworker does.
For most some completing a GED would make
you intellectually challenging to them and
some will actually represent this "intellectual threat"
as threats of violence or some sort of pathology.
They seem totally incapable of feeling
anything less than SUPERIOR to ""clients"".
0:->
standards for Foster parent homes manual.
http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/fire/documents/fmsifoster.pdf
May be of some help, since it is likely to apply throughout the state.
This form above is the checklist workers likely use apparently for
recertification. I presume the pre-service form looks much the same,
sans the questions to foster children in the home. (Though they might
and should ask similar questions of bio children of the family).
Most states use the same standard for pre-adoptive homes as well.
http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/fire/documents/fmsifoster.pdf
You might also peruse this above.
Probably the most pertinent information you seek could be found though at:
http://www.tdprs.state.tx.us/Adoption_and_Foster_Care/About_Foster_Care/homestudy_guidelines.asp
You may find the questions and check points offensive but I don't.
Here's why.
It is used primarily for placing someone else's child in someone other
than the parent's home. Strangers, most often, but even if family -- the
state is signing off. They ARE responsible for their findings.
I attended pre-service foster parent trainings with relatives trying to
foster and adopt. Same training for all.
At an early point in the training the teacher, a man, pulled out his
wallet, and passed around a picture of his teen age children.
Then at some point he asked if others had a child that was part of their
family, their own child or a grandchild, niece, nephew as long as this
child was important to them and had a picture they'd share. Nearly
everyone did and a lot of fun ensued looking at pictures of little kids
people loved.
Then the son of a bitch called for everyone's attention, and went over
to a couple, asked to see the picture of their kid or kids, I forget
which, and in front of everyone asked if he could have the child.
"Just on loan, you see." I think that was how he put it. They agreed a
little reluctantly, but he was persuasive, and he took the picture (he
did hold it respectfully in both hands) across the room and presented it
to the woman of another couple.
He said, "I am giving you this child, of that couple," and walked back
to the front of the room. In silence.
Then he asked, "the rest of you folks, neither couple please; would you
answer this question please, what do you want to know about the couple I
just gave someone else's child too?"
Can you imagine the questions?
It might not have been as detailed (they weren't professional child
protection workers of course) as the checklists I've pointed you too but
they were just as intrusive and nosy. Worse, really.
Some were downright unkind and bigoted.
The trainer ended it by retrieving the picture, just as carefully and
respectfully as before, from the 'foster' couple and returning it to the
parents across the room. In fact, he stood by the mother for a little
while holding her hand, because we could all see this had had a strong
effect on them, and everyone in the room.
I could not find ANY indication of callousness from that CPS worker
trainer. In fact the very opposite.
He ended that section with this comment, paraphrased: "THIS IS WHAT WE
WILL PUT YOU THROUGH AND MORE TO DO ALL WE CAN TO INSURE THE SAFETY AND
BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD THAT MAY BE COMING FROM ANOTHER FAMILY TO
YOUR HOME."
What would YOU want to know about the family your own child was placed
with temporarily?
I think he said something like that as well.
Kane
Ref: [ for those interested in just what foster adoptive parent
applicants have ahead of them as to requirements, one might view this page ]
http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Child_Care/Child_Care_Standards_and_Regulations/MS-CPA-March-2005.asp
0:->
Nor do I.
Consider the other advice you've received here and use that which you
can and which appears would work best for you.
Consider this as well: You have been presented suggestions from
basically two perspectives. One cooperative and assertive, and
non-combative, the other uncooperative and resistant -- combative.
Apply some logic.
Which ever you use, you could lose. Or you could win. There is no way to
predict. But one can consider, logically, the odds.
Which, in your mind, would have the better odds of winning?
Which would have the better odds of losing?
lovemake...@community.hipmama.com
0:-> wrote:
>>
> Which, in your mind, would have the better odds of winning?
>
> Which would have the better odds of losing?
>
> Kane
>
>
Well, we know that we have NO CHOICE but to cooperate fully.
What we want to be sure of is cooperation that results in
reunification. Not cooperation that results in caseworker "fishing"
for something that doesn't exist. Not cooperation that ends with more
safety plan(s) and a longer delay.
We want to protect our other children and keep everything legal and
proper and not sign anything that will screw us.
We want to avoid further "caseworker railroad" with this PARTICULAR CW
because she's proven herself untrustworthy.
We want to cooperate without any admission of guilt, since we have done
nothing wrong.
So that's what we are trying to do.
Greegor
of lottery, or more like a roulette wheel where
the agency supervision is tilting the table.
Parents Rights people have known for some
time that some of the worst abuses are actually
DIRECTED by supervision. Caseworkers who
see no case are TOLD to make a case out
of nothing BY A SUPERVISOR.
A few actively working caseworkers have
joined Parents Rights groups not to spy
on them but to ASSIST them against their
own corrupt agencies.
It is quite revealing about the day-to-day
realities of caseworkers knowingly doing wrong
and supervision ORDERING cases made
regardless of the salient facts of the case.
Many of the abuses and failings of the agencies
seem a bit schitzophrenic because of the wild
variations in workers SUBJECTIVE attitudes.
Kids blatantly IN REAL DANGER are not removed
and die. At the same time THOUSANDS of kids
are removed for NOTHING and are damaged by that.
Biases about religion and lifestyle choices
have been found in every direction.
Religious caseworkers have had biases
about somebody having the wrong KIND of
belief, no belief or the wrong lifestyle.
Atheist caseworkers have written up cases
against religious families citing the bible verse
about Lot's daughters as justifying incest.
Of course the subjectivity problems tie into
many other opposing views or attitudes,
Caseworkers accusing of Munchausens,
broken bones as "normal childhood",
etc. But the BIGGEST is Kanes own darling,
SPANKING.
They can't get ya for it, cause it's legal in
all 50 states, within various limits.
Generally open hand on butt is legal but
a leather belt or object is OUT except for
certain Southern states.
High courts have said psanking is NOT
an issue for Child Protection agencies.
What they tend to do is "cheat" regarding this.
If you SPANK you can expect to be accused
of various other problems.
Kane himself actually described the possibility
that a CPS agency may be operating with
a secretive unwritten unstated PLAN.
(Secretly wanting a spouse OUT, but lacking
legal basis or testicular fortitude to actually
state this goal.)
It sounds like you have a good grasp on the
horns of the dilemma regarding cooperation
intended blatantly to destroy vs. cooperation
used to actually reunify a family...
You seem to also understand the implied
threats involved, which are used to INTIMIDATE
families into absolute submission at least
until they realize their "cooperation" is being
used to destroy their family.
If you're not lucky with the workers, you
may feel the full force of the fear and extortion
this represents. If you ARE lucky in the
worker lottery, beware, caseworkers can
be reassigned, complete with their subjective
attitudes.
Cooperation that seems reasonable with one
may seem quite different under another who
intends to RIG the services with heavy handed
input or even simply telephone comments to
the services providers.
The (Lesbian who deliberately entered into
a loveless marriage) certainly could be accused
of a certain level of FRAUD and her lifestyle
choice combined with that FRAUD could certainly
make a case about being IRRESPONSIBLE about
the situation she brought the kids into. Who knows
how many OTHER issues could be made of that?
That situation could be SUBJECTIVELY dynamite
in the hands of EITHER a Lesbian caseworker
(as betrayer of the Lesbian lifestyle?)
or in the hands of somebody biased against Lesbians.