Re: Interesting CPS/DCF Report

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> I wonder if you've read Greg yet.

Yes, she had before you posted that.

> His empathy for the boy in the case so warmed my heart.

> And his concern for the girl too, where he dribbled a little
> information about "goth" and suicide.

Even LIT seemed less in the mood for your ****ing contest Kane.

I suspect that the recent experiences she had may
have given her a bit more insight into my attitudes.

When a caseworker makes this bogus threat of
charging you with obstructing an investigation,
they are of course FULL OF CRAP, and as LIT
found, the investigator was interviewing kids
who are not even part of the case and without their
parents permission, a VIOLATION in CT.

Kane, You thought that immediately after experiencing
this abuse by a caseworker you would try to
give her the "caseworkers aren't really evil" pep talk??

LIT: Does CT have the legislation that actually allows
them to interview kids in a public school?
States make state serving legislation like that
which does NOT hold up under Federal scrutiny.
(4th Amendment right against unreasonable search)

Who advised allowing the search of the kids bedroom?

As I have said OVER and OVER, because there ARE
bad caseworkers and bad ones might even "act nice"
just to con families, people need to prevent the kinds
of intrusions LIT described here, period.

Did you notice Kane, how LIT had the very same
concern about an investigation that should
have been SCREENED OUT before it began?

This one should have been screened out.

LIT knows it, I know it, the caseworker probably
knew it, but the caseworkers supervisor probably
told them to go out and DIG HARD.

Months back I personally cross examined a caseworker
(MSW "Adoption Specialist") who made certain moves
ONLY because a supervisor told him to. He had absolutely
no reason directly or logically to make the movves he did.

Another caseworker admitted on the stand that she DOES
understand our STRONG misgivings about the agency and
how we have been treated by the system.

Out of court she suggested we make a legal move
toward ending our mess. We did, but between her hopeful
comment and the day she was asked in court, her presentation
did an amazing REVERSAL. OBVIOUSLY she
is just a puppet on a string, and got ORDERSS from
above that changed her course.

In simpler terms, her supervisor yanked her choke collar.

NEVER underestimate the office politics of a caseworker who is being
TOLD BY SUPERVISORS TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN.

> I think family counseling is definitely the key for all parties
> involved right now.
> The mom needs to learn how to get her daughter to
> be a little more open about her feelings and fears so that her mom CAN
> protect her from those fears should the need arise. If the mom
> doesn't know her daughter is scared of something, she can't very well
> help remedy it. Her daughter is pretty communicative but I have seen
> her not share stuff with her mom that she should have.

Is there any THERAPY that would change this normal behavior of
teenagers?

> The thing is with this suicide attempt is that it seems like no one is
> taking it seriously! The boys parents from what I understand sure as
> hell aren't reacting in such a way that shows alot of concern. The
> dad left work when it happened. Picked the boy's mom up, dropped her
> off at the hospital, gave her busfare and went back to work.

Perhaps his job won't tolerate long absence?
Perhaps they are overcommitted on bills and can't afford bankruptcy?

> They aren't seeking therapy as they feel this is an isolated incident
> caused by an arguement with his girlfriend.

Did the girlfriend say something particularly nasty?
Do you think EVERY teen suicide attempt involves CHILD ABUSE?

> Sorry but I think DCF
> should be going after them to get that boy some help; not my friend.

Are you sure the boy isn't already seeing a psychologist or
psychiatrist?
They may not want to announce that for obvious reasons.

> It's sad that parents can be that careless about their kid.

If the state can pull of denial of critical care (psych help) they
will.

If they can't, there may be a good reason.

But judging from how they came after your friend,
they seem rather hungry to "make a case" even one
that should have been screened out.

Where is the CHILD ABUSE?

Maybe the STATE should get involved!
They could have both kids in the cemetary by Fall!

[lostintranslation]

On Mar 19, 8:31 pm, "Greegor" > wrote:
> Kane wrote

> > His empathy for the boy in the case so warmed my heart.
> > And his concern for the girl too, where he dribbled a little
> > information about "goth" and suicide.
>
> Even LIT seemed less in the mood for your ****ing contest Kane.
Greg, I was not avoiding a ****ing contest with anyone. I do feel
that you do have very little empathy for this kid, his girlfriend and
my friend that is going through this. I didn't say anything because
well, I just didn't feel like it. No reason. No avoidance.
Nothing. Sure you don't work for CPS?


> I suspect that the recent experiences she had may
> have given her a bit more insight into my attitudes.

Greg, in case you forgot, I was involved with DCF here in CT when my
kids were yanked from my home. I had a nasty experience with them but
took that experience and gained knowledge and education to prevent
such things from happening to other innocent families. I have also
taken measures to help the lawmakers in CT to make it much more
difficult for unjust child removals. Keep the kids home, if they can
be kept there safely and provide services.


> When a caseworker makes this bogus threat of
> charging you with obstructing an investigation,
> they are of course FULL OF CRAP, and as LIT
> found, the investigator was interviewing kids
> who are not even part of the case and without their
> parents permission, a VIOLATION in CT.

I knew it was bogus. It was very difficult to remain serious when she
said that. Somehow I managed to not laugh in her face. I knew the
law and procedures they are suppose to follow and reminded the
investigator of just that.


> Kane, You thought that immediately after experiencing
> this abuse by a caseworker you would try to
> give her the "caseworkers aren't really evil" pep talk??

I didn't see him giving me 'caseworkers aren't really evil' pep talk.
We all know there are good and bad workers out there. We also know
that some of the good workers out there have bad supervisors. And
good supervisors have bad workers. Such a vicious circle. But, it's
up to us, the private citizens of the US to make sure these people
follow their own procedures and to make sure all the workers stay
'good' or help them become 'good' ones.

> LIT: Does CT have the legislation that actually allows
> them to interview kids in a public school?
> States make state serving legislation like that
> which does NOT hold up under Federal scrutiny.
> (4th Amendment right against unreasonable search)

The schools in the state of CT will allow the kids to be questioned
ONLY if the parents are there also. If the parents aren't there, the
schools, or at least the ones I have dealt with directly or with
families I have or am helping, will not allow the questioning to take
place. Of course, if the kids are in foster care and under the
custody of the state, they will allow it. The schools also respect
the Hatch letter and reverse maranda notifications.

> Who advised allowing the search of the kids bedroom?
There was a small mention that maybe the BOYFRIEND was perhaps taking
drugs. And maybe the girlfriend might be holding them for him or some
other accusation. There was no accusation that the mom was using or
has ever used drugs. On a sidenote, I did talk to my friend this
morning and the boy's tox screen came back negative so I'm pretty sure
an application for a search warrant wouldn't be granted.

> As I have said OVER and OVER, because there ARE
> bad caseworkers and bad ones might even "act nice"
> just to con families, people need to prevent the kinds
> of intrusions LIT described here, period.>

Greg, you are right. But, unfortunately the only way the people can
do this is if they are informed. If they aren't informed, they fall
into the same trap many of us have and listen to: I'm from CPS and
I'm here to help. Unfortunately, people don't go looking for the
information until AFTER their family has been visited. That is why I
have helped form a group for anyone involved or even interested in
knowing your rights when CPS comes knocking. The meetings are
informal for the most part and we welcome everyone to them.

> Did you notice Kane, how LIT had the very same
> concern about an investigation that should
> have been SCREENED OUT before it began?
I didn't have the same concern that it should have been screened out.
Please don't put words in my mouth or twist what I said. The girl
said to her school psychologist she was scared of what the boy may do
if she broke up with him and she was nervous about how her mom might
react. In other words, the school psychologist err'ed on the side of
caution and called CPS to make sure the girl was safe. Possible risk
of abuse needs to be investigated, Greg. You know that as well as I
do. If there is no risk, they go away. If there is risk, hopefully
they keep the family intact and provide the needed services. But, it
does need to be addressed BEFORE there is abuse. If they didn't
investigate and the girl broke up with her boyfriend and the mother
beat her to a pulp, would you have the same opinion?


> This one should have been screened out.
>
> LIT knows it, I know it, the caseworker probably
> knew it, but the caseworkers supervisor probably
> told them to go out and DIG HARD.
I'm not a mind reader Greg. At first, yes it appeared that the
investigator thought that the report was hot air but her attitude did
change. Why? Who knows. I can't read her mind nor can I read the
casefile or any other possible evidence that warranted her change in
attitude.

> Months back I personally cross examined a caseworker
> (MSW "Adoption Specialist") who made certain moves
> ONLY because a supervisor told him to. He had absolutely
> no reason directly or logically to make the movves he did.
And this is pertinent to this thread, how? I don't care who you
interviewed or why, Greg.

> Another caseworker admitted on the stand that she DOES
> understand our STRONG misgivings about the agency and
> how we have been treated by the system.
>
> Out of court she suggested we make a legal move
> toward ending our mess. We did, but between her hopeful
> comment and the day she was asked in court, her presentation
> did an amazing REVERSAL. OBVIOUSLY she
> is just a puppet on a string, and got ORDERSS from
> above that changed her course.
>
> In simpler terms, her supervisor yanked her choke collar.

Or she did further investigation into who you really are and what you
are all about. That is a bigger possibility, Greg.
> NEVER underestimate the office politics of a caseworker who is being
> TOLD BY SUPERVISORS TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN.
I never estimate the power of cheese either Greg. So?

> > I think family counseling is definitely the key for all parties
> > involved right now.
> > The mom needs to learn how to get her daughter to
> > be a little more open about her feelings and fears so that her mom CAN
> > protect her from those fears should the need arise. If the mom
> > doesn't know her daughter is scared of something, she can't very well
> > help remedy it. Her daughter is pretty communicative but I have seen
> > her not share stuff with her mom that she should have.
>
> Is there any THERAPY that would change this normal behavior of
> teenagers?
As Kane said, yes there is. Plenty of families go to that type of
therapy to learn how to communicate better, more openly and more
efficiently. Nothing wrong with that.
> > The thing is with this suicide attempt is that it seems like no one is
> > taking it seriously! The boys parents from what I understand sure as
> > hell aren't reacting in such a way that shows alot of concern. The
> > dad left work when it happened. Picked the boy's mom up, dropped her
> > off at the hospital, gave her busfare and went back to work.
>
> Perhaps his job won't tolerate long absence?
> Perhaps they are overcommitted on bills and can't afford bankruptcy?
Perhaps he is just an uncommitted parent that doesn't give a ****.
They would have to kill me to prevent me from being by my child in any
type of emergency! There are other jobs out there and there are
financial counselors and people at the place where the debt is held to
speak to about payment arrangements and other payment options at a
time of crisis.

> > They aren't seeking therapy as they feel this is an isolated incident
> > caused by an arguement with his girlfriend.
>
> Did the girlfriend say something particularly nasty?
> Do you think EVERY teen suicide attempt involves CHILD ABUSE?
No, actually, I don't think she said anything particularly nasty. She
just isn't a malicious person. However, even if she did, that still
would not have caused her boyfriend to try to kill himself, Greg.
Again, that's like saying Ozzy made kids kill themselves and playing
D&D caused kids to go shoot up school cafeterias. There has to be
some underlying cause to result in such drastic and tragic effects.


> > Sorry but I think DCF
> > should be going after them to get that boy some help; not my friend.
>
> Are you sure the boy isn't already seeing a psychologist or
> psychiatrist?
> They may not want to announce that for obvious reasons.
Actually, I do know first hand that he is NOT under the care of a
mental health professional.

> > It's sad that parents can be that careless about their kid.
>
> If the state can pull of denial of critical care (psych help) they
> will.
Ok, good. Denial of psychiatric care would be reason for them to be
involved so this poor kid doesn't try this again..and very possibly
resulting in his death. Sorry, I would rather his family have an open
DCF case and see him get the help he needs, then him being dead. I'm
like that, sorry.
> If they can't, there may be a good reason.
>
> But judging from how they came after your friend,
> they seem rather hungry to "make a case" even one
> that should have been screened out.
They were there to investigate the possibility of a child being at
risk of abuse because of what she said and how she said it to the
psychologist. The psychologist was only doing her job and making sure
the girl is safe and will remain safe. Where is there fault with
that?

> Where is the CHILD ABUSE?
One of the biggest reasons for suicide is because a child is abused.
You are crossing two different people in your questions, Greg. The
school pyschologist thought the girl was a child at risk of possible
abuse and followed procedure and called. That is that case, right
there. Now with the boy that tried to commit suicide, DCF should be
looking at his entire familial structure to make sure that he is in a
safe, supportive and caring enviroment where he will get the help he
so obviously needs. Do I need to spell it out any more clear for
you? If so, please let me know and I will.
> Maybe the STATE should get involved!
> They could have both kids in the cemetary by Fall!

Maybe with the state being involved, neither of these two kids will be
in the cemetery anytime soon at all. DCF is not this all evil
disease, Greg. They are there for a reason. Yes, they take things
overboard. Yes, they do wrong. Yes, yes, yes to everything you will
say they are evil in. But Greg, in all the evil they do, they also do
help children that truly need that help. Isn't that something we
should focus on too? The good, the bad and the ugly of the system?

[Greegor]

On Mar 20, 9:11 am, "lostintranslation"
> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 8:31 pm, "Greegor" > wrote:
>
> > Kane wrote
> > > His empathy for the boy in the case so warmed my heart.
> > > And his concern for the girl too, where he dribbled a little
> > > information about "goth" and suicide.
>
> > Even LIT seemed less in the mood for your ****ing contest Kane.
>
> Greg, I was not avoiding a ****ing contest with anyone. I do feel
> that you do have very little empathy for this kid, his girlfriend and
> my friend that is going through this. I didn't say anything because
> well, I just didn't feel like it. No reason. No avoidance.
> Nothing. Sure you don't work for CPS?
>
> > I suspect that the recent experiences she had may
> > have given her a bit more insight into my attitudes.
>
> Greg, in case you forgot, I was involved with DCF here in CT when my
> kids were yanked from my home. I had a nasty experience with them but
> took that experience and gained knowledge and education to prevent
> such things from happening to other innocent families.

Did it prevent your recent experience?

> I have also
> taken measures to help the lawmakers in CT to make it much more
> difficult for unjust child removals.

And yet you wax how important it is that every must get therapy.

> Keep the kids home, if they can
> be kept there safely and provide services.
>
> > When a caseworker makes this bogus threat of
> > charging you with obstructing an investigation,
> > they are of course FULL OF CRAP, and as LIT
> > found, the investigator was interviewing kids
> > who are not even part of the case and without their
> > parents permission, a VIOLATION in CT.
>
> I knew it was bogus. It was very difficult to remain serious when she
> said that. Somehow I managed to not laugh in her face. I knew the
> law and procedures they are suppose to follow and reminded the
> investigator of just that.

Is this an example of how you IMPROVED THINGS?

And Kane is trying to tell you there was no violatiuon!
YOU know there sure as hell was, and SERIOUS too!
What do you think the workers INTENT was with
the assenine threats?

> > Kane, You thought that immediately after experiencing
> > this abuse by a caseworker you would try to
> > give her the "caseworkers aren't really evil" pep talk??
>
> I didn't see him giving me 'caseworkers aren't really evil' pep talk.

He tried to say there was no serious violation.
Heck, he tried to say you shouldn't complain
because complaining about a nonviolation
just makes you look silly and revs them up
to become more aggressive.

> We all know there are good and bad workers out there. We also know
> that some of the good workers out there have bad supervisors. And
> good supervisors have bad workers. Such a vicious circle. But, it's
> up to us, the private citizens of the US to make sure these people
> follow their own procedures and to make sure all the workers stay
> 'good' or help them become 'good' ones.

Remember than only a FEW years ago these agencies had
to be FORCED by the Feds to hand over their manual!
They didn't want any family to be able to point out
their procedures and laws.

> > LIT: Does CT have the legislation that actually allows
> > them to interview kids in a public school?
> > States make state serving legislation like that
> > which does NOT hold up under Federal scrutiny.
> > (4th Amendment right against unreasonable search)
>
> The schools in the state of CT will allow the kids to be questioned
> ONLY if the parents are there also.

Now THERE is some powerful legislation for change.
Did you write it?

> If the parents aren't there, the
> schools, or at least the ones I have dealt with directly or with
> families I have or am helping, will not allow the questioning to take
> place. Of course, if the kids are in foster care and under the
> custody of the state, they will allow it. The schools also respect
> the Hatch letter and reverse maranda notifications.

Remember though that MOST states have legislated
that schools must allow CPS interrogation without
any parent. These state statutes blatantly attempt
to violate clearly established rights against such stuff.

And of course the state and county courts will ignore
the higher controlling law and go with the lame statute.

> > Who advised allowing the search of the kids bedroom?
>
> There was a small mention that maybe the BOYFRIEND was perhaps taking
> drugs. And maybe the girlfriend might be holding them for him or some
> other accusation. There was no accusation that the mom was using or
> has ever used drugs. On a sidenote, I did talk to my friend this
> morning and the boy's tox screen came back negative so I'm pretty sure
> an application for a search warrant wouldn't be granted.

In other words the voluntary submission threw away
rights that would have been protected.
Judges here issue ilegal search warrants knowingly.
Another Judge recused herself and later thought
she was going to "unrecuse" herself.
We also got an ALTERED transcript!

Your faith in good Judges might be a bit misplaced.

> > As I have said OVER and OVER, because there ARE
> > bad caseworkers and bad ones might even "act nice"
> > just to con families, people need to prevent the kinds
> > of intrusions LIT described here, period.
>
> Greg, you are right. But, unfortunately the only way the people can
> do this is if they are informed. If they aren't informed, they fall
> into the same trap many of us have and listen to: I'm from CPS and
> I'm here to help. Unfortunately, people don't go looking for the
> information until AFTER their family has been visited. That is why I
> have helped form a group for anyone involved or even interested in
> knowing your rights when CPS comes knocking. The meetings are
> informal for the most part and we welcome everyone to them.

Do you find many agency goons trying to infiltrate?
They DO try it here.

Fortunately Iowa DHS has actively familiarized massive
numbers of people here with their abuses.
Triple the national rate of removals will do that.

More and more, people in working class blue collar
neighborhoods lawyer up like they should, and
the agency people are gradually making more and more
moves on middle class neighborhoods.

This will be the UNDOING of the agencies.
Middle class people have more political clout
and less tolerance for the sacharine sappy
condescending tones of caseworkers.

> > Did you notice Kane, how LIT had the very same
> > concern about an investigation that should
> > have been SCREENED OUT before it began?
>
> I didn't have the same concern that it should have been screened out.
> Please don't put words in my mouth or twist what I said.

You strongly questioned WHY it wasn't screened out.
Is that a more accurate depiction?

> The girl
> said to her school psychologist she was scared of what the boy may do
> if she broke up with him and she was nervous about how her mom might
> react. In other words, the school psychologist err'ed on the side of
> caution and called CPS to make sure the girl was safe. Possible risk
> of abuse needs to be investigated, Greg. You know that as well as I
> do. If there is no risk, they go away. If there is risk, hopefully
> they keep the family intact and provide the needed services. But, it
> does need to be addressed BEFORE there is abuse. If they didn't
> investigate and the girl broke up with her boyfriend and the mother
> beat her to a pulp, would you have the same opinion?
>
> > This one should have been screened out.
>
> > LIT knows it, I know it, the caseworker probably
> > knew it, but the caseworkers supervisor probably
> > told them to go out and DIG HARD.
>
> I'm not a mind reader Greg. At first, yes it appeared that the
> investigator thought that the report was hot air but her attitude did
> change. Why? Who knows. I can't read her mind nor can I read the
> casefile or any other possible evidence that warranted her change in
> attitude.

Change in attitude? SUPERVISOR orders.

> > Months back I personally cross examined a caseworker
> > (MSW "Adoption Specialist") who made certain moves
> > ONLY because a supervisor told him to. He had absolutely
> > no reason directly or logically to make the movves he did.
>
> And this is pertinent to this thread, how? I don't care who you
> interviewed or why, Greg.

Change in attitude? SUPERVISOR orders.

> > Another caseworker admitted on the stand that she DOES
> > understand our STRONG misgivings about the agency and
> > how we have been treated by the system.
>
> > Out of court she suggested we make a legal move
> > toward ending our mess. We did, but between her hopeful
> > comment and the day she was asked in court, her presentation
> > did an amazing REVERSAL. OBVIOUSLY she
> > is just a puppet on a string, and got ORDERSS from
> > above that changed her course.
>
> > In simpler terms, her supervisor yanked her choke collar.
>
> Or she did further investigation into who you really are and what you
> are all about. That is a bigger possibility, Greg.

You think she sat through a four day court process and
didn't know what we are about?

And then ran across some "smoking gun" weeks later?

> NEVER underestimate the office politics of a caseworker who is being
> > TOLD BY SUPERVISORS TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN.
>
> I never estimate the power of cheese either Greg. So?

Good or bad worker, the SUPERVISOR may command
behavior that is not justified, fair or reasonable.
The SUPERVISOR did not see the process in court or
the transcript.

> > > I think family counseling is definitely the key for all parties
> > > involved right now.
> > > The mom needs to learn how to get her daughter to
> > > be a little more open about her feelings and fears so that her mom CAN
> > > protect her from those fears should the need arise. If the mom
> > > doesn't know her daughter is scared of something, she can't very well
> > > help remedy it. Her daughter is pretty communicative but I have seen
> > > her not share stuff with her mom that she should have.
>
> > Is there any THERAPY that would change this normal behavior of
> > teenagers?
>
> As Kane said, yes there is. Plenty of families go to that type of
> therapy to learn how to communicate better, more openly and more
> efficiently. Nothing wrong with that.

> > The thing is with this suicide attempt is that it seems like no one is
> > > taking it seriously! The boys parents from what I understand sure as
> > > hell aren't reacting in such a way that shows alot of concern. The
> > > dad left work when it happened. Picked the boy's mom up, dropped her
> > > off at the hospital, gave her busfare and went back to work.
>
> > Perhaps his job won't tolerate long absence?
> > Perhaps they are overcommitted on bills and can't afford bankruptcy?
>
> Perhaps he is just an uncommitted parent that doesn't give a ****.

Is he a step father with NO LEGAL RIGHTS?
As a woman I doubt you can comprehend that position.

> They would have to kill me to prevent me from being by my child in any
> type of emergency! There are other jobs out there and there are
> financial counselors and people at the place where the debt is held to
> speak to about payment arrangements and other payment options at a
> time of crisis.

Sounds like a caseworker building another case.

> > > They aren't seeking therapy as they feel this is an isolated incident
> > > caused by an arguement with his girlfriend.
>
> > Did the girlfriend say something particularly nasty?
> > Do you think EVERY teen suicide attempt involves CHILD ABUSE?
>
> No, actually, I don't think she said anything particularly nasty. She
> just isn't a malicious person. However, even if she did, that still
> would not have caused her boyfriend to try to kill himself, Greg.
> Again, that's like saying Ozzy made kids kill themselves and playing
> D&D caused kids to go shoot up school cafeterias. There has to be
> some underlying cause to result in such drastic and tragic effects.

I don't think it's as simple as Ozzy or D&D, although
subcultures OF TEENS can have a profound implication
way beyond actual home life.

Did you know that in a subculture where kids
compete for who's got it the worst, the kids
who have everything going for them express
more hatred for their parents because they
don't have horror stories that help them fit in?

The "Punkers" of the 80's in Minneapolis were
primarily children of the VERY rich, not
people from lower economic strata.

Who else could AFFORD to wander around
looking like complete idiots?

The few working ones who gelled their hair
(rather than cutting a mohawk)
and tried to fit in were commonly beat up
for being "posers".

> > > Sorry but I think DCF
> > > should be going after them to get that boy some help; not my friend.
>
> > Are you sure the boy isn't already seeing a psychologist or
> > psychiatrist?
> > They may not want to announce that for obvious reasons.
>
> Actually, I do know first hand that he is NOT under the care of a
> mental health professional.
>
> > > It's sad that parents can be that careless about their kid.
>
> > If the state can pull of denial of critical care (psych help) they
> > will.
>
> Ok, good. Denial of psychiatric care would be reason for them to be
> involved so this poor kid doesn't try this again..and very possibly
> resulting in his death. Sorry, I would rather his family have an open
> DCF case and see him get the help he needs, then him being dead. I'm
> like that, sorry.

> If they can't, there may be a good reason.
>
> > But judging from how they came after your friend,
> > they seem rather hungry to "make a case" even one
> > that should have been screened out.
>
> They were there to ...
>
> read more »

You snipped accidentally it appears.

[lostintranslation]

On Mar 20, 12:31 pm, "Greegor" > wrote:
> On Mar 20, 9:11 am, "lostintranslation"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 8:31 pm, "Greegor" > wrote:
>
> > > Kane wrote
> > > > His empathy for the boy in the case so warmed my heart.
> > > > And his concern for the girl too, where he dribbled a little
> > > > information about "goth" and suicide.
>
> > > Even LIT seemed less in the mood for your ****ing contest Kane.
>
> > Greg, I was not avoiding a ****ing contest with anyone. I do feel
> > that you do have very little empathy for this kid, his girlfriend and
> > my friend that is going through this. I didn't say anything because
> > well, I just didn't feel like it. No reason. No avoidance.
> > Nothing. Sure you don't work for CPS?
>
> > > I suspect that the recent experiences she had may
> > > have given her a bit more insight into my attitudes.
>
> > Greg, in case you forgot, I was involved with DCF here in CT when my
> > kids were yanked from my home. I had a nasty experience with them but
> > took that experience and gained knowledge and education to prevent
> > such things from happening to other innocent families.
>
> Did it prevent your recent experience?
How would my past experience prevent the current experience that MY
friend is going through?

> > I have also
> > taken measures to help the lawmakers in CT to make it much more
> > difficult for unjust child removals.
>
> And yet you wax how important it is that every must get therapy.

What the hell is so wrong about going to therapy? And I don't say
everyone should go but having cps in your life, whether justiably so
or not, is stressful. Some outside unbiased help isn't such a bad
thing, Greg.
> > Keep the kids home, if they can
> > be kept there safely and provide services.
>
> > > When a caseworker makes this bogus threat of
> > > charging you with obstructing an investigation,
> > > they are of course FULL OF CRAP, and as LIT
> > > found, the investigator was interviewing kids
> > > who are not even part of the case and without their
> > > parents permission, a VIOLATION in CT.
>
> > I knew it was bogus. It was very difficult to remain serious when she
> > said that. Somehow I managed to not laugh in her face. I knew the
> > law and procedures they are suppose to follow and reminded the
> > investigator of just that.
>
> Is this an example of how you IMPROVED THINGS?

Umm, did I say it was? Sorry that I reminded her of her employer's
policy and procedures. Do you think I did wrong by reminding her?
> And Kane is trying to tell you there was no violatiuon!
> YOU know there sure as hell was, and SERIOUS too!
> What do you think the workers INTENT was with
> the assenine threats?

Kane also read my follow up post where I said that according to the
manual, she was in violation and he recognized that an informed
complaint is a solid complaint. It wasn't a complaint made by an
emotional reaction; it was a complaint based on facts. He saw that.
Why didn't you see what he wrote?

> > > Kane, You thought that immediately after experiencing
> > > this abuse by a caseworker you would try to
> > > give her the "caseworkers aren't really evil" pep talk??
>
> > I didn't see him giving me 'caseworkers aren't really evil' pep talk.
>
> He tried to say there was no serious violation.
> Heck, he tried to say you shouldn't complain
> because complaining about a nonviolation
> just makes you look silly and revs them up
> to become more aggressive.

And when he saw my response to that, he understood and appeared to
support a complaint based on facts rather than emotion.

> > We all know there are good and bad workers out there. We also know
> > that some of the good workers out there have bad supervisors. And
> > good supervisors have bad workers. Such a vicious circle. But, it's
> > up to us, the private citizens of the US to make sure these people
> > follow their own procedures and to make sure all the workers stay
> > 'good' or help them become 'good' ones.
>
> Remember than only a FEW years ago these agencies had
> to be FORCED by the Feds to hand over their manual!
> They didn't want any family to be able to point out
> their procedures and laws.
Ok, yes I remember that. But what is more relevant is that the
manuals are now available and can be read by anyone that wants to read
them.
> > > LIT: Does CT have the legislation that actually allows
> > > them to interview kids in a public school?
> > > States make state serving legislation like that
> > > which does NOT hold up under Federal scrutiny.
> > > (4th Amendment right against unreasonable search)
>
> > The schools in the state of CT will allow the kids to be questioned
> > ONLY if the parents are there also.
>
> Now THERE is some powerful legislation for change.
> Did you write it?

No. But I did bring it up at one of the hearings and that is when I
found out that there is legislation in the process of being written to
support the few schools that don't allow the questioning to make it
state wide. It helps to have contact with the child welfare people in
office.

> > If the parents aren't there, the
> > schools, or at least the ones I have dealt with directly or with
> > families I have or am helping, will not allow the questioning to take
> > place. Of course, if the kids are in foster care and under the
> > custody of the state, they will allow it. The schools also respect
> > the Hatch letter and reverse maranda notifications.
>
> Remember though that MOST states have legislated
> that schools must allow CPS interrogation without
> any parent. These state statutes blatantly attempt
> to violate clearly established rights against such stuff.
>
> And of course the state and county courts will ignore
> the higher controlling law and go with the lame statute.
And hopefully, that is coming into change. It may be state by state
but at least the changes will happen. Things don't miraculously
happen overnight, Greg.
> > > Who advised allowing the search of the kids bedroom?
>
> > There was a small mention that maybe the BOYFRIEND was perhaps taking
> > drugs. And maybe the girlfriend might be holding them for him or some
> > other accusation. There was no accusation that the mom was using or
> > has ever used drugs. On a sidenote, I did talk to my friend this
> > morning and the boy's tox screen came back negative so I'm pretty sure
> > an application for a search warrant wouldn't be granted.
>
> In other words the voluntary submission threw away
> rights that would have been protected.
> Judges here issue ilegal search warrants knowingly.
> Another Judge recused herself and later thought
> she was going to "unrecuse" herself.
> We also got an ALTERED transcript!

Actually, all suicide attempts have tox screens done. It's state
law. Was the person congnitive when the attempt was made? Under the
influence of drugs and/or alcohol?

> Your faith in good Judges might be a bit misplaced.
No, it's not misplaced at all.

> > > As I have said OVER and OVER, because there ARE
> > > bad caseworkers and bad ones might even "act nice"
> > > just to con families, people need to prevent the kinds
> > > of intrusions LIT described here, period.
>
> > Greg, you are right. But, unfortunately the only way the people can
> > do this is if they are informed. If they aren't informed, they fall
> > into the same trap many of us have and listen to: I'm from CPS and
> > I'm here to help. Unfortunately, people don't go looking for the
> > information until AFTER their family has been visited. That is why I
> > have helped form a group for anyone involved or even interested in
> > knowing your rights when CPS comes knocking. The meetings are
> > informal for the most part and we welcome everyone to them.
>
> Do you find many agency goons trying to infiltrate?
> They DO try it here.
Oh sure, they show up. We have also had a couple lawyers from the
attorney general's office show up. So? We do tell all that come that
there maybe DCF workers, state attorneys, etc present. Its not like
we are hiding them so they can do some sort of sting of the
participants.

> Fortunately Iowa DHS has actively familiarized massive
> numbers of people here with their abuses.
> Triple the national rate of removals will do that.
>
> More and more, people in working class blue collar
> neighborhoods lawyer up like they should, and
> the agency people are gradually making more and more
> moves on middle class neighborhoods.
Good for them!

> This will be the UNDOING of the agencies.
> Middle class people have more political clout
> and less tolerance for the sacharine sappy
> condescending tones of caseworkers.
And then they will move on up to the rich and famous and run into the
same thing. Either ppl that will bow to them and people that will
fight them and the in betweens.

> > > Did you notice Kane, how LIT had the very same
> > > concern about an investigation that should
> > > have been SCREENED OUT before it began?
>
> > I didn't have the same concern that it should have been screened out.
> > Please don't put words in my mouth or twist what I said.
>
> You strongly questioned WHY it wasn't screened out.
> Is that a more accurate depiction?
No. I can only guess as to why it wasn't screened out and I believe
it was a pretty good guess.
>
>
> > The girl
> > said to her school psychologist she was scared of what the boy may do
> > if she broke up with him and she was nervous about how her mom might
> > react. In other words, the school psychologist err'ed on the side of
> > caution and called CPS to make sure the girl was safe. Possible risk
> > of abuse needs to be investigated, Greg. You know that as well as I
> > do. If there is no risk, they go away. If there is risk, hopefully
> > they keep the family intact and provide the needed services. But, it
> > does need to be addressed BEFORE there is abuse. If they didn't
> > investigate and the girl broke up with her boyfriend and the mother
> > beat her to a pulp, would you have the same opinion?
>
> > > This one should have been screened out.
>
> > > LIT knows it, I know it, the caseworker probably
> > > knew it, but the caseworkers supervisor probably
> > > told them to go out and DIG HARD.
>
> > I'm not a mind reader Greg. At first, yes it appeared that the
> > investigator thought that the report was hot air but her attitude did
> > change. Why? Who knows. I can't read her mind nor can I read the
> > casefile or any other possible evidence that warranted her change in
> > attitude.
>
> Change in attitude? SUPERVISOR orders.
Or finding out more information that turned her sour. I don't know.
You don't know. No one does except her and possibly her supervisor.

> > > Months back I personally cross examined a caseworker
> > > (MSW "Adoption Specialist") who made certain moves
> > > ONLY because a supervisor told him to. He had absolutely
> > > no reason directly or logically to make the movves he did.
>
> > And this is pertinent to this thread, how? I don't care who you
> > interviewed or why, Greg.
>
> Change in attitude? SUPERVISOR orders.
*Yawn. Maybe, maybe not

> > > Another caseworker admitted on the stand that she DOES
> > > understand our STRONG misgivings about the agency and
> > > how we have been treated by the system.
>
> > > Out of court she suggested we make a legal move
> > > toward ending our mess. We did, but between her hopeful
> > > comment and the day she was asked in court, her presentation
> > > did an amazing REVERSAL. OBVIOUSLY she
> > > is just a puppet on a string, and got ORDERSS from
> > > above that changed her course.
>
> > > In simpler terms, her supervisor yanked her choke collar.
>
> > Or she did further investigation into who you really are and what you
> > are all about. That is a bigger possibility, Greg.
>
> You think she sat through a four day court process and
> didn't know what we are about?
Who knows?

> And then ran across some "smoking gun" weeks later?
Who knows?

> > NEVER underestimate the office politics of a caseworker who is being
> > > TOLD BY SUPERVISORS TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN.
>
> > I never estimate the power of cheese either Greg. So?
>
> Good or bad worker, the SUPERVISOR may command
> behavior that is not justified, fair or reasonable.
> The SUPERVISOR did not see the process in court or
> the transcript.
So you are telling me that these supervisors hold their workers at bay
at gunpoint to change their attitudes? Threaten them with loss of
employment? There are people out there to protect people from such
threats.

> > > > I think family counseling is definitely the key for all parties
> > > > involved right now.
> > > > The mom needs to learn how to get her daughter to
> > > > be a little more open about her feelings and fears so that her mom CAN
> > > > protect her from those fears should the need arise. If the mom
> > > > doesn't know her daughter is scared of something, she can't very well
> > > > help remedy it. Her
>
> ...
>
> read more »

No accidental snip. Had to rush off to get my son off the school
bus. Sorry if you don't/can't understand that concept of being a
parent.

Oh, by the way Greg, the boy's father is his natural father. Not a
step parent (neither are you) or a couch potato boyfriend.

[0:->]

On Mar 20, 9:31 am, "Greegor" > wrote:
> On Mar 20, 9:11 am, "lostintranslation"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 8:31 pm, "Greegor" > wrote:
>
> > > Kane wrote
> > > > His empathy for the boy in the case so warmed my heart.
> > > > And his concern for the girl too, where he dribbled a little
> > > > information about "goth" and suicide.
>
> > > Even LIT seemed less in the mood for your ****ing contest Kane.
>
> > Greg, I was not avoiding a ****ing contest with anyone. I do feel
> > that you do have very little empathy for this kid, his girlfriend and
> > my friend that is going through this. I didn't say anything because
> > well, I just didn't feel like it. No reason. No avoidance.
> > Nothing. Sure you don't work for CPS?
>
> > > I suspect that the recent experiences she had may
> > > have given her a bit more insight into my attitudes.
>
> > Greg, in case you forgot, I was involved with DCF here in CT when my
> > kids were yanked from my home. I had a nasty experience with them but
> > took that experience and gained knowledge and education to prevent
> > such things from happening to other innocent families.
>
> Did it prevent your recent experience?

If I get a broken leg did I do something wrong if I get another later?

Last I heard LIT doesn't "control" CPS, but she does contribute to
reform.

Does all reform have to be 100% successful for you to recognize the
improvement?

> > I have also
> > taken measures to help the lawmakers in CT to make it much more
> > difficult for unjust child removals.
>
> And yet you wax how important it is that every must get therapy.

Non sequitur, major big time.

> > Keep the kids home, if they can
> > be kept there safely and provide services.
>
> > > When a caseworker makes this bogus threat of
> > > charging you with obstructing an investigation,
> > > they are of course FULL OF CRAP, and as LIT
> > > found, the investigator was interviewing kids
> > > who are not even part of the case and without their
> > > parents permission, a VIOLATION in CT.
>
> > I knew it was bogus. It was very difficult to remain serious when she
> > said that. Somehow I managed to not laugh in her face. I knew the
> > law and procedures they are suppose to follow and reminded the
> > investigator of just that.
>
> Is this an example of how you IMPROVED THINGS?

I guess we should now castigate LIT because she didn't improve
things.

What things, Greg?

> And Kane is trying to tell you there was no violatiuon!

Greg, my advice was to look it up in her state's laws. Little did I
know, until she told you later in a followup post that she was
familiar with the law.

In other words, she and I agreed. She needed to know before taking
action. She knew. She took action when she knew.

Would you suggest that someone should take action when they don't know
the law?

> YOU know there sure as hell was, and SERIOUS too!

I did not know she knew until after the fact, Greg. You are spazming
again.

> What do you think the workers INTENT was with
> the assenine threats?

What does that mean?

> > > Kane, You thought that immediately after experiencing
> > > this abuse by a caseworker you would try to
> > > give her the "caseworkers aren't really evil" pep talk??
>
> > I didn't see him giving me 'caseworkers aren't really evil' pep talk.
>
> He tried to say there was no serious violation.

Citation, please.

Telling her to be sure the law covered it does not equate with my
saying there was no serious violation. There could be, their could not
be, according to the laws of her state.

> Heck, he tried to say you shouldn't complain
> because complaining about a nonviolation
> just makes you look silly and revs them up
> to become more aggressive.

No, I said it made her look aggressive if she's not on solid ground.

My comment was lead by this opening statement in the paragraph: "The
attorney call is warranted. The ombudsman complain should have waited
until the attorney consultation."

In other words, I'm cautioning her to be sure she has the law on her
side. She already happened to know it was. I, of course, not being a
CT resident and not knowing the law there, simply suggested she
should.

And knowing the law, and interpreting the law, and being experienced
and familiar with how the law is interpreted in the local courts is
not and undue caution, Greg.

> > We all know there are good and bad workers out there. We also know
> > that some of the good workers out there have bad supervisors. And
> > good supervisors have bad workers. Such a vicious circle. But, it's
> > up to us, the private citizens of the US to make sure these people
> > follow their own procedures and to make sure all the workers stay
> > 'good' or help them become 'good' ones.
>
> Remember than only a FEW years ago these agencies had
> to be FORCED by the Feds to hand over their manual!
> They didn't want any family to be able to point out
> their procedures and laws.

Or they didn't have one. And worked strait out of statutes, which
anyone can look up. Prior to the Internet, and still, you can go to a
law school library and do a lookup yourself. I used to suggest it
before everyone had a computer and Web access.

And it's still a good idea to chat up and attorney and make sure you
are on solid ground. Sometimes laws are enforced vigorously, and
sometimes they are not.

Recommending caution and information collecting seems to bother you a
lot, Greg. Why is that I wonder? R R RHOHOHOH R R RR ....

> > > LIT: Does CT have the legislation that actually allows
> > > them to interview kids in a public school?
> > > States make state serving legislation like that
> > > which does NOT hold up under Federal scrutiny.
> > > (4th Amendment right against unreasonable search)
>
> > The schools in the state of CT will allow the kids to be questioned
> > ONLY if the parents are there also.
>
> Now THERE is some powerful legislation for change.
> Did you write it?

Did you for Iowa?

> > If the parents aren't there, the
> > schools, or at least the ones I have dealt with directly or with
> > families I have or am helping, will not allow the questioning to take
> > place. Of course, if the kids are in foster care and under the
> > custody of the state, they will allow it. The schools also respect
> > the Hatch letter and reverse maranda notifications.
>
> Remember though that MOST states have legislated
> that schools must allow CPS interrogation without
> any parent.

Citations please.

> These state statutes blatantly attempt
> to violate clearly established rights against such stuff.

Unless there is caselaw, or a SC finding to the contrary, Greg, you
are wrong about the "rights."

YOU keep interpreting the Constitution and the BOR and YOU are hardly
qualified to tie your booties without help.

> And of course the state and county courts will ignore
> the higher controlling law and go with the lame statute.

Or they will recognize the power moves UPWARD in our system. If the
feds have not said, ...and much is NOT said in the Constitution, then
the people and the states prevail.

> > > Who advised allowing the search of the kids bedroom?
>
> > There was a small mention that maybe the BOYFRIEND was perhaps taking
> > drugs. And maybe the girlfriend might be holding them for him or some
> > other accusation. There was no accusation that the mom was using or
> > has ever used drugs. On a sidenote, I did talk to my friend this
> > morning and the boy's tox screen came back negative so I'm pretty sure
> > an application for a search warrant wouldn't be granted.
>
> In other words the voluntary submission threw away
> rights that would have been protected.

In other words you don't want to help..you want to blame.

You wanted a confrontation at the door didn't you, Greg?

**** the boy and his problems, right Greg?

> Judges here issue ilegal search warrants knowingly.

Oh? And you confront them when they do, do you?

> Another Judge recused herself and later thought
> she was going to "unrecuse" herself.
> We also got an ALTERED transcript!

OoooOOOOooo...somehow Greg, I find it difficult to trust your word on
that.

> Your faith in good Judges might be a bit misplaced.

Then she should place her faith in you, right?
And you buddies looking for more lab rats?

> > > As I have said OVER and OVER, because there ARE
> > > bad caseworkers and bad ones might even "act nice"
> > > just to con families, people need to prevent the kinds
> > > of intrusions LIT described here, period.
>
> > Greg, you are right. But, unfortunately the only way the people can
> > do this is if they are informed. If they aren't informed, they fall
> > into the same trap many of us have and listen to: I'm from CPS and
> > I'm here to help. Unfortunately, people don't go looking for the
> > information until AFTER their family has been visited. That is why I
> > have helped form a group for anyone involved or even interested in
> > knowing your rights when CPS comes knocking. The meetings are
> > informal for the most part and we welcome everyone to them.
>
> Do you find many agency goons trying to infiltrate?
> They DO try it here.

Did you catch them, junior G-man, and zap them with your magic power
ring?
>
> Fortunately Iowa DHS has actively familiarized massive
> numbers of people here with their abuses.
> Triple the national rate of removals will do that.

Triple the national rate will also suggest there is more than the
usual amount of abuse in an area.

I recall you not working with the excuse you couldn't find work in an
area of high unemployment. It's known that both domestic abuse and
child abuse go up in those conditions.
>
> More and more, people in working class blue collar
> neighborhoods lawyer up like they should, and
> the agency people are gradually making more and more
> moves on middle class neighborhoods.

Citations?

> This will be the UNDOING of the agencies.
> Middle class people have more political clout
> and less tolerance for the sacharine sappy
> condescending tones of caseworkers.

Relevance?

When did working class folks have tolerance?

> > > Did you notice Kane, how LIT had the very same
> > > concern about an investigation that should
> > > have been SCREENED OUT before it began?
>
> > I didn't have the same concern that it should have been screened out.
> > Please don't put words in my mouth or twist what I said.
>
> You strongly questioned WHY it wasn't screened out.
> Is that a more accurate depiction?

Nope. She told you this before in her opening post to this thread,
Greg.

CPS got a bonified LEGAL report from a mandated reporter. See below.

> > The girl
> > said to her school psychologist she was scared of what the boy may do
> > if she broke up with him and she was nervous about how her mom might
> > react. In other words, the school psychologist err'ed on the side of
> > caution and called CPS to make sure the girl was safe. Possible risk
> > of abuse needs to be investigated, Greg. You know that as well as I
> > do. If there is no risk, they go away. If there is risk, hopefully
> > they keep the family intact and provide the needed services. But, it
> > does need to be addressed BEFORE there is abuse. If they didn't
> > investigate and the girl broke up with her boyfriend and the mother
> > beat her to a pulp, would you have the same opinion?

But I see you let your question above stand, and did not then
acknowledge that LIT gave you the reason for the investigation.

> > > This one should have been screened out.
>
> > > LIT knows it, I know it, the caseworker probably
> > > knew it, but the caseworkers supervisor probably
> > > told them to go out and DIG HARD.
>
> > I'm not a mind reader Greg. At first, yes it appeared that the
> > investigator thought that the report was hot air but her attitude did
> > change. Why? Who knows. I can't read her mind nor can I read the
> > casefile or any other possible evidence that warranted her change in
> > attitude.
>
> Change in attitude? SUPERVISOR orders.

You have this on an impeachable authority telling you about the
minutia in this case?

> > > Months back I personally cross examined a caseworker
> > > (MSW "Adoption Specialist") who made certain moves
> > > ONLY because a supervisor told him to. He had absolutely
> > > no reason directly or logically to make the movves he did.
>
> > And this is pertinent to this thread, how? I don't care who you
> > interviewed or why, Greg.
>
> Change in attitude? SUPERVISOR orders.

You were there? You witnessed this? Or you are ranting again?

Which would be more likely?

> > > Another caseworker admitted on the stand that she DOES
> > > understand our STRONG misgivings about the agency and
> > > how we have been treated by the system.
>
> > > Out of court she suggested we make a legal move
> > > toward ending our mess. We did, but between her hopeful
> > > comment and the day she was asked in court, her presentation
> > > did an amazing REVERSAL. OBVIOUSLY she
> > > is just a puppet on a string, and got ORDERSS from
> > > above that changed her course.
>
> > > In simpler terms, her supervisor yanked her choke collar.
>
> > Or she did further investigation into who you really are and what you
> > are all about. That is a bigger possibility, Greg.
>
> You think she sat through a four day court process and
> didn't know what we are about?

Absopuckeringlootley, Greg. You are puckering unbelievable until
someone has observed you for a time.

One there is enough information one starts looking for the barf bag.

> And then ran across some "smoking gun" weeks later?

It's called "putting two and Greg together," Greg.

> > NEVER underestimate the office politics of a caseworker who is being
> > > TOLD BY SUPERVISORS TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN.
>
> > I never estimate the power of cheese either Greg. So?
>
> Good or bad worker, the SUPERVISOR may command
> behavior that is not justified, fair or reasonable.

Could be. And could not be.

> The SUPERVISOR did not see the process in court or
> the transcript.

So?

> > > > I think family counseling is definitely the key for all parties
> > > > involved right now.
> > > > The mom needs to learn how to get her daughter to
> > > > be a little more open about her feelings and fears so that her mom CAN
> > > > protect her from those fears should the need arise. If the mom
> > > > doesn't know her daughter is scared of something, she can't very well
> > > > help remedy it. Her
>
> ...
>
> read more »

aw....you ended it.

Shucks, I had so much more to share with you.

Kane

[Greegor]

On Mar 20, 11:01 am, "lostintranslation"
> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 12:31 pm, "Greegor" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 9:11 am, "lostintranslation"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Mar 19, 8:31 pm, "Greegor" > wrote:
>
> > > > Kane wrote
> > > > > His empathy for the boy in the case so warmed my heart.
> > > > > And his concern for the girl too, where he dribbled a little
> > > > > information about "goth" and suicide.
>
> > > > Even LIT seemed less in the mood for your ****ing contest Kane.
>
> > > Greg, I was not avoiding a ****ing contest with anyone. I do feel
> > > that you do have very little empathy for this kid, his girlfriend and
> > > my friend that is going through this. I didn't say anything because
> > > well, I just didn't feel like it. No reason. No avoidance.
> > > Nothing. Sure you don't work for CPS?
>
> > > > I suspect that the recent experiences she had may
> > > > have given her a bit more insight into my attitudes.
>
> > > Greg, in case you forgot, I was involved with DCF here in CT when my
> > > kids were yanked from my home. I had a nasty experience with them but
> > > took that experience and gained knowledge and education to prevent
> > > such things from happening to other innocent families.
>
> > Did it prevent your recent experience?
>
> How would my past experience prevent the current experience that MY
> friend is going through?
>
> > > I have also
> > > taken measures to help the lawmakers in CT to make it much more
> > > difficult for unjust child removals.
>
> > And yet you wax how important it is that every [one] must get therapy.
>
> What the hell is so wrong about going to therapy? And I don't say
> everyone should go but having cps in your life, whether justiably so
> or not, is stressful. Some outside unbiased help isn't such a bad
> thing, Greg.

I said I am NOT against therapy.
My concern is FORCED therapy without damned
good reason for it to be COURT ORDERED.

It's an Orwellian or Kafkaesque problem when
therapy is directed under threats from CPS
for every little thing.

Of course, I am REALLY concerned when the ""therapist""
is some moron WITHOUT credentials and LICENSE.
(As are most ""therapists"" CPS is involved with.)
(Downright DANGEROUS and a fraud against Medicaid!)

> > > Keep the kids home, if they can
> > > be kept there safely and provide services.
>
> > > > When a caseworker makes this bogus threat of
> > > > charging you with obstructing an investigation,
> > > > they are of course FULL OF CRAP, and as LIT
> > > > found, the investigator was interviewing kids
> > > > who are not even part of the case and without their
> > > > parents permission, a VIOLATION in CT.
>
> > > I knew it was bogus. It was very difficult to remain serious when she
> > > said that. Somehow I managed to not laugh in her face. I knew the
> > > law and procedures they are suppose to follow and reminded the
> > > investigator of just that.
>
> > Is this an example of how you IMPROVED THINGS?
>
> Umm, did I say it was? Sorry that I reminded her of her employer's
> policy and procedures. Do you think I did wrong by reminding her?

WHY is that kind of crappy behavior still going on?
Since you say you fixed some things, how did those
bogus threats make you feel?
Any concern for people who wouldn't KNOW as you
and I do that the worker was full of crap and BLUFFING?
Do you think the worker did that because it never works?
How would you characterize her INTENT with the threat?

> > And Kane is trying to tell you there was no violatiuon!
> > YOU know there sure as hell was, and SERIOUS too!
> > What do you think the workers INTENT was with
> > the assenine threats?
>
> Kane also read my follow up post where I said that according to the
> manual, she was in violation and he recognized that an informed
> complaint is a solid complaint. It wasn't a complaint made by an
> emotional reaction; it was a complaint based on facts. He saw that.
> Why didn't you see what he wrote?

That was NOT his initial comment.
Initially he gave that "not a serious enough violation"
speech about laying low so as not to irk off the
MATLOCK wannabe detectives.

(Search on MATLOCK and see where Kane got that jab)

> > > > Kane, You thought that immediately after experiencing
> > > > this abuse by a caseworker you would try to
> > > > give her the "caseworkers aren't really evil" pep talk??
>
> > > I didn't see him giving me 'caseworkers aren't really evil' pep talk.
>
> > He tried to say there was no serious violation.
> > Heck, he tried to say you shouldn't complain
> > because complaining about a nonviolation
> > just makes you look silly and revs them up
> > to become more aggressive.
>
> And when he saw my response to that, he understood and appeared to
> support a complaint based on facts rather than emotion.

Hindsight is 20/20 even sometimes for Kane.

> > > We all know there are good and bad workers out there. We also know
> > > that some of the good workers out there have bad supervisors. And
> > > good supervisors have bad workers. Such a vicious circle. But, it's
> > > up to us, the private citizens of the US to make sure these people
> > > follow their own procedures and to make sure all the workers stay
> > > 'good' or help them become 'good' ones.
>
> > Remember than only a FEW years ago these agencies had
> > to be FORCED by the Feds to hand over their manual!
> > They didn't want any family to be able to point out
> > their procedures and laws.
>
> Ok, yes I remember that. But what is more relevant is that the
> manuals are now available and can be read by anyone that wants to read
> them.

And you think EVERY Citizen can actually READ the mumbo
jumbo Bureacratic AGENCY SPEAK and formulate responses?

Even the Public Defenders who LIVE in Juvenile Court can't or won't.

YES, Citizens need to get into it but have you ever asked
WHY things are so crappy that ordinary citizens must
interpret the gibberish, some of which is CONTRADICTED
by Case Law from controlling courts?

> > > > LIT: Does CT have the legislation that actually allows
> > > > them to interview kids in a public school?
> > > > States make state serving legislation like that
> > > > which does NOT hold up under Federal scrutiny.
> > > > (4th Amendment right against unreasonable search)
>
> > > The schools in the state of CT will allow the kids to be questioned
> > > ONLY if the parents are there also.
>
> > Now THERE is some powerful legislation for change.
> > Did you write it?
>
> No. But I did bring it up at one of the hearings and that is when I
> found out that there is legislation in the process of being written to
> support the few schools that don't allow the questioning to make it
> state wide. It helps to have contact with the child welfare people in
> office.

So the work is to further PREVENT the interviews without parents?
Your text could be interpreted the opposite way.

Apparently a state law doesn't currently ensure parents and
counsel present in all schools??

> > > If the parents aren't there, the
> > > schools, or at least the ones I have dealt with directly or with
> > > families I have or am helping, will not allow the questioning to take
> > > place. Of course, if the kids are in foster care and under the
> > > custody of the state, they will allow it. The schools also respect
> > > the Hatch letter and reverse maranda notifications.
>
> > Remember though that MOST states have legislated
> > that schools must allow CPS interrogation without
> > any parent. These state statutes blatantly attempt
> > to violate clearly established rights against such stuff.
>
> > And of course the state and county courts will ignore
> > the higher controlling law and go with the lame statute.
>
> And hopefully, that is coming into change. It may be state by state
> but at least the changes will happen. Things don't miraculously
> happen overnight, Greg.

Well, forgive me but the *******s never should have thought
they had that right in the first place. The state statutes
that DO allow CPS to grill kids in school are WRONG.

I have little patience for repairs of things some dumbass
broke when they had no right to touch it in the first place.

> > > > Who advised allowing the search of the kids bedroom?
>
> > > There was a small mention that maybe the BOYFRIEND was perhaps taking
> > > drugs. And maybe the girlfriend might be holding them for him or some
> > > other accusation. There was no accusation that the mom was using or
> > > has ever used drugs. On a sidenote, I did talk to my friend this
> > > morning and the boy's tox screen came back negative so I'm pretty sure
> > > an application for a search warrant wouldn't be granted.
>
> > In other words the voluntary submission threw away
> > rights that would have been protected.
> > Judges here issue ilegal search warrants knowingly.
> > Another Judge recused herself and later thought
> > she was going to "unrecuse" herself.
> > We also got an ALTERED transcript!
>
> Actually, all suicide attempts have tox screens done. It's state
> law. Was the person congnitive when the attempt was made? Under the
> influence of drugs and/or alcohol?

But what does that have to do with searching the GIRL's bedroom?

You know, even if the kid had killed himself on METH,
searching HER ROOM was absolutely NOT justified.
And if it was done using a WARRANT, warrants
have to be VERY SPECIFIC or they are illegal.

> > Your faith in good Judges might be a bit misplaced.
>
> No, it's not misplaced at all.

WE quickly got over it when we saw the doctored transcript!

> > > > As I have said OVER and OVER, because there ARE
> > > > bad caseworkers and bad ones might even "act nice"
> > > > just to con families, people need to prevent the kinds
> > > > of intrusions LIT described here, period.
>
> > > Greg, you are right. But, unfortunately the only way the people can
> > > do this is if they are informed. If they aren't informed, they fall
> > > into the same trap many of us have and listen to: I'm from CPS and
> > > I'm here to help. Unfortunately, people don't go looking for the
> > > information until AFTER their family has been visited. That is why I
> > > have helped form a group for anyone involved or even interested in
> > > knowing your rights when CPS comes knocking. The meetings are
> > > informal for the most part and we welcome everyone to them.
>
> > Do you find many agency goons trying to infiltrate?
> > They DO try it here.
>
> Oh sure, they show up. We have also had a couple lawyers from the
> attorney general's office show up. So? We do tell all that come that
> there maybe DCF workers, state attorneys, etc present. Its not like
> we are hiding them so they can do some sort of sting of the
> participants.

Family Rights groups in various states HAVE experienced
"burrowing in" and extortive behavior from agents of CPS.
Are you so naive as to think they don't do that?
The group here gets infiltrators so STUPID they
use their DHS office phone number!

> > Fortunately Iowa DHS has actively familiarized massive
> > numbers of people here with their abuses.
> > Triple the national rate of removals will do that.
>
> > More and more, people in working class blue collar
> > neighborhoods lawyer up like they should, and
> > the agency people are gradually making more and more
> > moves on middle class neighborhoods.
>
> Good for them!
>
> > This will be the UNDOING of the agencies.
> > Middle class people have more political clout
> > and less tolerance for the sacharine sappy
> > condescending tones of caseworkers.
>
> And then they will move on up to the rich and famous and run into the
> same thing. Either ppl that will bow to them and people that will
> fight them and the in betweens.

Kane is still trying the rationale that "lawyering up"
makes people look guilty. That won't float any more.

> > > > Did you notice Kane, how LIT had the very same
> > > > concern about an investigation that should
> > > > have been SCREENED OUT before it began?
>
> > > I didn't have the same concern that it should have been screened out.
> > > Please don't put words in my mouth or twist what I said.
>
> > You strongly questioned WHY it wasn't screened out.
> > Is that a more accurate depiction?
>
> No. I can only guess as to why it wasn't screened out and I believe
> it was a pretty good guess.


>
> > > The girl
> > > said to her school psychologist she was scared of what the boy may do
> > > if she broke up with him and she was nervous about how her mom might
> > > react. In other words, the school psychologist err'ed on the side of
> > > caution and called CPS to make sure the girl was safe. Possible risk
> > > of abuse needs to be investigated, Greg. You know that as well as I
> > > do. If there is no risk, they go away. If there is risk, hopefully
> > > they keep the family intact and provide the needed services. But, it
> > > does need to be addressed BEFORE there is abuse. If they didn't
> > > investigate


Possible risk? Think of that in Orwellian or Kafkaesque terms.
Doesn't it use stronger language than that?
If it says "possible risk" then they have basically TRASHED
the Bill Of Rights.

Turn it around.
I have a right against unwarranted intrusions and
"possible risk" like you described just does NOT
justify having citizens afraid of "setting off" the
caseworkers suspicions.

If "lawyering up" sets them off as Kane warned, then
they had better get USED TO IT!

And they WILL get sued for failing to recall their
REQUIRED training on respecting people's
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

I've concluded that some people (particularly women)
think they can "schmooze" things their way with the
caseworkers and I've seen where these "in between"
people who think they can partially cooperate have
gotten dragged into some of the worst messes.

I've seen families who swore they had really
good lawyers too, only to realize different too late.
Some had good lawyers and bogus cases and STILL LOST.

Just because the PAPERWORK is all happy and
perfect does NOT mean the TPR is RIGHT.

The contest itself is an abuse regardless of who "wins".

The prosecutor said "This is what we do" in a lame
attempt to justify what she knew was WRONG.

That's like "I wass jusst followingk orderss!".

[lostintranslation]

On Mar 20, 1:34 pm, "0:-]" > wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2007 10:01:34 -0700, "lostintranslation"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Mar 20, 12:31 pm, "Greegor" > wrote:
> >> On Mar 20, 9:11 am, "lostintranslation"
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > On Mar 19, 8:31 pm, "Greegor" > wrote:
>
> >> > > Kane wrote
> >> > > > His empathy for the boy in the case so warmed my heart.
> >> > > > And his concern for the girl too, where he dribbled a little
> >> > > > information about "goth" and suicide.
>
> >> > > Even LIT seemed less in the mood for your ****ing contest Kane.
>
> >> > Greg, I was not avoiding a ****ing contest with anyone. I do feel
> >> > that you do have very little empathy for this kid, his girlfriend and
> >> > my friend that is going through this. I didn't say anything because
> >> > well, I just didn't feel like it. No reason. No avoidance.
> >> > Nothing. Sure you don't work for CPS?
>
> >> > > I suspect that the recent experiences she had may
> >> > > have given her a bit more insight into my attitudes.
>
> >> > Greg, in case you forgot, I was involved with DCF here in CT when my
> >> > kids were yanked from my home. I had a nasty experience with them but
> >> > took that experience and gained knowledge and education to prevent
> >> > such things from happening to other innocent families.
>
> >> Did it prevent your recent experience?
> >How would my past experience prevent the current experience that MY
> >friend is going through?
>
> Hey, hey, hey now!
>
> Look at how Greg's and Lisa's past experience has served th....
>
> Hmmmm...well, back to the drawing board.
>
> >> > I have also
> >> > taken measures to help the lawmakers in CT to make it much more
> >> > difficult for unjust child removals.
>
> >> And yet you wax how important it is that every must get therapy.
>
> >What the hell is so wrong about going to therapy? And I don't say
> >everyone should go but having cps in your life, whether justiably so
> >or not, is stressful. Some outside unbiased help isn't such a bad
> >thing, Greg.
>
> Greg didn't go, and look what it's done for him?
>
> Why are you SOOOO unappreciative, LIT? Sheeeesss...
>
> If you are part of a CPS investigation, just call up Greg. He'll
> provide you wonderful support, just like you see
> here....hmmmmm...well.....hhhmmmmm...
>
Maybe I should also ask for his advice on how to challenge recording
laws in my state too...Whadya think, Kane? Oh wait! Stupid me. He
offered his UNsolicited advice to me already about how to challenge
those laws. Advice that would have landed me in jail and with a new
CPS case. Ahh, such fond memories.

>
> >> > Keep the kids home, if they can
> >> > be kept there safely and provide services.
>
> >> > > When a caseworker makes this bogus threat of
> >> > > charging you with obstructing an investigation,
> >> > > they are of course FULL OF CRAP, and as LIT
> >> > > found, the investigator was interviewing kids
> >> > > who are not even part of the case and without their
> >> > > parents permission, a VIOLATION in CT.
>
> >> > I knew it was bogus. It was very difficult to remain serious when she
> >> > said that. Somehow I managed to not laugh in her face. I knew the
> >> > law and procedures they are suppose to follow and reminded the
> >> > investigator of just that.
>
> >> Is this an example of how you IMPROVED THINGS?
>
> >Umm, did I say it was? Sorry that I reminded her of her employer's
> >policy and procedures. Do you think I did wrong by reminding her?
>
> Well, you did improve things. On that occasion, if I recall correctly,
> she laid off with questioning the kids.
>
> Greg is just being...well...ahhh....oh yes, Greg.

Greg has to question every bit of good anyone does because Holey
Moley, he just can't comprehend that someone may actually be able to
accomplish stuff that he can't.

> >> And Kane is trying to tell you there was no violatiuon!
> >> YOU know there sure as hell was, and SERIOUS too!
> >> What do you think the workers INTENT was with
> >> the assenine threats?
>
> >Kane also read my follow up post where I said that according to the
> >manual, she was in violation and he recognized that an informed
> >complaint is a solid complaint. It wasn't a complaint made by an
> >emotional reaction; it was a complaint based on facts. He saw that.
> >Why didn't you see what he wrote?
>
> You ask for the impossible.

And a miracle, apparently.

> >> > > Kane, You thought that immediately after experiencing
> >> > > this abuse by a caseworker you would try to
> >> > > give her the "caseworkers aren't really evil" pep talk??
>
> >> > I didn't see him giving me 'caseworkers aren't really evil' pep talk.
>
> >> He tried to say there was no serious violation.
> >> Heck, he tried to say you shouldn't complain
> >> because complaining about a nonviolation
> >> just makes you look silly and revs them up
> >> to become more aggressive.
>
> >And when he saw my response to that, he understood and appeared to
> >support a complaint based on facts rather than emotion.
>
> Like you noticed, he doesn't see what I actually write, only what he
> wishes to fantasize I write.
>
> >> > We all know there are good and bad workers out there. We also know
> >> > that some of the good workers out there have bad supervisors. And
> >> > good supervisors have bad workers. Such a vicious circle. But, it's
> >> > up to us, the private citizens of the US to make sure these people
> >> > follow their own procedures and to make sure all the workers stay
> >> > 'good' or help them become 'good' ones.
>
> >> Remember than only a FEW years ago these agencies had
> >> to be FORCED by the Feds to hand over their manual!
> >> They didn't want any family to be able to point out
> >> their procedures and laws.
> >Ok, yes I remember that. But what is more relevant is that the
> >manuals are now available and can be read by anyone that wants to read
> >them.
>
> No no no...you don't understand. Greg does.
>
> He's pointing out that you cannot do good planning to fight CPS unless
> you wallow for a time in the **** of the past. It's the Piggy Ploy.

Oh poor uneducated me! I must wallow in **** forever and just hope
someone along the way feels sorry for me and changes laws and policies
based on pity from some unedumucated person. Gotcha!

> He's an expert. "FIRST GET YOURSELF DESTRACTED." "IT WILL MAKE YOUR
> MOJO STRONG."

Oh, so that's what it's being called these days. And here I thought I
was up to speed on these things.
>
>
>
> >> > > LIT: Does CT have the legislation that actually allows
> >> > > them to interview kids in a public school?
> >> > > States make state serving legislation like that
> >> > > which does NOT hold up under Federal scrutiny.
> >> > > (4th Amendment right against unreasonable search)
>
> >> > The schools in the state of CT will allow the kids to be questioned
> >> > ONLY if the parents are there also.
>
> >> Now THERE is some powerful legislation for change.
> >> Did you write it?
>
> >No. But I did bring it up at one of the hearings and that is when I
> >found out that there is legislation in the process of being written to
> >support the few schools that don't allow the questioning to make it
> >state wide. It helps to have contact with the child welfare people in
> >office.
>
> R R R R....too good. Greg got yet another one wrong. It isn't even a
> state law yet.
Nope, just the way some schools feel.
> Greg...oooohhhh Greg....see what you get when you don't look things up
> and make assumptions.
>
>
>
> >> > If the parents aren't there, the
> >> > schools, or at least the ones I have dealt with directly or with
> >> > families I have or am helping, will not allow the questioning to take
> >> > place. Of course, if the kids are in foster care and under the
> >> > custody of the state, they will allow it. The schools also respect
> >> > the Hatch letter and reverse maranda notifications.
>
> >> Remember though that MOST states have legislated
> >> that schools must allow CPS interrogation without
> >> any parent. These state statutes blatantly attempt
> >> to violate clearly established rights against such stuff.
>
> >> And of course the state and county courts will ignore
> >> the higher controlling law and go with the lame statute.
> >And hopefully, that is coming into change. It may be state by state
> >but at least the changes will happen. Things don't miraculously
> >happen overnight, Greg.
>
> Here you and I have a policy disagreement. If children cannot be
> questioned without the parents present abuse and neglect will not be
> uncovered in many more instances.
>
> The horror stories in media of parental abuse gone on for a long time
> until a child's death is more likely to take place if the
> investigation cannot include private questioning of witnesses.
>
> In no other area is there a demand that the accused can face their
> accuser BEFORE court. Only here. With children. Already vulnerable and
> dependent on the possible perp...even for their very lives if the
> allegations turn out to have been true.
>
> It would be a rare child that would NOT be highly conscious of the
> parent in the room during questioning.
>
> Something to think about.

I may not have stated my opinion clearly. I actually didn't at all.
Sorry. I think that if the parents are at least present when the
child first enters the room, no matter where the interview takes
place, may put a nervous child more at ease. We all know that even
severely abused and neglected children will find comfort in knowing
their parents are present or at least near by. I do believe in at
least the parents being informed that such an interview is taking
place or will be taking place and allow them to comfort a possibly
nervous/scared child. About staying in the room? Truthfully, I'm on
the fence about that. In one case, it may help a child speak because
a familiar face is there. In other cases, it may cause the child to
not tell about the abuses/neglectful acts that the parent(s) may be
causing. A very sticky situation one of which I hope I am never in.
>
>
> >> > > Who advised allowing the search of the kids bedroom?
>
> >> > There was a small mention that maybe the BOYFRIEND was perhaps taking
> >> > drugs. And maybe the girlfriend might be holding them for him or some
> >> > other accusation. There was no accusation that the mom was using or
> >> > has ever used drugs. On a sidenote, I did talk to my friend this
> >> > morning and the boy's tox screen came back negative so I'm pretty sure
> >> > an application for a search warrant wouldn't be granted.
>
> >> In other words the voluntary submission threw away
> >> rights that would have been protected.
> >> Judges here issue ilegal search warrants knowingly.
> >> Another Judge recused herself and later thought
> >> she was going to "unrecuse" herself.
> >> We also got an ALTERED transcript!
>
> >Actually, all suicide attempts have tox screens done. It's state
> >law. Was the person congnitive when the attempt was made? Under the
> >influence of drugs and/or alcohol?
>
> >> Your faith in good Judges might be a bit misplaced.
> >No, it's not misplaced at all.
>
> Of course not. Like all professions there are good ones and bad ones,
> and the good outnumber the bad by far. It's just that the bad stand
> out. ... often by their scarcity.
>
> >> > > As I have said OVER and OVER, because there ARE
> >> > > bad caseworkers and bad ones might even "act nice"
> >> > > just to con families, people need to prevent the kinds
> >> > > of intrusions LIT described here, period.
>
> >> > Greg, you are right. But, unfortunately the only way the people can
> >> > do this is if they are informed. If they aren't informed, they fall
> >> > into the same trap many of us have and listen to: I'm from CPS and
> >> > I'm here to help. Unfortunately, people don't go looking for the
> >> > information until AFTER their family has been visited. That is why I
> >> > have helped form a group for anyone involved or even
>
> ...
>
> read more »

[lostintranslation]

On Mar 20, 1:34 pm, "0:-]" > wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2007 10:01:34 -0700, "lostintranslation"
>
> > wrote:
> >On Mar 20, 12:31 pm, "Greegor" > wrote:
> >> On Mar 20, 9:11 am, "lostintranslation"
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > On Mar 19, 8:31 pm, "Greegor" > wrote:
>
> >> > > Kane wrote
> >> > > > His empathy for the boy in the case so warmed my heart.
> >> > > > And his concern for the girl too, where he dribbled a little
> >> > > > information about "goth" and suicide.
>
> >> > > Even LIT seemed less in the mood for your ****ing contest Kane.
>
> >> > Greg, I was not avoiding a ****ing contest with anyone. I do feel
> >> > that you do have very little empathy for this kid, his girlfriend and
> >> > my friend that is going through this. I didn't say anything because
> >> > well, I just didn't feel like it. No reason. No avoidance.
> >> > Nothing. Sure you don't work for CPS?
>
> >> > > I suspect that the recent experiences she had may
> >> > > have given her a bit more insight into my attitudes.
>
> >> > Greg, in case you forgot, I was involved with DCF here in CT when my
> >> > kids were yanked from my home. I had a nasty experience with them but
> >> > took that experience and gained knowledge and education to prevent
> >> > such things from happening to other innocent families.
>
> >> Did it prevent your recent experience?
> >How would my past experience prevent the current experience that MY
> >friend is going through?
>
> Hey, hey, hey now!
>
> Look at how Greg's and Lisa's past experience has served th....
>
> Hmmmm...well, back to the drawing board.
>
> >> > I have also
> >> > taken measures to help the lawmakers in CT to make it much more
> >> > difficult for unjust child removals.
>
> >> And yet you wax how important it is that every must get therapy.
>
> >What the hell is so wrong about going to therapy? And I don't say
> >everyone should go but having cps in your life, whether justiably so
> >or not, is stressful. Some outside unbiased help isn't such a bad
> >thing, Greg.
>
> Greg didn't go, and look what it's done for him?
>
> Why are you SOOOO unappreciative, LIT? Sheeeesss...
>
> If you are part of a CPS investigation, just call up Greg. He'll
> provide you wonderful support, just like you see
> here....hmmmmm...well.....hhhmmmmm...
>
> >> > Keep the kids home, if they can
> >> > be kept there safely and provide services.
>
> >> > > When a caseworker makes this bogus threat of
> >> > > charging you with obstructing an investigation,
> >> > > they are of course FULL OF CRAP, and as LIT
> >> > > found, the investigator was interviewing kids
> >> > > who are not even part of the case and without their
> >> > > parents permission, a VIOLATION in CT.
>
> >> > I knew it was bogus. It was very difficult to remain serious when she
> >> > said that. Somehow I managed to not laugh in her face. I knew the
> >> > law and procedures they are suppose to follow and reminded the
> >> > investigator of just that.
>
> >> Is this an example of how you IMPROVED THINGS?
>
> >Umm, did I say it was? Sorry that I reminded her of her employer's
> >policy and procedures. Do you think I did wrong by reminding her?
>
> Well, you did improve things. On that occasion, if I recall correctly,
> she laid off with questioning the kids.
>
> Greg is just being...well...ahhh....oh yes, Greg.
>
> >> And Kane is trying to tell you there was no violatiuon!
> >> YOU know there sure as hell was, and SERIOUS too!
> >> What do you think the workers INTENT was with
> >> the assenine threats?
>
> >Kane also read my follow up post where I said that according to the
> >manual, she was in violation and he recognized that an informed
> >complaint is a solid complaint. It wasn't a complaint made by an
> >emotional reaction; it was a complaint based on facts. He saw that.
> >Why didn't you see what he wrote?
>
> You ask for the impossible.
>
> >> > > Kane, You thought that immediately after experiencing
> >> > > this abuse by a caseworker you would try to
> >> > > give her the "caseworkers aren't really evil" pep talk??
>
> >> > I didn't see him giving me 'caseworkers aren't really evil' pep talk.
>
> >> He tried to say there was no serious violation.
> >> Heck, he tried to say you shouldn't complain
> >> because complaining about a nonviolation
> >> just makes you look silly and revs them up
> >> to become more aggressive.
>
> >And when he saw my response to that, he understood and appeared to
> >support a complaint based on facts rather than emotion.
>
> Like you noticed, he doesn't see what I actually write, only what he
> wishes to fantasize I write.
>
> >> > We all know there are good and bad workers out there. We also know
> >> > that some of the good workers out there have bad supervisors. And
> >> > good supervisors have bad workers. Such a vicious circle. But, it's
> >> > up to us, the private citizens of the US to make sure these people
> >> > follow their own procedures and to make sure all the workers stay
> >> > 'good' or help them become 'good' ones.
>
> >> Remember than only a FEW years ago these agencies had
> >> to be FORCED by the Feds to hand over their manual!
> >> They didn't want any family to be able to point out
> >> their procedures and laws.
> >Ok, yes I remember that. But what is more relevant is that the
> >manuals are now available and can be read by anyone that wants to read
> >them.
>
> No no no...you don't understand. Greg does.
>
> He's pointing out that you cannot do good planning to fight CPS unless
> you wallow for a time in the **** of the past. It's the Piggy Ploy.
>
> He's an expert. "FIRST GET YOURSELF DESTRACTED." "IT WILL MAKE YOUR
> MOJO STRONG."
>
> >> > > LIT: Does CT have the legislation that actually allows
> >> > > them to interview kids in a public school?
> >> > > States make state serving legislation like that
> >> > > which does NOT hold up under Federal scrutiny.
> >> > > (4th Amendment right against unreasonable search)
>
> >> > The schools in the state of CT will allow the kids to be questioned
> >> > ONLY if the parents are there also.
>
> >> Now THERE is some powerful legislation for change.
> >> Did you write it?
>
> >No. But I did bring it up at one of the hearings and that is when I
> >found out that there is legislation in the process of being written to
> >support the few schools that don't allow the questioning to make it
> >state wide. It helps to have contact with the child welfare people in
> >office.
>
> R R R R....too good. Greg got yet another one wrong. It isn't even a
> state law yet.
>
> Greg...oooohhhh Greg....see what you get when you don't look things up
> and make assumptions.
>
> >> > If the parents aren't there, the
> >> > schools, or at least the ones I have dealt with directly or with
> >> > families I have or am helping, will not allow the questioning to take
> >> > place. Of course, if the kids are in foster care and under the
> >> > custody of the state, they will allow it. The schools also respect
> >> > the Hatch letter and reverse maranda notifications.
>
> >> Remember though that MOST states have legislated
> >> that schools must allow CPS interrogation without
> >> any parent. These state statutes blatantly attempt
> >> to violate clearly established rights against such stuff.
>
> >> And of course the state and county courts will ignore
> >> the higher controlling law and go with the lame statute.
> >And hopefully, that is coming into change. It may be state by state
> >but at least the changes will happen. Things don't miraculously
> >happen overnight, Greg.
>
> Here you and I have a policy disagreement. If children cannot be
> questioned without the parents present abuse and neglect will not be
> uncovered in many more instances.
>
> The horror stories in media of parental abuse gone on for a long time
> until a child's death is more likely to take place if the
> investigation cannot include private questioning of witnesses.
>
> In no other area is there a demand that the accused can face their
> accuser BEFORE court. Only here. With children. Already vulnerable and
> dependent on the possible perp...even for their very lives if the
> allegations turn out to have been true.
>
> It would be a rare child that would NOT be highly conscious of the
> parent in the room during questioning.
>
> Something to think about.
>
> >> > > Who advised allowing the search of the kids bedroom?
>
> >> > There was a small mention that maybe the BOYFRIEND was perhaps taking
> >> > drugs. And maybe the girlfriend might be holding them for him or some
> >> > other accusation. There was no accusation that the mom was using or
> >> > has ever used drugs. On a sidenote, I did talk to my friend this
> >> > morning and the boy's tox screen came back negative so I'm pretty sure
> >> > an application for a search warrant wouldn't be granted.
>
> >> In other words the voluntary submission threw away
> >> rights that would have been protected.
> >> Judges here issue ilegal search warrants knowingly.
> >> Another Judge recused herself and later thought
> >> she was going to "unrecuse" herself.
> >> We also got an ALTERED transcript!
>
> >Actually, all suicide attempts have tox screens done. It's state
> >law. Was the person congnitive when the attempt was made? Under the
> >influence of drugs and/or alcohol?
>
> >> Your faith in good Judges might be a bit misplaced.
> >No, it's not misplaced at all.
>
> Of course not. Like all professions there are good ones and bad ones,
> and the good outnumber the bad by far. It's just that the bad stand
> out. ... often by their scarcity.
>
> >> > > As I have said OVER and OVER, because there ARE
> >> > > bad caseworkers and bad ones might even "act nice"
> >> > > just to con families, people need to prevent the kinds
> >> > > of intrusions LIT described here, period.
>
> >> > Greg, you are right. But, unfortunately the only way the people can
> >> > do this is if they are informed. If they aren't informed, they fall
> >> > into the same trap many of us have and listen to: I'm from CPS and
> >> > I'm here to help. Unfortunately, people don't go looking for the
> >> > information until AFTER their family has been visited. That is why I
> >> > have helped form a group for anyone involved or even interested in
> >> > knowing your rights when CPS comes knocking. The meetings are
> >> > informal for the most part and we welcome everyone to them.
>
> >> Do you find many agency goons trying to infiltrate?
> >> They DO try it here.
> >Oh sure, they show up. We have also had a couple lawyers from the
> >attorney general's office show up. So? We do tell all that come that
> >there maybe DCF workers, state attorneys, etc present. Its not like
> >we are hiding them so they can do some sort of sting of the
> >participants.
>
> Greg can't handle this.

I guess he missed the part where I said that we know they show up. We
know they are there and everyone that shows up is told of that
possibility before the group starts. I'm not surprised he missed it.
It seems to be a common thing with him.

> >> Fortunately Iowa DHS has actively familiarized massive
> >> numbers of people here with their abuses.
> >> Triple the national rate of removals will do that.
>
> >> More and more, people in working class blue collar
> >> neighborhoods lawyer up like they should, and
> >> the agency people are gradually making more and more
> >> moves on middle class neighborhoods.
> >Good for them!
>
> >> This will be the UNDOING of the agencies.
> >> Middle class people have more political clout
> >> and less tolerance for the sacharine sappy
> >> condescending tones of caseworkers.
> >And then they will move on up to the rich and famous and run into the
> >same thing. Either ppl that will bow to them and people that will
> >fight them and the in betweens.
>
> I found, having my own origins in Greg's "blue collar working class"
> his presumption that we are stupid and submissive rather insulting.
>
> But that's Greg. He didn't come from that class of people. He's from
> the middle class. So fancies himself superior. Bourgeoisie arrogance
> to the core. R R R R

Hmm, odd. I came from a very upper middle class family. My parents
struggled at times when I was younger but my entire family inherited
quite a bit of money in the mid-80's, then in the late 80's and
several other inheritances and other sources of income made life
extremely comfortable for us. Yet, here I am. A mom that has a
closed DCF case. My children were removed from my care. I had a
public defender (a very good one at that) because gee, guess what, I
didn't know any better at the time.

> >> > > Did you notice Kane, how LIT had the very same
> >> > > concern about an investigation that should
> >> > > have been SCREENED OUT before it began?
>
> >> > I didn't have the same concern that it should have been screened out.
> >> > Please don't put words in my mouth or twist what I said.
>
> >> You strongly questioned WHY it wasn't screened out.
> >> Is that a more accurate depiction?
> >No. I can only guess as to why it wasn't screened out and I believe
> >it was a pretty good guess.
>
> Then he's right. You did strongly question. On the other hand you did
> not for the reasons the Greg is spouting. So his BS is negated.

Hmm, I still may not have expressed myself accurately then. Again, my
apologies (being up most of the night with a cranky teenager will do
that to ya) I think that the concern from the school psychologist was
warranted based on how the daughter articulated herself. I do think
they are going over the top with the investigation but, that happens
all too much. If I didn't know this family at all, I would say yes,
just that statement from the daughter would warrant an investigation.
And with knowing the family, I think a one time visit was warranted to
find out exactly what is going on. Yes now, I do feel that the
investigator is trying to dig something up. Unfortunately, this is
all too common also. I also think the focus is on the wrong family at
this point.


> Greg's grasp of logic is greasy to say the least.

That's been painfully obvious for quite sometime.
>
>
> >> > The girl
> >> > said to her school psychologist she was scared of what the boy may do
> >> > if she broke up with him and she was nervous about how her mom might
> >> > react. In other words, the school psychologist err'ed on the side of
> >> > caution and called CPS to make sure the girl was safe. Possible risk
> >> > of abuse needs to be investigated, Greg. You know that as well as I
> >> > do. If there is no risk, they go away. If there is risk, hopefully
> >> > they keep the family intact and provide the needed services. But, it
> >> > does need to be addressed BEFORE there is abuse. If they didn't
> >> > investigate and the girl broke up with her boyfriend and the mother
> >> > beat her to a pulp, would you have the same opinion?
>
> >> > > This one should have been screened out.
>
> >> > > LIT knows it, I know it, the caseworker probably
> >> > > knew it, but the caseworkers supervisor probably
> >> > > told them to go out and DIG HARD.
>
> >> > I'm not a mind reader Greg. At first, yes it appeared that the
> >> > investigator thought that the report was hot air but her attitude did
> >> > change. Why? Who knows. I can't read her mind nor can I read the
> >> > casefile or any other possible evidence that warranted her change in
> >> > attitude.
>
> >> Change in attitude? SUPERVISOR orders.
> >Or finding out more information that turned her sour. I don't know.
> >You don't know. No one does except her and possibly her supervisor.
>
> GREG KNOWS what secrets lurk in the hearts of caseworker supervisors.
>
> Honest.

Hmm, Greg, how much do you charge per minute for you psychic advice
hotline?

> >> > > Months back I personally cross examined a caseworker
> >> > > (MSW "Adoption Specialist") who made certain moves
> >> > > ONLY because a supervisor told him to. He had absolutely
> >> > > no reason directly or logically to make the movves he did.
>
> >> > And this is pertinent to this thread, how? I don't care who you
> >> > interviewed or why, Greg.
>
> >> Change in attitude? SUPERVISOR orders.
> >*Yawn. Maybe, maybe not
>
> R R RR R ....but GREG KNOWS what sec...etc. etc. etc.

Again, I am requesting Greg's fees for his psychic advice hotline.

> And if you go with Greg, you will always win. Or sometimes win.
> Or...well, back to the drawing board.
Yeah win by going to TPR, or jail or getting a new case opened against
you. Or, or..I got it...having a child in long term foster care for
the last six years. Whatever was I thinking when I decided to listen
to Dan and Kane.

> >> > > Another caseworker admitted on the stand that she DOES
> >> > > understand our STRONG misgivings about the agency and
> >> > > how we have been treated by the system.
>
> >> > > Out of court she suggested we make a legal move
> >> > > toward ending our mess. We did, but between her hopeful
> >> > > comment and the day she was asked in court, her presentation
> >> > > did an amazing REVERSAL. OBVIOUSLY she
> >> > > is just a puppet on a string, and got ORDERSS from
> >> > > above that changed her course.
>
> >> > > In simpler terms, her supervisor yanked her choke collar.
>
> >> > Or she did further investigation into who you really are and what you
> >> > are all about. That is a bigger possibility, Greg.
>
> >> You think she sat through a four day court process and
> >> didn't know what we are about?
> >Who knows?
>
> GREG KNOWS what se.....oh ****, I give up.
>
> R R R R R R R
LOL, yeah Kane. Better to quit now before you go batty trying to
figure Greg out and what he knows and his logic.
>
>
> >> And then ran across some "smoking gun" weeks later?
> >Who knows?
>
> GREG kn....opps! Sorry.

I'll fill in the blanks for you, my dear friend. GREG KNOWS ****.
There ya go.

> >> > NEVER underestimate the office politics of a caseworker who is being
> >> > > TOLD BY SUPERVISORS TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN.
>
> >> > I never estimate the power of cheese either Greg. So?
>
> >> Good or bad worker, the SUPERVISOR may command
> >> behavior that is not justified, fair or reasonable.
> >> The SUPERVISOR did not see the process in court or
> >> the transcript.
> >So you are telling me that these supervisors hold their workers at bay
> >at gunpoint to change their attitudes? Threaten them with loss of
> >employment? There are people out there to protect people from such
> >threats.
>
> Well, the less astute of the anti government anti CPS folks have used
> the argument against the system that workers are protected by their
> unions.

> Kind of makes me wonder which is it, could it be both, or wahhh......
>
> Greg confuses me.....hehehehehe
LOL, I think Greg confuses himself at times.

> >> > > > I think family counseling is definitely the key for all parties
> >> > > > involved right now.
> >> > > > The mom needs to learn how to get her daughter to
> >> > > > be a little more open about her feelings and fears so that her mom CAN
> >> > > > protect her from those fears should the need arise. If the mom
> >> > > > doesn't know her daughter is scared of something, she can't very well
> >> > > > help remedy it. Her
>
> >> ...
>
> >> read more »
>
> >No accidental snip. Had to rush off to get my son off the school
> >bus. Sorry if you don't/can't understand that concept of being a
> >parent.
>
> >Oh, by the way Greg, the boy's father is his natural father. Not a
> >step parent (neither are you) or a couch potato boyfriend.
>
> LIT, GREG KNOWS....AAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLL......
>
> 0;)
I keep forgetting he does, Kane. And for that, I do apologize. So
Greg, the all knowing, couch potato, what will be the winning lottery
numbers for Saturday night's powerball drawing? If you tell me, I
promise to share some of it with you should I win. Honest, cross my
heart, pinky promise swear that I will share the prize money with you!

[lostintranslation]

>
> > > > > Who advised allowing the search of the kids bedroom?
>
> > > > There was a small mention that maybe the BOYFRIEND was perhaps taking
> > > > drugs. And maybe the girlfriend might be holding them for him or some
> > > > other accusation. There was no accusation that the mom was using or
> > > > has ever used drugs. On a sidenote, I did talk to my friend this

>
> > Actually, all suicide attempts have tox screens done. It's state
> > law. Was the person congnitive when the attempt was made? Under the
> > influence of drugs and/or alcohol?
>
> But what does that have to do with searching the GIRL's bedroom?
>
> You know, even if the kid had killed himself on METH,
> searching HER ROOM was absolutely NOT justified.
> And if it was done using a WARRANT, warrants
> have to be VERY SPECIFIC or they are illegal.
>


Ok Greg. It's obvious that I do need to spell this out to you in
extremely elementary terms. I will number this so it will be easy for
you to follow.
1. Ok, there was a suspicion presented to CPS that the boy may be
using the drugs and that the daughter may be holding on to his drugs
for him. Is that clear to you? ..........
*a minute or so later to allow that to sink in for anyone that was
unclear to this point*

2. The investigator followed up on this by asking the mother if she
would allow the investigator to go through the daughter's bedroom to
look for drugs. Is that clear to you? .........

3. I was there. I told her that the only way she could do a search
like that is with a search warrant. Is that clear to you? .........

Now with a suspicion of drug use by the boy being reported and the
fact that it was also said that it was suspected that the daughter may
be holding such drugs, it may be concluded that a search may be asked
for. It's not unreasonable but, I do think that because the by tested
negative for drugs, that the application for a search warrant would be
denied.

Now, is that clear to you Greg or do I need to simplify it even more
for you? Let me know as I am free tonight. After that, I will have
to check my schedule.