Re: Interesting CPS/DCF Report

[Greegor]

> > wrote:
> > My friend is granting me permission to post this here. She does not
> > have a computer to do so herself. I have already given her advice but
> > I did want to share it with you here.
>
> > Thursday, she got a knock on her door. A DCF investigator was
> > standing there and told her that they had a report about her 14 year
> > old daughter. She told the DCF worker to come back in an hour and
> > called me. I went over there to just 'be there' when the investigator
> > came back.
>
> > The report was that her 14 year old daughter's boyfriend tried to kill
> > himself (which is true) at school. The daughter had told the
> > psychologist at school that she was afraid to break up with the
> > boyfriend in fear of what he might do and because she was nervous that
> > her mom would be upset with her if she broke up with him.

HOW is there abuse in this? Should have been screened out.

> > The mom told the DCF worker all she ever said to her daughter about
> > breaking up with the kid was not to do it while he was in getting a
> > psych eval done at the hospital. That's all the mom said about that.
>
> > Supposedly the boyfriend was living there. No, he isn't, wasn't nor
> > ever will be.

I bet the only supposition of that was in the fertive imagination
of the investigative caseworker. They presented the supposition
hoping to uncover a lie that did not exist.
In other words, they LIE LIKE THIS hoping to trip people up.
It's like they watched a bad cop show on Tee Vee and got carried away.

> a very strict christian who does not
> > believe in pre-marital anything so the boyfriend living there would be
> > a sin and unthinkable to boot.
>
> > The investigator talked to all the kids there. My friend has 2 other
> > children. There were also friends there that the investigator chatted
> > with (against procedure as the other children were minors and the
> > investigator did not get permission, which I mentioned and the
> > investigator told me to stop or she would have me arrested for
> > interfering with an investigation.

Ask her if she is a Law Enforcement Officer.
They dance between claims that they are and claims they are not.
They claim whichever is convenient at the time.

Of course it is NOT interfering with an investigation to
tell people to talk to their lawyer before answering
questions, period.

You DO know this I presume.

How do you LIKE experiencing just how *******ly these
government agents behave?

Vacuuming for dirt to make a case..

If drugs were found in the child's room, why
do you think the parent would not be
criminally charged?

WHY did she think there were drugs in the girl's room?

Was there any "probable cause" for the search of the girl's room?

Do you think a qualified attorney would advise submission
to such a search?

> I told her that I was not
> > interfering with anything...just making sure everyone's rights were
> > respected). After that, she stopped talking to the non-family
> > members.
>
> > The investigator left only to come back to her house this morning.

Yes, hoping the Mother's "supporting friend" (you) would not be there.

> > friend called me and I went right over. This time the investigator
> > wanted to look at the bedrooms again and to see if the daughter had
> > drugs stashed in her drawers or anywhere else in the house. I told my
> > friend to not allow the investigator access to the other rooms and
> > told the investigator that if she wants to search the house for drugs,
> > to get a warrant and bring the cops. My friend asked her if there was
> > anything else she needed. The investigator said no so my friend asked
> > her to leave.
>
> > My friend called her attorney and the ombudsman to file a complaint
> > and to see what else can or can't be done.

Is the attorney a lazy public pretender "doormat" or Judas, or
one who will actually DEFEND?

Ombudsman is damage control for the Governor and the agency itself.
Ombudsman is NOT about repairing the agency unless the Governor
in your state is on the warpath with the CPS agency.
If your governor is a suckup for CPS, Ombudsman is nothing
but an attempt to fend of serious law suits by PLACATING
people who think they're getting something done.

> > That's where it stands now.
>
> The attorney call is warranted. The ombudsman complain should have
> waited until the attorney consultation. My guess? No laws or policy
> was violated. Conversing and even asking ... just about anything
> aren't prohibited usually.

An investigation of the girls home should have been SCREENED OUT
and is a rip off of federal money. NO basis for a CHILD ABUSE
investigation, whatsoever.

All of this was because the Mom said not to dump the boy
in the middle of his suiciude mental meltdown?

> Refusing to leave probably is covered.
>
> People get scared and over react...of course..don't we all...and
> presume violations that are not really there.

And let CPS in to search without a warrant?
Remember Ron's "plain sight rule" in conjunction
with the restricted search.

> It's a great way to let yourself get setup...for a claim you are being
> over reactive and aggressive etc. blah blah blah.

In other words these people FAILED when they
went through the FEDERALLY REQUIRED training on how
to respect the Constitutional Rights of families....

> Stay cool. As it looks like you were.

Cool with a submission to a search of the girl's room.
Based on WHAT??

> If your friend wants to have impact through an
> ombudsman check policy and statute for violations first.

Feds don't like investigations to proceed that
blatantly should have been screened out.
Ombudsman works for GOVERNOR.
If Gov is a suckup for CPS, Ombudsman is just
to make you FEEL like you did something,
to PLACATE people so they don't SUE.

If Gov is on the warpath with CPS (rare cases)
Ombudsman might actually raise hell.

> Just complaining one was scared, or even inconvenienced usually isn't
> enough. They get hundreds of those to deal with and those go to the
> backburner.

Yeah, Don't get that "Nazi's checked my drawers" feeling
because that's what they do to EVERYBODY!

> Simple not enough time or resources to follow up on those...they have
> to prioritize to the ones that do appear to have violated the law, or
> at least policy.
>
> Unless field practice of the worker/investigator goes over the line,
> it's a waste of time and in fact keeps the focus on you rather than
> the worker.
>
> In other words, in the mind of the suspicious, "just what are you up
> to complaining about a non-violation of policy or statute."

Yeah, How DARE you question their AUTHORITAE?!

> Just some random thoughts. Others might have more and better insights
> to share.
>
> An aside. Is the daughter getting some support for her difficult life
> situation with a boyfriend that is suicidal?

Help to dump him?
Perhaps she should talk to HIS therapist aboiut how to do that?

> That's a lot for a kid to take on and wonderful that she trusts her
> mother to share that with. But often more than the kid can handle, and
> maybe the mom too.
>
> These are the kinds of situations the are tailor made for a counselor.
> The girl needs to be heard out with a neutral party, not anyone she
> knows. Just a paid 'listener.'
>
> Not to alarm you, but suicide among teens can be contagious under some
> circumstances.

Especially if they are fond of the Goth or EMO music/culture.

> I presume everyone is thinking about the child's safety, even the
> intrusive pain in the butt DCF "infestigator."

Safety FROM WHAT? A teen age psycho boyfriend threatening suicide??
This should have NEVER justified any investigation WHATSOEVER
of the girls home. Meets NO CRITERIA for CHILD ABUSE.
Failure to screen out an investigation of the girls home is a
violation.

> They are trained to push buttons and see what happens. Think
> "Matlock." They all have a secret desire to be a detective.

In other words they are mental cases.
Delusions of grandeur.

> Some, interestingly enough are former cops. The trick is to just stay
> cool.

There are probably more pedophiles among them than former cops.

> Actually I think you and your friend did good. Very.
>
> Kane

[0:->]

On Mar 19, 12:04 pm, "Greegor" > wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > My friend is granting me permission to post this here. She does not
> > > have a computer to do so herself. I have already given her advice but
> > > I did want to share it with you here.
>
> > > Thursday, she got a knock on her door. A DCF investigator was
> > > standing there and told her that they had a report about her 14 year
> > > old daughter. She told the DCF worker to come back in an hour and
> > > called me. I went over there to just 'be there' when the investigator
> > > came back.
>
> > > The report was that her 14 year old daughter's boyfriend tried to kill
> > > himself (which is true) at school. The daughter had told the
> > > psychologist at school that she was afraid to break up with the
> > > boyfriend in fear of what he might do and because she was nervous that
> > > her mom would be upset with her if she broke up with him.
>
> HOW is there abuse in this? Should have been screened out.

You just asked a question, and before the answer, made a decision.

How does that work in the real world, Greg?

What in the report tells you that there was no allegation of abuse
involved?

To the point you read, there is no mention of it because it may not
anything to do with the daughter, other than what it states: another
child has made a suicide attempt.

I take it you want investigators to be psychic and don't ask questions
until they know the answer...why, Greg...something like you do. You
should become and investigator. You already have all the answers.

What makes you think, stupid, that is IS an abuse investigation OF the
mother of the girl? So far it's only about the suicide of a friend of
the girl. Try a 40 watt, Greg.

I'll post it again, on the chance you MIGHT understand it this
time...IF you bother to read it:

"The report was that her 14 year old daughter's boyfriend tried to
kill
himself (which is true) at school. The daughter had told the
psychologist at school that she was afraid to break up with the
boyfriend in fear of what he might do and because she was nervous that
her mom would be upset with her if she broke up with him.

Where's the abuse investigation, Greg? Why presume it is one, Greg?

> > > The mom told the DCF worker all she ever said to her daughter about
> > > breaking up with the kid was not to do it while he was in getting a
> > > psych eval done at the hospital. That's all the mom said about that.
>
> > > Supposedly the boyfriend was living there. No, he isn't, wasn't nor
> > > ever will be.

Often questions will be asked very like that one. They are probing
questions, where yours, stupid, are innuendo.

> I bet the only supposition of that was in the fertive imagination
> of the investigative caseworker.

The are paid to investigate. YOU are the one with the "fertive"[sic]
mind, child.

> They presented the supposition
> hoping to uncover a lie that did not exist.

Supposition of what? As yet we don't know what the allegation might
be, now do we?
If someone told them, or they felt it important to discover what was
going on in the boys life (he is at risk of his life, Greg...or don't
you care?) then all kinds of questions might be asked in all manner of
ways.

Exactly how do YOU think an investigation on a case such as we know so
far should go?

> In other words, they LIE LIKE THIS hoping to trip people up.

What lie are you referring to?

> It's like they watched a bad cop show on Tee Vee and got carried away.

They are trying to uncover why a boy might try to commit suicide.

> > a very strict christian who does not
> > > believe in pre-marital anything so the boyfriend living there would be
> > > a sin and unthinkable to boot.
>
> > > The investigator talked to all the kids there. My friend has 2 other
> > > children. There were also friends there that the investigator chatted
> > > with (against procedure as the other children were minors and the
> > > investigator did not get permission, which I mentioned and the
> > > investigator told me to stop or she would have me arrested for
> > > interfering with an investigation.
>
> Ask her if she is a Law Enforcement Officer.

Why?

They alread said who they are and both parties, firemonkey, and her
friend already know that.

> They dance between claims that they are and claims they are not.
> They claim whichever is convenient at the time.

You are dribbling down your chin again, lusting after a CPS
investigator.

> Of course it is NOT interfering with an investigation to
> tell people to talk to their lawyer before answering
> questions, period.

firemonkey made no mention of having suggested the friend should not
respond until she contacted her attorney. What ARE you babbling about?
It was minor children being questioned. And frankly we don't know if
that prohibited or not in her state. Possibly firemonkey knows it is
and informed the worker of that.
>
> You DO know this I presume.

Why ask about something that was NOT brought up until YOU brought it
up?

The point firemonkey was making was that the investigator was
questioning minor children, dim bulb.

Can't you track for even a single post?

> How do you LIKE experiencing just how *******ly these
> government agents behave?

Oh stop honking. We know you are stupid. Honk when you are doing
something smart for a change. We'll welcome the silence.
>
> Vacuuming for dirt to make a case..
>
No matter how you change the words, Greg, it's still investigating
unless the investigator breaks the law.

> If drugs were found in the child's room, why
> do you think the parent would not be
> criminally charged?

Ho hum. So the puck what, Greg?

> WHY did she think there were drugs in the girl's room?

Ah, could your little brain actually have engaged the next higher
gear?

A suicide attempt? Looking for drugs on or about the close associates
of the kid that tried to exit?

Greg, two plus two still equals four unless you are counting in Base
8.
>
> Was there any "probable cause" for the search of the girl's room?
>
A suicide attempt by a close associate of the girl would prompt the
question. The refusal to allow it would suggest the parent wants to
protect themselves and the child. I'd go with the parent on this one,
but NOT your stupid questions.

What do you think investigators are supposed to do, Greg. NOTHING but
hope to pretend to wish to claim?

> Do you think a qualified attorney would advise submission
> to such a search?

Nope. So what?

> > I told her that I was not
> > > interfering with anything...just making sure everyone's rights were
> > > respected). After that, she stopped talking to the non-family
> > > members.
>
> > > The investigator left only to come back to her house this morning.
>
> Yes, hoping the Mother's "supporting friend" (you) would not be there.

Yep. Investigators are like that. They get paid to investigate.

> > > friend called me and I went right over. This time the investigator
> > > wanted to look at the bedrooms again and to see if the daughter had
> > > drugs stashed in her drawers or anywhere else in the house. I told my
> > > friend to not allow the investigator access to the other rooms and
> > > told the investigator that if she wants to search the house for drugs,
> > > to get a warrant and bring the cops. My friend asked her if there was
> > > anything else she needed. The investigator said no so my friend asked
> > > her to leave.
>
> > > My friend called her attorney and the ombudsman to file a complaint
> > > and to see what else can or can't be done.
>
> Is the attorney a lazy public pretender "doormat" or Judas, or
> one who will actually DEFEND?

Don't you ever puckering think Greg? Or just blow off your mouth?

> Ombudsman is damage control for the Governor and the agency itself.

Liar.

> Ombudsman is NOT about repairing the agency unless the Governor
> in your state is on the warpath with the CPS agency.

You are right. That is not the ombudsman's job. It's YOUR job as a
citizen to reform any government agency YOU think is not performing
properly.

> If your governor is a suckup for CPS, Ombudsman is nothing
> but an attempt to fend of serious law suits by PLACATING
> people who think they're getting something done.

"If."

Well there you go then. You are blathering about things you do not
know. What's new?

>
> > > That's where it stands now.
>
> > The attorney call is warranted. The ombudsman complain should have
> > waited until the attorney consultation. My guess? No laws or policy
> > was violated. Conversing and even asking ... just about anything
> > aren't prohibited usually.
>
> An investigation of the girls home should have been SCREENED OUT
> and is a rip off of federal money.

What? No warrant was issued, just a request made. The mother turned it
down. What federal money are you talking about stupid?

> NO basis for a CHILD ABUSE
> investigation, whatsoever.

See if you can find a single mention that this was a child abuse
investigation, Greg.

There was a suicide attempt.
>
> All of this was because the Mom said not to dump the boy
> in the middle of his suiciude mental meltdown?

All what? You are blowing this up.

The mother was free to and did refuse to cooperate with the
investigator. If there was a crime, and there is sufficient cause, the
investigator may be back with a warrant. If not, not.

That is how investigations WORK, ya stupid ****ant.
>
> > Refusing to leave probably is covered.
>
> > People get scared and over react...of course..don't we all...and
> > presume violations that are not really there.
>
> And let CPS in to search without a warrant?

Where did I suggest they should?

> Remember Ron's "plain sight rule" in conjunction
> with the restricted search.

Some states include what Ron said he could not do as an LEO, peek.

If your curtains aren't closed, and a police officer looks in, peeks,
and sees evidence for probable cause, it will stick in some states for
issuance of a warrant.

But even Ron could ASK permission, and presume the person could either
refuse or not. The girl is an associate...close at that...of someone
that tried to commit suicide. We don't know the means, but drugs often
are the medium used by folks. Could be why the "drug" question was
asked.

> > It's a great way to let yourself get setup...for a claim you are being
> > over reactive and aggressive etc. blah blah blah.
>
> In other words these people FAILED when they
> went through the FEDERALLY REQUIRED training on how
> to respect the Constitutional Rights of families....

Nope. They are not investigating THIS family from what I can tell from
what firemonkey has written so far.

But firemonkey appears to know the same thing Ron knows and told you.
If a cop sees something in a permission venture into a household, or
your car through the window, there might be probably cause for an
investigation of you, all aside from the original investigation.

Greg, WHY do you cut the parts that answer the accusations you make
that show you to be wrong to make them?

Where did you learn to lie like that?

**** you are stupid.

> > Stay cool. As it looks like you were.
>
> Cool with a submission to a search of the girl's room.
> Based on WHAT??

Did you see firemonkey say that there was submission, or did you see
firemonkey say there was an invitation to leave while the mother
contacted her attorney, Greg?

DON'T YOU PUCKERING READ AND RETAIN FOR TEN MINUTES?

HERE is what you cut you lying little scuzzball:

> I told my
> friend to not allow the investigator access to the other rooms and
> told the investigator that if she wants to search the house for drugs,
> to get a warrant and bring the cops. My friend asked her if there was
> anything else she needed. The investigator said no so my friend asked
> her to leave.

Does THAT look like submission to you?

Could it be that THAT was what I was talking about when I said
firemonkey and her friend stayed 'cool?'
>
> > If your friend wants to have impact through an
> > ombudsman check policy and statute for violations first.
>
> Feds don't like investigations to proceed that
> blatantly should have been screened out.

What? Your brain is leeking fluid again, Greg.

> Ombudsman works for GOVERNOR.

So the puck what? Who SHOULD they work for? YOU going to pay them/

> If Gov is a suckup for CPS, Ombudsman is just
> to make you FEEL like you did something,
> to PLACATE people so they don't SUE.

Oh, protecting the public treasury. Yes, we must pillory a governor
that does that. MMMMhhhhmmm.

> If Gov is on the warpath with CPS (rare cases)
> Ombudsman might actually raise hell.

.....babbling on and on and on, as usual.

firemonkey came here to get some perspective on this particular case,
not your screeching rant and usual anti government tirade.

I suspect, having watched firemonkey post for some time, she get's it
that she might have a bias being so close, and she's not puckering
Greg almighty that knows all, and wished to expand her perspective on
this event.

> > Just complaining one was scared, or even inconvenienced usually isn't
> > enough. They get hundreds of those to deal with and those go to the
> > backburner.
>
> Yeah, Don't get that "Nazi's checked my drawers" feeling
> because that's what they do to EVERYBODY!

So let me see. I'm suggesting thoughtful planning and tactical
perspectives, and YOU don't trust the ombusman at all, so you want
everybody to do WHAT Greg? Exactly?

Get all pucked up in the head like you and collapse in futile
surrender...AS YOU PUCKERING DID, you little idiot?

> > Simple not enough time or resources to follow up on those...they have
> > to prioritize to the ones that do appear to have violated the law, or
> > at least policy.
>
> > Unless field practice of the worker/investigator goes over the line,
> > it's a waste of time and in fact keeps the focus on you rather than
> > the worker.
>
> > In other words, in the mind of the suspicious, "just what are you up
> > to complaining about a non-violation of policy or statute."
>
> Yeah, How DARE you question their AUTHORITAE?!

Your interpretation is duly noted as the mindless ****in' upwind
you've been doing for 6+ years on your girlfriend's case, Greg.

I'm saying, don't waste your time on making complaints that aren't
already powerful and fact based, nothing more.

The attorney consult is the way to at this point, not try to use the
ombudsman for something they aren't used for effectively. Pick your
tools, Greg, pick your tools.

Not pick your butt, like you have for six years.

It's your stupid armwaving monkey **** throwing tricks like that above
that got your girl friend's kid back in record time, right?

6 plus years now, isn't it?

> > Just some random thoughts. Others might have more and better insights
> > to share.
>
> > An aside. Is the daughter getting some support for her difficult life
> > situation with a boyfriend that is suicidal?
>
> Help to dump him?

Is that your best shot?

> Perhaps she should talk to HIS therapist aboiut how to do that?

Nope. Her therapist could talk to his therapist with permissions all
around.

ON the other hand there are some standard thinking on such issues, one
is ways that one can more safely handle a suicide attempt by another.
The girl needs that information.

My first piece of advice to her would simply be to congratulate her
for NOT doing what a lot of teens do, hide each other's dangerous
behavior. She apparently went to her mother in the beginning .... thus
the advice the mother gave.

> > That's a lot for a kid to take on and wonderful that she trusts her
> > mother to share that with. But often more than the kid can handle, and
> > maybe the mom too.
>
> > These are the kinds of situations the are tailor made for a counselor.
> > The girl needs to be heard out with a neutral party, not anyone she
> > knows. Just a paid 'listener.'
>
> > Not to alarm you, but suicide among teens can be contagious under some
> > circumstances.
>
> Especially if they are fond of the Goth or EMO music/culture.

Got any actual data on that, Greg?

That's popular front parlor psychology, but kids kill themselves for
many impulsive reasons. Teens have a lot going on that feels out of
their control (and often is).

> > I presume everyone is thinking about the child's safety, even the
> > intrusive pain in the butt DCF "infestigator."
>
> Safety FROM WHAT?

The possibility of suicidal ideation herself for possibly "causing her
boyfriend to attempt suicide."

****, you are especially brilliant today.

> A teen age psycho boyfriend threatening suicide??
> This should have NEVER justified any investigation WHATSOEVER
> of the girls home.

Oh?

> Meets NO CRITERIA for CHILD ABUSE.

Has firemonkey established that this was a child abuse investigation
yet?

> Failure to screen out an investigation of the girls home is a
> violation.

It was done on request, and permission give up to a point, apparently,
and when that permission ended the investigator left. Read, remember,
understand. ...oh ****, why do I bother, you won't.

> > They are trained to push buttons and see what happens. Think
> > "Matlock." They all have a secret desire to be a detective.
>
> In other words they are mental cases.
> Delusions of grandeur.

Nope. Just investigators.

And that from you, little junior g-man is a real laugh.

> > Some, interestingly enough are former cops. The trick is to just stay
> > cool.
>
> There are probably more pedophiles among them than former cops.

Opps. His brain disengaged again. Coasting in neutral.

How does this help firemonkey help her friend, Greg?
>
> > Actually I think you and your friend did good. Very.

So what do YOU think, about how firemonkey and her friend have handled
this up to the point we know?

> > Kane

Kane, still.

[lostintranslation]

On Mar 19, 3:04 pm, "Greegor" > wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > My friend is granting me permission to post this here. She does not
> > > have a computer to do so herself. I have already given her advice but
> > > I did want to share it with you here.
>
> > > Thursday, she got a knock on her door. A DCF investigator was
> > > standing there and told her that they had a report about her 14 year
> > > old daughter. She told the DCF worker to come back in an hour and
> > > called me. I went over there to just 'be there' when the investigator
> > > came back.
>
> > > The report was that her 14 year old daughter's boyfriend tried to kill
> > > himself (which is true) at school. The daughter had told the
> > > psychologist at school that she was afraid to break up with the
> > > boyfriend in fear of what he might do and because she was nervous that
> > > her mom would be upset with her if she broke up with him.
>
> HOW is there abuse in this? Should have been screened out.
>
> > > The mom told the DCF worker all she ever said to her daughter about
> > > breaking up with the kid was not to do it while he was in getting a
> > > psych eval done at the hospital. That's all the mom said about that.
>
> > > Supposedly the boyfriend was living there. No, he isn't, wasn't nor
> > > ever will be.
>
> I bet the only supposition of that was in the fertive imagination
> of the investigative caseworker. They presented the supposition
> hoping to uncover a lie that did not exist.
> In other words, they LIE LIKE THIS hoping to trip people up.
> It's like they watched a bad cop show on Tee Vee and got carried away.
>
> > a very strict christian who does not
> > > believe in pre-marital anything so the boyfriend living there would be
> > > a sin and unthinkable to boot.
>
> > > The investigator talked to all the kids there. My friend has 2 other
> > > children. There were also friends there that the investigator chatted
> > > with (against procedure as the other children were minors and the
> > > investigator did not get permission, which I mentioned and the
> > > investigator told me to stop or she would have me arrested for
> > > interfering with an investigation.
>
> Ask her if she is a Law Enforcement Officer.
> They dance between claims that they are and claims they are not.
> They claim whichever is convenient at the time.
>
> Of course it is NOT interfering with an investigation to
> tell people to talk to their lawyer before answering
> questions, period.
>
> You DO know this I presume.
>
> How do you LIKE experiencing just how *******ly these
> government agents behave?
>
> Vacuuming for dirt to make a case..
>
> If drugs were found in the child's room, why
> do you think the parent would not be
> criminally charged?
>
> WHY did she think there were drugs in the girl's room?
>
> Was there any "probable cause" for the search of the girl's room?
>
> Do you think a qualified attorney would advise submission
> to such a search?
>
> > I told her that I was not
> > > interfering with anything...just making sure everyone's rights were
> > > respected). After that, she stopped talking to the non-family
> > > members.
>
> > > The investigator left only to come back to her house this morning.
>
> Yes, hoping the Mother's "supporting friend" (you) would not be there.
>
> > > friend called me and I went right over. This time the investigator
> > > wanted to look at the bedrooms again and to see if the daughter had
> > > drugs stashed in her drawers or anywhere else in the house. I told my
> > > friend to not allow the investigator access to the other rooms and
> > > told the investigator that if she wants to search the house for drugs,
> > > to get a warrant and bring the cops. My friend asked her if there was
> > > anything else she needed. The investigator said no so my friend asked
> > > her to leave.
>
> > > My friend called her attorney and the ombudsman to file a complaint
> > > and to see what else can or can't be done.
>
> Is the attorney a lazy public pretender "doormat" or Judas, or
> one who will actually DEFEND?
>
> Ombudsman is damage control for the Governor and the agency itself.
> Ombudsman is NOT about repairing the agency unless the Governor
> in your state is on the warpath with the CPS agency.
> If your governor is a suckup for CPS, Ombudsman is nothing
> but an attempt to fend of serious law suits by PLACATING
> people who think they're getting something done.
>
> > > That's where it stands now.
>
> > The attorney call is warranted. The ombudsman complain should have
> > waited until the attorney consultation. My guess? No laws or policy
> > was violated. Conversing and even asking ... just about anything
> > aren't prohibited usually.
>
> An investigation of the girls home should have been SCREENED OUT
> and is a rip off of federal money. NO basis for a CHILD ABUSE
> investigation, whatsoever.
>
> All of this was because the Mom said not to dump the boy
> in the middle of his suiciude mental meltdown?
>
> > Refusing to leave probably is covered.
>
> > People get scared and over react...of course..don't we all...and
> > presume violations that are not really there.
>
> And let CPS in to search without a warrant?
> Remember Ron's "plain sight rule" in conjunction
> with the restricted search.
>
> > It's a great way to let yourself get setup...for a claim you are being
> > over reactive and aggressive etc. blah blah blah.
>
> In other words these people FAILED when they
> went through the FEDERALLY REQUIRED training on how
> to respect the Constitutional Rights of families....
>
> > Stay cool. As it looks like you were.
>
> Cool with a submission to a search of the girl's room.
> Based on WHAT??
>
> > If your friend wants to have impact through an
> > ombudsman check policy and statute for violations first.
>
> Feds don't like investigations to proceed that
> blatantly should have been screened out.
> Ombudsman works for GOVERNOR.
> If Gov is a suckup for CPS, Ombudsman is just
> to make you FEEL like you did something,
> to PLACATE people so they don't SUE.
>
> If Gov is on the warpath with CPS (rare cases)
> Ombudsman might actually raise hell.
>
> > Just complaining one was scared, or even inconvenienced usually isn't
> > enough. They get hundreds of those to deal with and those go to the
> > backburner.
>
> Yeah, Don't get that "Nazi's checked my drawers" feeling
> because that's what they do to EVERYBODY!
>
> > Simple not enough time or resources to follow up on those...they have
> > to prioritize to the ones that do appear to have violated the law, or
> > at least policy.
>
> > Unless field practice of the worker/investigator goes over the line,
> > it's a waste of time and in fact keeps the focus on you rather than
> > the worker.
>
> > In other words, in the mind of the suspicious, "just what are you up
> > to complaining about a non-violation of policy or statute."
>
> Yeah, How DARE you question their AUTHORITAE?!
>
> > Just some random thoughts. Others might have more and better insights
> > to share.
>
> > An aside. Is the daughter getting some support for her difficult life
> > situation with a boyfriend that is suicidal?
>
> Help to dump him?
> Perhaps she should talk to HIS therapist aboiut how to do that?
>
> > That's a lot for a kid to take on and wonderful that she trusts her
> > mother to share that with. But often more than the kid can handle, and
> > maybe the mom too.
>
> > These are the kinds of situations the are tailor made for a counselor.
> > The girl needs to be heard out with a neutral party, not anyone she
> > knows. Just a paid 'listener.'
>
> > Not to alarm you, but suicide among teens can be contagious under some
> > circumstances.
>
> Especially if they are fond of the Goth or EMO music/culture.
>
> > I presume everyone is thinking about the child's safety, even the
> > intrusive pain in the butt DCF "infestigator."
>
> Safety FROM WHAT? A teen age psycho boyfriend threatening suicide??
> This should have NEVER justified any investigation WHATSOEVER
> of the girls home. Meets NO CRITERIA for CHILD ABUSE.
> Failure to screen out an investigation of the girls home is a
> violation.
>
> > They are trained to push buttons and see what happens. Think
> > "Matlock." They all have a secret desire to be a detective.
>
> In other words they are mental cases.
> Delusions of grandeur.
>
> > Some, interestingly enough are former cops. The trick is to just stay
> > cool.
>
> There are probably more pedophiles among them than former cops.
>
> > Actually I think you and your friend did good. Very.
>
> > Kane


I was wondering how it could constitute abuse also, Gregg. I'm
thinking that with the daughter saying that she was scared over how
her mom might react should she break up with the kid, the school
psychologist took it as a child at risk of being abused should such
and such happen. Not sure but, THAT reasoning makes sense. The
child's safety was in question in the psychologist's eyes.

Her attorney is a private attorney which her family has on retainer
and he has been for years. He is excellent and is not scared to go
after DCF. I only wish I could have afforded him! He's a shark.

Oh, yes I do know about not answering without an attorney present. My
friend didn't and it was obvious that the investigator thought I may
not know that either.

The only type of thing that an investigator, or caseworker for that
matter, can do is walk through the house, with the permission of the
parents, to inspect the rooms to make sure they are safe and there is
adequate sleeping areas for all household members. They can't go
through drawers, cupboards, etc without a search warrant served by the
local law enforcement agency. Again, taken not only from their
procedural manual but also from the little 'Your rights during an
investigation' pamphlet that they have to give to you before they
enter the house (they never do...they end up giving it to you as you
let them in)

Our governor is actually calling for alot of changes in how DCF
operates here in CT. She is asking for more federal monies that will
support children staying in their homes, providing they aren't being
physically abused or severely neglected. She is also wanting more
precise laws, regulations and policy issue clarification. She has
done great work in CT and I do hope it continues. Granted, she has
also asked for more monies to support foster care and adoptions but,
monies are needed there too to support the children and care providers
when children are in an out of home placement.

>From what I understand, the daughter wants to stay with her boyfriend
but isn't sure how to handle him in light of the recent suicide
attempt. She told my daughter that she was scared that he might try
it again if she talks to someone that he doesn't like or whatever. I
pointed out to everyone that the kid is very controlling if this is
how the girl feels.

I have to disagree with the goth/emo culture thing. I know alot of
kids, my daughter included, that are into that whole scene. For the
most part, they are highly intelligent kids that dress funny and do
odd things with their hair and make-up. Granted yes, suicide rates
are high in that 'culture' but the culture doesn't percipitate suicide
attempts. That's like saying Dungeons and Dragons and Ozzy Osborne
cause kids to off each other and themselves.

Again, I think the report wasn't screened out because of what the girl
said to the school psychologist. She was scared of how her mom might
react toher breaking up with her boyfriend. And I believe they wanted
to also make sure that the single mom of several children would be
able to protect her daughter should the need arise.

Oh, I know all about pushing buttons. Our former caseworker always
tried that with us. I was able to shield the attempts a little better
than my husband but for the most part, the CW failed. The
investigator from my friend's case was definitely trying to push
buttons to get my friend to 'spill the beans' about anything,
something.... But as she soon found out, the pot of beans is empty so
nothing CAN be spilled. My friend and her kids actually lead pretty
boring lives.

I just hope they back off my friend and her kids. She is a really
excellent parent and her kids are fantastic children. She was beside
herself because she never felt that DCF would be knocking on her door;
especially over something like this. She does not spank her
children. She hardly raises her voice to them. They are very close
and the kids listen and behave wonderfully. She doesn't drink. She
doesn't do drugs. They lead what is considered a good christian
lifestyle. Those kids couldn't ask for a better parent. She couldn't
ask for better children. It's a shame she was visited. I just hope
it goes unsubstantiated and she can live her life again. She is
really upset over this. I told her that I don't see how they could
substantiate anything but one never knows.