Re: Being investgated

[Greegor]

Betty wrote
> tell her to make that available to
> the courts, DFS, and anyone else involved.

This is advice from caseworkers.

Legally you are entitled to get the test results and
decide with your LAWYER whether to submit it.
Could be particularly wise if the test is dirty or erroneous.

Greg wrote
> The exams/interviews of kids that were NOT
> involved in the incident crosses another line.

Betty Jean Hammond Wirsen of Springfield Missouri wrote
> Actually, it does not.
> See, when one child is obviously abused that leaves ALL children in
> the home at risk of harm, and in light of that DFS has a legal
> responsibility to check on the safety and welfare of the other
> children during an investigation.

Citations please?

Greg wrote
> The drug test demands on you are abusive
> if you have no drug use history.
> If you do have a drug use history that makes your
> situation tougher of course.

Betty wrote
> I can agree. Without some sign that drug abuse may be an issue then
> this woman should not be subjected to drug testing.

And yet this is an extremely common thing for CPS to do with no basis.

Greg wrote
> 2. Many of them are anti-spanking ZEALOTS.
> Anti-spanking zealots often use rhetoric like
> referring to spanking as "beating" and would
> like to characterize ALL spanking as more
> extreme cases like yours, where bruises are formed.

Betty wrote
> Add that regardless of what kind of 'zealot' a worker may be, state
> law dictates what is, and what is not child abuse.

Spanking is legal in all 50 states.
High courts have actually affirmed that CPS is NOT the spanking
police.
(EVEN if spanking goes too far!)

The problem is that the lower (kangaroo) courts will still
wrap you up in a big tarbaby before the high court opinion
comes to bear in your case.

In a more PRACTICAL sense, caseworkers KNOW they
can't really get you for spanking, so they will, as one
caseworker said "find something".

Greg wrote
> As a parent you are NOT a mandatory reporter.
> If you could have just had a strong discussion with
> the Dad and kept that kid out of ""school""(?)
> until the bruising was gone, that might have been
> the best thing for your family.

Betty wrote
> Beeep! Wrong answer again.
> Any person knowing of abuse of a child who fails to report that abuse
> is guilty of several different crimes, not the least of which is
> accessory and neglect.
> You don't have to be a mandated reporter.

And why would there be a case with NO EVIDENCE?

Being that people still have a right against self incrimination,
there are some interesting problems there to be sure.

If she would have concealed the bruises and kept the
kid home for three days, she might have been guilty of
"failure to protect" but what other crimes?

They'd have to be really bad bruises before
denial of medical care would be an issue..

Greg wrote
> The things these CPS agencies do are much more harmful
> for that child and for the fabric of your family than the bruising.
> As you have noticed, your OWN presumption of innocence

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Betty wrote
>> tell her to make that available to
>> the courts, DFS, and anyone else involved.
>
> This is advice from caseworkers.

Betty isn't one. She's just a smart grandmother did didn't listen to
your babbling childish pretense that you think you are an informed and
helpful parent's rights advocate.

> Legally you are entitled to get the test results and
> decide with your LAWYER whether to submit it.

All things not illegal are your legal rights, Greg. That's not brain
surgery. Are you then giving legal advice?

> Could be particularly wise if the test is dirty or erroneous.

So if the test is dirty it should be hidden?

And the person refuse to take the test the state requested? Yeah,
that'll work.

We can sure tell you aren't a child's advocate. In a home where abuse
has occurred and is already reported you want the person to go all
squirrelly on the court and their attorney? Oh sure. That's it.

The lawyer is an officer of the court. He or she cannot abet a crime at
risk of censure and loss of license to practice. If it's illegal to be a
drug user in that state and HE has evidence you are, well, tsk tsk, Greg.

The attorney can tell you HOW to submit the dirty test for the best
chance of surviving and not having your kids removed, but they cannot
legally advise you to both NOT submit and NOT take the state test.

Their best advice is usually, "you are busted, and here's how to work
the judge in your favor...first you kneel."

> Greg wrote
>> The exams/interviews of kids that were NOT
>> involved in the incident crosses another line.
>
> Betty Jean Hammond Wirsen of Springfield Missouri wrote
>> Actually, it does not.
>> See, when one child is obviously abused that leaves ALL children in
>> the home at risk of harm, and in light of that DFS has a legal
>> responsibility to check on the safety and welfare of the other
>> children during an investigation.
>
> Citations please?

R R R ... who made the claim first, Greg? Did you not say that the
cannot interview or examine the children? Do you mean the next door
neighbors kids, or the children that live in the household. How would
they be NOT involved, Greg?

For YOU to ask for other's citations....well, R R R R R ..

Where's YOURS.

Here's a little pump priming for you:

Setting the scene: You know that the states receive federal grants to
aid in child protection. You know that to do this a set of guidelines
were created by the feds, that the states had to pass into law to be
eligible and they had to PERFORM. You remember the "audits?"

Well, check this out and tell us if the other children in the household
can't be interviewed:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/45cfr1340.14.htm
.... (d) Investigations. The State must provide for the prompt initiation
of an appropriate investigation by a child protective agency or other
properly constituted authority to substantiate the accuracy of all
reports of known or suspected child abuse or neglect. This investigation
may include the use of reporting hotlines, contact with central
registers, field investigations and interviews, home visits,
consultation with other agencies, medical examinations, psychological
and social evaluations, and reviews by multidisciplinary teams. ...

.... f) Emergency services. If an investigation of a report reveals that
the reported child or any other child under the same care is in need of
immediate protection, ...

Pray tell, Greg, how would the state determine that "other children"
than the reported child be accorded services if that other child cannot
be interviewed?

The following refers to a domestic violence call, not EVEN a child
protection call and what are the officers advised to do?


http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/162425.txt
.... For this reason, officers should ask whether there are
children living at the residence and, if so, where they are.

o It is recommended that domestic disturbance calls
be answered with at least two officers, not only for
officer protection but also so that one officer can
deal with the parties involved with the domestic
disturbance while the other officer talks with any
children who may be present.

[[[ Oh! Golly...and the statute that says they can't is were, Greg? ]]]


o Once the involved parties are calm, most parents,
if asked tactfully, will allow an officer to talk
with their children and may even appreciate the
officer's offer to allay a child's fear that someone
has been hurt or is going to jail.

o If possible, an officer should speak directly with
the children. Such conversations allow the police
officer to gather information about the situation
directly from the child and to assess the child's
need for protection....

In fact, Greg, I recommend you read the entire document, as it lays the
lie to so much of the garbage you 'parent's rights' advocates have wrong.


>
> Greg wrote
>> The drug test demands on you are abusive
>> if you have no drug use history.
>> If you do have a drug use history that makes your
>> situation tougher of course.
>
> Betty wrote
>> I can agree. Without some sign that drug abuse may be an issue then
>> this woman should not be subjected to drug testing.
>
> And yet this is an extremely common thing for CPS to do with no basis.

I disagree with Betty on the grounds that it has not been established by
investigation who the perp actually is.

We can believe Tamara, our poster, but should CPS and the police?

Why?

Should CPS just automatically believe that the one that confessed is
actually the perp? Why?

Parents have lied for each other before. Hey, they'll even lie to
protect an older kid that was the perp.

That is the reason for cautions by CPS and investigations.

If the person refuses the test, the court is likely to issue and order.
By then the case is getting overheated and the next move by the COURT
may be removal of the children. This we do not want, do we kiddies? 0.-]

Once there are marks on the child and it's been reported it's very
different than if no obvious evidence shows up and it's simply an
allegation. THIS WAS A REPORT OF ABUSE.

Not and allegation of abuse.

> Greg wrote
>> 2. Many of them are anti-spanking ZEALOTS.
Many are not, and spank their own children.
>> Anti-spanking zealots often use rhetoric like
>> referring to spanking as "beating" and would
>> like to characterize ALL spanking as more
>> extreme cases like yours, where bruises are formed.

That's why they examine and take pictures. No bruises, the issue
changes. Then they ask the children about owies, like "where does it hurt?

If deep injuries are suspected, then of to be medically evaluated.
>
> Betty wrote
>> Add that regardless of what kind of 'zealot' a worker may be, state
>> law dictates what is, and what is not child abuse.
>
> Spanking is legal in all 50 states.

Yep. This doesn't work well with your prior claim.

> High courts have actually affirmed that CPS is NOT the spanking
> police.
> (EVEN if spanking goes too far!)

Yep. Sad isn't it?

Imagine a judge finding that beating a child is just spanking a child.
We are in trouble in this country.

> The problem is that the lower (kangaroo) courts will still
> wrap you up in a big tarbaby before the high court opinion
> comes to bear in your case.

Yep. I'd say that a decision to make "EVEN if spanking goes to far!" is
a poor judicial decision. Some judges that have done so have even
expressed their regrets but had to go with how the statute read, and it
read very poorly to protect children, and much more to let thugs off.

> In a more PRACTICAL sense, caseworkers KNOW they
> can't really get you for spanking, so they will, as one
> caseworker said "find something".

Ah, the old, 'someone told me,' gambit. Yes, Greg, we know.

> Greg wrote
>> As a parent you are NOT a mandatory reporter.
>> If you could have just had a strong discussion with
>> the Dad and kept that kid out of ""school""(?)
>> until the bruising was gone, that might have been
>> the best thing for your family.
>
> Betty wrote
>> Beeep! Wrong answer again.
>> Any person knowing of abuse of a child who fails to report that abuse
>> is guilty of several different crimes, not the least of which is
>> accessory and neglect.
>> You don't have to be a mandated reporter.
>
> And why would there be a case with NO EVIDENCE?

Oh, someone else DOES report, and at the same time reports you knew.

Don't you ever think past the end of our nose?

Or are you advocating that one should hide the injury of a child?

> Being that people still have a right against self incrimination,
> there are some interesting problems there to be sure.

You have the wrong court and the wrong laws. If a parent fails to
protect a child and that would include failing to ask for help, they
have broken at least on statute.

That it might incriminate them does not release them from the obligation
to protect.

Would you say, if your sainted mother, bless her sweet old head, were
abused in a nursing home, the attendant that did it didn't report it,
that he had the right to withhold the information because it might
incriminate him?

> If she would have concealed the bruises and kept the
> kid home for three days, she might have been guilty of
> "failure to protect" but what other crimes?

What other crime would be required to open and investigation and
possibly remove the child and other children in the home and NEVER
RETURN THEM?

I just wonder if that's what Lisa faced.
>
> They'd have to be really bad bruises before
> denial of medical care would be an issue..

Oh dear, not more legal advice, Greg. Please.

Do you know the statute on the mandated reporting guidelines?

My boy, YOU don't get to decide how bad some injury is. YOU report it
and let others do the evaluation.

Check it out.

This has been discussed here before more than once.

Because Greg wants things to be a certain way, doesn't make them that way.
>
> Greg wrote
>> The things these CPS agencies do are much more harmful
>> for that child and for the fabric of your family than the bruising.
>> As you have noticed, your OWN presumption of innocence

To have in the household someone that is a poor judge of what hurts
children?

He sure, Greg.

Remember my question of Doan he never could successfully answer?

The Question, concerning how the parent can judge precisely where that
line is between CP that doesn't injure and that which does, constituting
abuse?

Yet another example. A lot of people don't judge it well at all. And
this is the result.

Just how low to you wish the standard held to, Greg, to satisfy what you
want, Dead Kid?