If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
<----------- KANE
Child was removed, with no removal hearing. Or should I say, there was
no "timely" hearing? A certain State Rep. inquired into the case, after being contacted with complaints. Said Rep. sit's in on subsequent hearings. Said Rep. isn't at all impressed with the way statutes were violated. The presiding Judge ordered, after apparently deciding that the allegations of spanking were without merit, that the child be returned and case closed. Later, CPS went to A DIFFERENT Judge to seek an order of removal, which was granted. The child was returned to bio. father, where it is alleged that sexual abuse began to occur. There has to be considerably more to this case we are not privy to. * Yes indeed there is. I can't wait until the case reaches it's conclusion so it may be discussed in full. At this time, I have a bias view in that I haven't heard much of the testimonials by the actual parties to this case. To say that one party is is right or wrong as to the specific details, would be premature of me. My question is this: Why would CPS/FIA seek out an order of removal from a different Judge, after the original Judge ruled that the child should be returned to the caretakers? It was obviously an attempt by CPS to conspire in the sexual abuse of a child. No doubt workers flocked to the father's home to participate in the orgy. ** No. But it was an obvious attempt to disregard a court order. This is why there is another hearing scheduled to go back before the first judge to explain CPS's position. A) The 1st Judge really wanted to rule in favor of CPS, but because of the technicality, (the timely hearing thingy) his hands were tied? What timely hearing thingy? * Thank you for pointing this out. The timely hearing thing is actually an issue of the 2nd removal. In Michigan, a hearing is to be held within 24 hours of an order for emergency removal, unless the order to remove was issued on a weekend, then it must be scheduled within 72 hours. This was not done for the 2nd removal. So A) Should read. The 1st Judge really wanted to rule in favor of CPS, but because of a technicality, his hands were tied? B) CPS tried to manipulate, for whatever reason, to achieve a desired outcome? You asked a question that no one has the answer to except to assume malfeasance or malpractice. Is that the case..and if so why would we think so? * That is the intent of the question. Did CPS judge shop? If so, why? I have personally experienced the state going to a different judge to seek an order, when the presiding judge said no. I am wondering if this was unique and case specific, or if it happens more often than one would think. We simply haven't enough information. This ng is rife with this kind of idle and often vicious speculation. Is CPS to be judged without adequate information on the off chance they may have been in the wrong? * I concur. That is why it is my intention to be present at the next hearing so I my make an informed opinion. As you ask....what could be their motive? Could it be the father conned them too? Now are they immune for being conned? Failed psychic advisors? Given the level of conning going on with the population that CPS serves, that MORE DON'T slip by is amazing. Most older workers are extremely cynical...because of all that...and it's seen by clients as them being seen as guilty and having to probe their innocence. * You got that right! It is amazing how some of these workers get duped. C) Other? Are we to assume you are as open to possible answers that did not in fact make CPS the villian? * That would be a correct assumption. I would like to know the reasoning behind CPS's decision to get an order, from a different judge, to remove this particular child but not the other children. I would like to attend the hearing so that I have both sides take on this. Why CPS was so concerned about this particular child and the measure's they took to get her removed, but not the other children, is confusing to me. Also at issue, is the way people hope to accomplish real reform. Yes, that IS a major issue..and sometimes headed down a very dangerous path. Some "reformers" want to harvest families currently in the throws of CPS battles to get their children back....exactly when they need to NOT be focused on windmill tilting and becoming "aborted baby placard" like fodder. * The people I've met that champion the cause of reform, have different approaches and idea's of how to achieve meaningful reform. I am trying to align myself with those who demonstrate the willingness and the ability to to effect positive change. "I contend that knowingly or uncousciously, more likely BOTH, the phony baloney anti CPS reform crowd WANTS THEM TO FAIL, TO LOSE THEIR CHILDREN....they make for better press...if it bleeds it leads, I believe on poster here recently, Mark, remarked." * See above. As I stood outside the courthouse, along with approx. 20+ other people, I observed that members of the community were curious as to why we were there. While everyone was there for the common goal of reform, we all elaborated our individual reasons why reform is necessary. A couple of interesting observations occured to me. I'm not a great fan of picket lines. They have limited use, and considerable potential to **** uninvolved citizens off. Letters to the editor, phone calls, email, faxes, letters to legislators and executive branch folk..governors and such, are I believe more effective. * I do all of those things as well. Additionally, there is the fact that a State Rep. has personally taken issue with this case. As far as ****ing the uninvolved citizen off, the only person who wasn't fond of the line was the 30 yr. veteran officer. Everyone else seemed very supportive to the idea of reform. "The MOST effective is to appear in front of hearing committees and panels and speak.............NO NOT AS THE MEMBER OF A GROUP....but as Ms Jane Smith, citizen...and tell YOUR story. Nothing is so newsworthy, nor politico staff attention getting as one single person that speaks out alone." * I have done this as well. "They all know how that looks to the public...in America, at any rate. WE LOVE the loner, the underdog, and will believe damn near anything that comes out of their mouth. Look at our entertainment, song, theater, art. It's ripe with this theme. Use it. " * I hope and pray this is true. 1) Of everyone (with the exception of one) that inquired, all had knowledge of CPS/FIA involvement, (read= child removal) either on a personal basis or a relative or friend basis. These people had a highly undesirable opinion of FIA/CPS practices. Even people who provide foster care and related services. The exception, was a retired 30 year veteran law enforcement officer who outright told us we were wrong for being there and expressing our distrust of the system. His take was; so what if these agencies make mistakes, they are actually underpaid for caring about kids. "Mmm...I'm not sure he's being accurately quoted...and remember, he got to see the results of child abuse and neglect up close and personal...probably way too close for him to sleep well at night...and is as biased in his way as you folks can be in yours." * My quotation of him is pretty accurate, he made his sentiments quite clear.. "If you tried to find families that had benefited by CPS intervention, and they are certainly out there, and do a balanced assessment of this agency, you would have more power...much more than you do now, to make reforms where CPS does fail, and needs change and support." * Yes. Absolutely. "It is POWERFUL in argument to point out the good traits of the opposition before getting around to ONE, and ONLY ONE negative trait at a time." * Thank you. That sounds like good advise. "Going in with nothing be the negative and making EVERYTHING CPS does wrong, turns off even the most dedicated objective listener. Reformers have a long way to go...well, those that don't already know and use what I am telling you. If the anti CPS phony balonies would learn to tone it down, to study and use some simple debating and interpersonal communication skills they would no longer be phonies, in my eyes, or that of the legislators or the remaining public." * So does this fit that description? Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:25:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Michelle" nineballgirlXXXX@XX... Add to Address Book Subject: Child protection reform bill. To: mmortimer@h... Mr. Mortimer, As a constituent in Jackson County, I urge you to stand behind the following bill, authored by Rep. Fulton Sheen. This bill will eliminate the neccessity for child welfare workers to have to interpret what constitute's severe physical injury and assist them in making better decisions when they are confronted with removing a child from the home. As you know, child welfare workers and CPS have a very difficult job to do. There are many tragic situations that confront them, that require them to use judgment calls while trying to carry out their duty to protect children. We hear of many horror stories, right here in Michigan, where children are not removed from abusive situations when CPS is called to intervene, leading to serious injury or death to the child, while others are removed from homes for reasons that do not warrant removal. I believe this is due to the judgement calls that are made by inexperienced or improperly trained workers and their supervisors who are charged with intrepeting laws that are too vague in scope. By better defining child protection laws, we can reach a common goal, that is to serve "in the best interest of the child" and hold child welfare workers accountable to the position in which they have been entrusted. I believe this bill to be to the benefit of all citizens. Not only will this offer protections to parents and children, but to the workers who serve families here in Michigan. The bill: HIB 6210 changes ONE LINE in Sec 8(3)(c) in the Child Protection Law (MCL 722.628) which has already been amended by Sheen in 2004 PA 195 (his previous bill passed into law). MCL 722.628 Sec. 8(3)(c) is CHANGED as follows...FROM THIS: (c) Abuse or neglect resulting in severe physical injury to the child requires medical treatment or hospitalization. For purposes of this subdivision and section 17, "severe physical injury" means brain damage, skull or bone fracture, subdural hemorrhage or hematoma, dislocation, sprains, internal injuries, poisoning, burns, scalds, severe cuts, or any other physical injury that seriously impairs the health or physical well-being of a child. TO THIS: (c) Abuse or neglect resulting in severe physical injury to the child requires medical treatment or hospitalization. For purposes of this subdivision and section 17, "severe physical injury" means brain damage, skull or bone fracture, subdural hemorrhage or hematoma, dislocation, sprains, internal injuries, poisoning, burns, scalds, severe cuts, or any other severe physical injury that threatens the life of a child. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Michelle XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Jackson, Mi 49203 (517) XXXXXXX Mark, were you the one behind this? (To be fair, he said that MOST CPS/FIA workers really do care about kids and mistakes happen. These workers are paid so very little for what they do.) He is correct. And except for a tiny minority of total ditzes, and all human organizations or demographics have those, criminals, dummies, whatever, the real cause of the mistakes is the job characteristics. People that abuse and neglect their children are, upon exposure, dedicated to, and able to immediately take on the coloration of the innocent...CPS then has to sort the two kinds of clients out. * That's why I am just flabbergasted that these cases of abuse and neglect, that are criminal acts, are not tried in the criminal courts, more than they are. If the standards of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt were employed in these cases, the state would probably have to rethink it's position on alot of the cases that floods the courts. I truly believe that caseworkers would see a reduction in caseloads and be able to offer more effective services to families, if the criminals in the real cases of abuse and neglect were criminally prosecuted. So many resources and man hours are wasted on cases where abuse and criminal neglect exsists, yet the only place the case is tried is in the civil court. If there is evidence of abuse and neglect, misdemeaners at the very least, then charge them criminally. If found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then start the TPR action. It does absolutely no good to anyone to offer the abusers all these services, then when the time limit expires, start TPR proceedings, but nevergo after them criminally. Save those resources for and direct them to families who are at risk for neglect, by way of prevention services. Let the scumbags do their time in jail. "They aren't psychics." * Nor should they be. Leave it up to the state to make the case of criminal abuse and neglect in criminal court. "And the caseloads are horrendous. In 1990, I surveyed one state...and was assured it was similar across the country, and caseloads were upwards of 60 per worker, with an occasional 80 here and there, mostly because some that needed to be closed couldn't be because the worker couldn't get the time to do all the work required....and the state was forbidding workers to log and collect for overtime. Even at that, working off the clock they STILL didn't have enough time to catch up." * If the decision to remove the child is made and the order is granted, then place the child. If the state has a case for criminal prosecution they do. If they don't, they don't. Close the case and move on to the next one. This removes the burden from the worker to the prosecutors office. If their is no criminal act, send the kid home, if that's what the family wants. Offer them services, if that's what they ask for. Then get the hell out of their business. "Fortunately the next budget hearing resulted in an increase and they hired people to do nothing, their first year, but close case...rather a good way to learn about how to do casework, in fact." * That's sounds like a sensible approach to me. *(Maybe if there was more accountability for the ones who don't care and just do it to get the check, I would have been a little more consoled about the "mistakes happen" part.) The old "accountability" charge. Well, you'll be surprised to know there IS such accountability. I got a supervisored fired. Took me five damn years because she kept a letter of intent to sue the state active for all that time and the state kept blocking any investigation of her thereby. * Congratulations. I hope I achieve the same outcome. So far there has been no accountability for the worker. Just a child who nearly died as a result of her willful disregard for childs safety, although she was fully informed of the childs severe medical condition and the consequences of not having proper medical treatment. The doctors had professionally consulted her, yet she went againstthe sound medical advise and acted without regard to the childs best interest. She should be held accountable, along with those that swiftly moved to cover her ass. "Finally caught her at her games and presented evidence," I have presented evidence as well. Irrefutable evidence at that, yet no one seems bothered by it. Just alot of ass covering and hoping it just goes away. It won't. "Gone for good." * Good. Let's get rid of the bad seeds and those who cover for them. 2) Although there were many that came from all around the State of Michigan for a common goal of educating the masses as to why reform is necessary, (and the public at large agree's) there is no clear cut message that we have as to how to make these changes. (Sorry for the long winded observances, it's a product of a public education? That, and I don't use spell check) NO matter. Not imporant. Much more important that you have identified that block to reform...and it's always the biggie. And here's the problem in CPS reform that so many face. A group of disaffected, and otherwise questionable folks, have been collecting "facts" about CPS for years, out of context, unwilling to have CPS explain what is standard practice and why those things are done, monumentally incorrect assumptions as to the motives of workers, or others involved in child protection. ** I'm glad that you brought this up. What I found interesting how little some workers knew of their own policy. I could cite their standard practice and when it applied, yet they knew not. I've never worked in child protection, but when I got my hands on the policy and proceedures manual, it seemed pretty clear to me what was and was not acceptable. How is it that I, with no formal training, was able to recite policy but the trained & educated could not? Very strange. "I keep suggesting people become a volunteer at CPS...you will have, in short order, the policy manuals not only at your disposal but likely as part of yoru training. CPS volunteers are bg checked, and trained." *See above. If I were to try and volunteer at CPS, I may not be accepted. But I will try and see where it goes. Thank you. "Here's the final problem....for you to keep your energy and commitment to reform (and we ALL must as citizens, do this if we want this government to stay OURS) in the face of findout out all the hot air is incorrect...or incorrect because it's based on ignorance, and the ensuing claims and conclusions are piles of manure." Yes. It is very difficult when first entering this realm, from a parents perspective. There are many stages that you go thru. For me, it goes like this: 1) How could this happen to me? I didn't do anything wrong. 2) Try to educate yourself on your States policy and proceedure, because you know somewhere along the line, they are being violated. They have to be. This just can't happen. 3) You stumble across support groups and see that you are not alone. You tell your story and start asking for advise. 4) Advice comes your way, some good, some bad. You have to decide if it makes sense or not and what course of action you will take. 5) You get this false sense of security that someone can help you. As well intentioned as some of the advice givers are, they cannot do anything that you can't do yourself. Don't get me wrong. I think the support I received was & is fantastic. I am very grateful for the people that came to my hearings and guided me to the right authorities. People who wrote letters and made phone calls. People who testified before house committee's and have done radio talk shows dealing with my case. It's absolutely critical to get that kind of exposure when you are in fact innocent. We had an interesting conversation with a former Michigan foster child (whom has authored a book and contributes articles to various adoption egroups)who knows the system from the inside. What I found incredible about this individual is his ability to emotionally detatch (perhaps a trait acquired while being shuttled to 11 different foster homes, "some good, some bad") and not harbor resentment. His TRUE objective is to spreahead reform and advocate for the child. " A voice for the voiceless" as he puts it. Ah, now you are getting somewhere. This supposed "victim" isn't doing the nutcase, "DESTROY CPS" dance. What does that tell you? * No, he isn't. It tells me that he truly cares about the plight of children in the system. So do I. I have been TPR'd. But I still have obtained a prepaid 2 year college tuition for my son who will "age out" I do not trust the state to provide him anything. The State of Michigan turned down Millions in "age out" funds last year. From what I gathered, this gentleman wants to focus on the positives that CPS has done and can do. Yet put emphasis, by way of forming public policy, on the rights of the child. Could he be more on target, or more rational? * No. I think he has hit the nail on the head. "hat that does is then highlight those areas that DO need reform, and in fact ARE a problem..with the law, with funding, with hiring, with education, with caseloads." * I completely agree. Having been in the system in that capacity, he is a much stronger voice for change than someone like myself who has been in the system in a different capacity. I still know that I have a very useful purpose in the area of reform for being able to bring my perspective to the table. "(Wouldn't hurt either if the dang schools of social work and CPS all over the country would get together and adopt a practice standards in child welfare manual..the content is pretty much available "off the shelf" if they'll do it)" * Here...Here! He empahtically stated " I do not advocate for biological parents. I do not advocate for foster parents. I do not advocate for adoptive parents. I do not advocate for CPS or (insert your states agency name here) I advocate for the child." Which is the attitude of a lot of caseworkers. And their supervisors. And their managers, administrators, and the state's primary executive, the governor. * But this is not the attitude of some. That SOME, is by it's very nature reflective of how alot of families view these agencies. The old adage; You are judged by the company you keep, is what would use to describe the sentiments of many. He went on to say that he observed our gathering and our message. He stated that he did not see many positives, rather alot of emphasis on the systems failures. ( IMNSHO, there are enough failures to warrant gathering and exposing the systems failures.) I do agree that we MUST find common ground and put the children's best interest first. YOu are, if you'll please not kill the messenger (I've been killed repeatedly and am thoroughly dead now so you can stop please....R R R R) a great deal of what YOU think are failures...meet the following criteria in part or collectively: you do not know why CPS did what it did; you are being tutored by the ignorant; you are being politicized by the patronising for their own ends..which they are NOT going to share knowledge of with you..they are, in a word, "hinkie;" and you are likely also being used by the very very guilty..who often are avoiding that truth themselves. We have such in this ng. **There is also a great deal that I KNOW to be the failures. Take for example a few caseworkers sitting in a court room prior to the start of a hearing. They are discussing and laughing about how 1 client now has housing to have an overnight visit with her children. There was monstorous laughter when the caseworker said that the housing consisted of a tent in a relatives back yard. Now when I commented how nice it was to see "family preservation at work" The laughter stopped and one worker crudely say's " Not in your case" and rolled her eyes. Now, that mother who had to live in a tent in a relatives back yard, was no closer to getting her children returned to her than I was. But at least she got to see hers. Here's another failure. (I wrote this to another group and it's excerpted.) ""Currently in Michigan, if a child has been in foster care for 15 of the last 22 months, than a petition for termination can be filed. Now, while we have "reasonable efforts" for family preservation on the books, (that could be ample time if the workers actually did their jobs and provided services that were available)reasonable efforts are interpreted rather vaguely from worker to worker, agency to agency. The reasonable efforts and 15 month rule has not been an effective measure of reuniting families. I'm going to use my case as an example to cite one workers idea of reasonable efforts. I had a false allegation of abandonment made against me. THe persons who made this charge later recanted it in front of the judge, on the record. The Judge asked the state. "Why are we even here? Why is this in my courtroom?" But, the judge didn't order the case closed. Rather the state jumped up and stated they wanted more time to make sure that reasonable efforts had been met and they requested a review in 90 days. Now, in that 90 day period, the worker employed every tactic in the book to make my situation so bad that when we had the next hearing (that XXXXXattended) all hope was lost. For example; They had transferred my visitation site to another county and I had no transportation. I had to ride a grey hound bus for 8 hours a day, requiring that I take a day off work EVERY WEEK! I was ordered to have weekly visits with their psychiatrist, which meant I had to take time from work. EVERY WEEK! I was ordered to complete a parenting class, that the worker said I didn't need when she stated " I know your a good mom, but just do this and it will look better for you when you go back to court." That meant I had to take more time off work, EVERY WEEK! So now from the employers perspective, here's an employee who has to take 16-20 hours out of 40 off of work EVERY WEEK! The employer could only be so flexible. Now I'm out of a job. The job search for a new job didn't go over well. Everytime I explained to a prospective employer that I needed every Monday off for this, 6 hours on Tuesday for that and an additional 4 hours off on Wednesday for this, to comply with a court approved case plan, I wasn't a very marketable employee. Without a job and an income, I wasn't able to keep the housing that I had and I was forced to move in to a friends apartment as a room mate. Now I didn't have suitable housing to bring my children home to or an income to provide for them if I did. So from this perspective, the worker made every "reasonable effort" to see me fail. My case is by no means unique in this facet. Now let's examine how the worker could have proceeded to exhaust reasonable effort towards reunification. The worker was asked by my childrens caretaker if she could facilitate the visits and coordinate them around my work schedule. In fact, the caretaker told the judge that I was more than welcome in her home and she encouraged that I spend more time with my children as the separation was starting to really negatively affect them. Seeings how the charge against me was neglect, that was later recanted on the record and there was never any question whatsoever by any party as to the safety of my children while in my company, this was more than "reasonable". The worker adamantly denied her request and scheduled me 1 hour visits once a week, supervised, at her office. There is absolutely NOTHING anywhere in my case that would warrant supervised visitation. That's an example of an "unreasonable effort". Had she approved the caretakers request, it may have made the difference between me keeping or losing my job, income, housing etc... So we need to expand the definition of "reasonable efforts" at the legislative level as well as the agency level. Another issue that needs to be SERIOUSLY addressed and changed is "Qualified Immunity" The confidentiality laws are packaged and wrapped so tight, that they are a shield for workers who don't perform ethically or legally. If you can prove that a worker was acting illegally in carrying out the duties, it does no good. The qualified immunity that's granted them literally allows them to get away with murder. My youngest son was on the verge of death as a result of the negligent actions of the caseworker. The worker was fully informed as to the medical condition of my son, yet she acted with intentional malice and willful disregard to my son's safety and knowingly placed him at risk for imminent harm. The same standards that CPS uses to remove a child from the home, is the very practice that the worker engaged in when she she jeopardized the safety of the child. Yet, she was not held accountable BECAUSE of the Immunity protection that was afforded her. And quite grateful for, I'm sure. We need to demand that the laws on the books are enforced Immunity and penalties stiffened when a worker has violated the law......."" "Now in there somewhere, hopefully, there are those such as you that want to cut through the bs. Wanna borrow my machete?" May I please? lol. "To study CPS you have to read and think adn discuss with people you see as opponnents, just what they think is going on, or how they see it, and them come to your own conclusions. If you give yourself up to the Ferns, and Dougs, and Gregs of the issue, and buy into the emotions they are trying to infect you with, how objective do you think your examination of truth about CPS will be?" * Now I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm not the dullest either. I've always been pretty good about evaluating a matter at hand and deciding which way to proceed. I'm not familiar with Doug's or greg's writings, I have read post by fern. Because I have read posts by fern, I can comment to that. I think we need ferns in this movement. If their were no ferns posting these articles and giving her commentary, then we would have is a very dull and slow moving wheel. When I read some of the links that are posted by others, it keeps that fire lit under my ass. Everyday, there are rants and raves about how CPS does families wrong. I am quite guilty of this myself and I have absolutley no intention of stopping this practice. But I have learned after speaking with this gentleman, that the method I employ and the subjects that I employ it to, are drastically going to change. YOu have only one more step to go to become a "reformer." Insist on finding the truth for yourself. And when you are gladhanded and treated to these "horrors of CPS" stories, think about the risk you take of being patronized right out of rational thought. * That is the very reason that I decided to not just take someones word for it, but actually attend some hearings myself. The last hearing that I attended, while I didn't actually go in the courtroom, I did speak with an aid from the State rep.s office over dinner. I trust that the information that was given to me was accurate as to not shame the name of the boss by putting misinformation out there. I am treated to these CPS horror stories, yes. SOme of them are with merit. I know mine is. Others may disagree and think that there's got to be more to it, and that's fine. But I know the truth and so does every worker and participant in my case. My family and friends and most importantly, my children know the truth. So what strangers think of my case, or me for that matter, is really irrelevant. My focus isn't to scare good families into taking there children and running for the hills because of what happened to me. I'd like to see the system changed so that what has happened to me, doesn't happen to others. An yes, that old "accountability" thing is a big part of it. I was honored to have made this gentlemans acquaintance. I hope to work closely with him in the future. I realized today, perhaps there is no one better to try to give voice to the voiceless, than someone who WAS voiceless and at the mercy of a system that had it's failures then....and today. Isn't it interesting that he neither acts like nor claims to be a victim of CPS? *He's an adult in his 40-50's now, and know's that he's been victimized by the system that he entered all those years ago when his young mother placed him up for adoption as an infant. There was never any adoption. Just alot of foster placements. But to answer your question, No he does not publicly claim to be a victim. He publicly states that we need to work on reform in a positive way and I believe that. "While I certainly hear individual workers, and individual foster families, pitch a bitch about their personal issues, the ALWAYS set them aside in favor of the child when it comes to delivering." ALWAYS? The good one's maybe. The worker in my case almost delivered my son to his death. What's worse is that it didn't even phase her. She never showed any remorse or compassion for me. In fact, she started making our relations even more strained. She actually started treating me worse and distanced me even further from my children. Go figure. "Do you see the 'reformers' doing that" * The one's that I care to be associated with do. "ARe there bad workers? You betcha. I did a little housecleaning among them when I helped get that supervisor fired...just wandered around to their lunch hangouts and buttonholed the ones I knew protected her..and had a little chat. I like to get personal. It was a Fish or Cut Bait talk...as in clean up your act or I'll introduce you to a plumber that needs a helper." * I wonder how many of the 40 that came forward, had reported this worker previously. Do you know? Officially or off the record if any complaints were lodged by co-workers? "There are a few people, as in any profession, that shouldn't be doing it." Right on! "One final thought. How could there be the volume of evil intent and malpractice that the anti CPS folks proclaim?" I don't think the intent is evil initially. I think what turns things south is when parents, or other's, find out that these workers are violating standard policy and the law, and call them to the carpet. Be it ego or fear of job loss and prosecution, I don't know. But I do know that the evil exsists and there is even protection for it. Is at as wide scale as what we are led to believe? Probably not. "Does that make sense to you? If it makes sense to you that there is something wrong with that proclamation, then where will you go to find out what IS wrong, and study how to fix it? YOu just going to stand around and diddle with a pile of manure you can never overcome, when one or two rows in the garden needs cultivating, and you CAN do that?" * I am trying to study how to fix it, while making my vegetables grow. "The best way of all to learn though would be to apply for a job and work for CPS for a year or two." * Again, that's good in theory, but that avenue may not be open to me. I don't think the workers and agency that failed me and my son's would welcome me too kindly. I don't think they want the fox guarding the hen house. But you never know. "Do you REALLY care about the child as that Ex foster child does?" *ABSOLUTELY!!! All my life I have involved myself in projects that try to make a positive impact on the life of children. From being a reading mentor, cub scouts, big brother/big sister and most recently, fundraising and education awareness for juvenile diabete's. So yes, I really do care about the child. "I did a yearlong combined practicum-workstudy project with a state CPS in 1980-81. Got to practice my minor on them..anthropology, without them even knowing. I blended in with the tribe by the third month." * Heheheheh! I like you. So do you have it available online? "What did I find? About 90% of what I believed about CPS went down the drain. I was highly ****ed that I had been sold a bill of goods about CPS, and propagandized by people not unlike the little pack of hyenas you have run into here." * That's encouraging. I'm glad that your faith in CPS was restored and you had a positive experience. "Even the media misinformed me" * What can I say to that? Other than, I'm not suprised. The media misinforms everyday. "I only found two vampires, a single ghoul, and just one small coven of witches in CPS employ" * So you are familiar with my case too? lol. Thanks for the response. Looking forward to more talks with you. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:30:15 -0400, "nineballgirl"
wrote: Child was removed, with no removal hearing. Or should I say, there was no "timely" hearing? A certain State Rep. inquired into the case, after being contacted with complaints. Said Rep. sit's in on subsequent hearings. Said Rep. isn't at all impressed with the way statutes were violated. The presiding Judge ordered, after apparently deciding that the allegations of spanking were without merit, that the child be returned and case closed. Later, CPS went to A DIFFERENT Judge to seek an order of removal, which was granted. The child was returned to bio. father, where it is alleged that sexual abuse began to occur. There has to be considerably more to this case we are not privy to. * Yes indeed there is. I can't wait until the case reaches it's conclusion so it may be discussed in full. At this time, I have a bias view in that I haven't heard much of the testimonials by the actual parties to this case. To say that one party is is right or wrong as to the specific details, would be premature of me. My question is this: Why would CPS/FIA seek out an order of removal from a different Judge, after the original Judge ruled that the child should be returned to the caretakers? It was obviously an attempt by CPS to conspire in the sexual abuse of a child. No doubt workers flocked to the father's home to participate in the orgy. ** No. But it was an obvious attempt to disregard a court order. This is why there is another hearing scheduled to go back before the first judge to explain CPS's position. Apparently...but, as I asked, can you speculate as to why...what would be their reason....just being defiant for the fun of it? A) The 1st Judge really wanted to rule in favor of CPS, but because of the technicality, (the timely hearing thingy) his hands were tied? What timely hearing thingy? * Thank you for pointing this out. The timely hearing thing is actually an issue of the 2nd removal. In Michigan, a hearing is to be held within 24 hours of an order for emergency removal, unless the order to remove was issued on a weekend, then it must be scheduled within 72 hours. This was not done for the 2nd removal. Would the reason, judicially speaking, for the first out of home placement work in your state for the second also if the two events are close enough together? I don't know your state, of course so I have to ask. So A) Should read. The 1st Judge really wanted to rule in favor of CPS, but because of a technicality, his hands were tied? B) CPS tried to manipulate, for whatever reason, to achieve a desired outcome? You asked a question that no one has the answer to except to assume malfeasance or malpractice. Is that the case..and if so why would we think so? * That is the intent of the question. Did CPS judge shop? If so, why? I have personally experienced the state going to a different judge to seek an order, when the presiding judge said no. I am wondering if this was unique and case specific, or if it happens more often than one would think. I do know of occasions when CPS, rightly so, sent someone of more authority...usually a regional director, when a judge orders a child home..and the worker convinces the director the child would be endangered. Usually there are forensics and or police reports, transcripts of interviews, etc. given in evidence, but with the weight of the higher up CPS manager behind it. Possibly it's not so much "shopping" as being concerned for the safety of the child.....and a known stubborn judge. Just speculating, since you asked. We simply haven't enough information. This ng is rife with this kind of idle and often vicious speculation. Yep...that is a problem. The assumption that CPS is always in the wrong, no matter what it does, does boil down to a kind of viciousness. For my side, you may note that I do NOT assume that all parents are wrong all the time. Between the two factions here, which do you think is being more reasonable in their approach? I refuse to assume in either case, unless there is blatantly obvious evidence presented...third party stuff, for instance from an objective source. And I apply that pretty equally to CPS (and am branded an "apologist" for trying to be objective...and not go conclusion jumping) and to families in trouble with CPS or involved in child welfare issues as an alledged perp. What you will see here is highly partisan positions that won't maintain any objectivity for any event, as long as it can be construed as CPS fault. That goes very much to judging parents charged with abuse or neglect, without waiting for a trial, as long as it fits the needs here to make CPS in the wrong. Is CPS to be judged without adequate information on the off chance they may have been in the wrong? No, and I do not think parents should be either. I think speculation that is presented as such, instead of outright insistence of guild sans evidence, is pretty popular here, if it reflects badly on CPS. I'd say there is a clear bias. But then this wouldn't be the first time I have and been ignored. * I concur. That is why it is my intention to be present at the next hearing so I my make an informed opinion. Hope you make it. Hopefully you'll come back and debrief with us. As you ask....what could be their motive? I can speculate, as I did, but I'm no closer to an answer than you or anyone else here. Could it be the father conned them too? Now are they immune for being conned? Failed psychic advisors? Given the level of conning going on with the population that CPS serves, that MORE DON'T slip by is amazing. Most older workers are extremely cynical...because of all that...and it's seen by clients as them being seen as guilty and having to probe their innocence. * You got that right! It is amazing how some of these workers get duped. I can't agree. It's amazing so few instances happen. One quail is easy to hunt, but a large flock coming at you, you are bound to have some get by. C) Other? Are we to assume you are as open to possible answers that did not in fact make CPS the villian? * That would be a correct assumption. I would like to know the reasoning behind CPS's decision to get an order, from a different judge, to remove this particular child but not the other children. I would like to attend the hearing so that I have both sides take on this. Why CPS was so concerned about this particular child and the measure's they took to get her removed, but not the other children, is confusing to me. Well, on mental health work with families we are quite familiar with the "scapegoated child" as a pretty common phenomena in abuse. They certainly pop up in the family therapy sessions. In fact often when we had a child in treatment (teens in my cases) we could do great things for THAT kid in teaching them not to be the scape goat....want to guess what would happen in a family with more than one child? You go it...the other child would fall into the role as the first child absented themselves from it. Also at issue, is the way people hope to accomplish real reform. Yes, that IS a major issue..and sometimes headed down a very dangerous path. Some "reformers" want to harvest families currently in the throws of CPS battles to get their children back....exactly when they need to NOT be focused on windmill tilting and becoming "aborted baby placard" like fodder. * The people I've met that champion the cause of reform, have different approaches and idea's of how to achieve meaningful reform. I am trying to align myself with those who demonstrate the willingness and the ability to to effect positive change. That can be done on the large scale, that is the public work, and on the individual as well. Winning one case at a time. It's far less difficult than would APPEAR by the way some folks on this ng make CPS an unruly, out of control, unbeatable monster, except by total destruction... Yet we have one poster here that time after time...almost to the point of tedium, he's one some many times, he beats them...and using nothing from OUTSIDE the system except technically expert opinion, such as medical research, but by their own mistakes and oversights. He's fact based. And strict about it. He doesn't speculate with flights of fancy (not that he does have a negative opinion of CPS) and take off in pointless directions. He deals strictly with what IS, not what some of these dreamers here delude themselves with. "I contend that knowingly or uncousciously, more likely BOTH, the phony baloney anti CPS reform crowd WANTS THEM TO FAIL, TO LOSE THEIR CHILDREN....they make for better press...if it bleeds it leads, I believe on poster here recently, Mark, remarked." * See above. As I stood outside the courthouse, along with approx. 20+ other people, I observed that members of the community were curious as to why we were there. While everyone was there for the common goal of reform, we all elaborated our individual reasons why reform is necessary. A couple of interesting observations occured to me. I'm not a great fan of picket lines. They have limited use, and considerable potential to **** uninvolved citizens off. Letters to the editor, phone calls, email, faxes, letters to legislators and executive branch folk..governors and such, are I believe more effective. * I do all of those things as well. Additionally, there is the fact that a State Rep. has personally taken issue with this case. That would be less a public display then, and a case specific approach. I KNOW that's most powerful because I've walked people through it, and used that approach myself. As far as ****ing the uninvolved citizen off, the only person who wasn't fond of the line was the 30 yr. veteran officer. Everyone else seemed very supportive to the idea of reform. "The MOST effective is to appear in front of hearing committees and panels and speak.............NO NOT AS THE MEMBER OF A GROUP....but as Ms Jane Smith, citizen...and tell YOUR story. Nothing is so newsworthy, nor politico staff attention getting as one single person that speaks out alone." * I have done this as well. And upped your odds of winning tremendously. Some here would have it that you should confine yourself to whining in a newsgroup on The Web, and collecting pity points when possible. "They all know how that looks to the public...in America, at any rate. WE LOVE the loner, the underdog, and will believe damn near anything that comes out of their mouth. Look at our entertainment, song, theater, art. It's ripe with this theme. Use it. " * I hope and pray this is true. You'd doubt we are champions of the underdog? My goodness. It's been part of humankind for all of history. Win or lose we pity and hope for the underdog. The little guy. 1) Of everyone (with the exception of one) that inquired, all had knowledge of CPS/FIA involvement, (read= child removal) either on a personal basis or a relative or friend basis. These people had a highly undesirable opinion of FIA/CPS practices. Even people who provide foster care and related services. The exception, was a retired 30 year veteran law enforcement officer who outright told us we were wrong for being there and expressing our distrust of the system. His take was; so what if these agencies make mistakes, they are actually underpaid for caring about kids. "Mmm...I'm not sure he's being accurately quoted...and remember, he got to see the results of child abuse and neglect up close and personal...probably way too close for him to sleep well at night...and is as biased in his way as you folks can be in yours." * My quotation of him is pretty accurate, he made his sentiments quite clear.. "If you tried to find families that had benefited by CPS intervention, and they are certainly out there, and do a balanced assessment of this agency, you would have more power...much more than you do now, to make reforms where CPS does fail, and needs change and support." * Yes. Absolutely. "It is POWERFUL in argument to point out the good traits of the opposition before getting around to ONE, and ONLY ONE negative trait at a time." * Thank you. That sounds like good advise. "Going in with nothing be the negative and making EVERYTHING CPS does wrong, turns off even the most dedicated objective listener. Reformers have a long way to go...well, those that don't already know and use what I am telling you. If the anti CPS phony balonies would learn to tone it down, to study and use some simple debating and interpersonal communication skills they would no longer be phonies, in my eyes, or that of the legislators or the remaining public." * So does this fit that description? Well, let's see: Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:25:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Michelle" nineballgirlXXXX@XX... Add to Address Book Subject: Child protection reform bill. To: mmortimer@h... Mr. Mortimer, As a constituent in Jackson County, I urge you to stand behind the following bill, authored by Rep. Fulton Sheen. This bill will eliminate the neccessity for child welfare workers to have to interpret what constitute's severe physical injury and assist them in making better decisions when they are confronted with removing a child from the home. As you know, child welfare workers and CPS have a very difficult job to do. There are many tragic situations that confront them, that require them to use judgment calls while trying to carry out their duty to protect children. We hear of many horror stories, right here in Michigan, where children are not removed from abusive situations when CPS is called to intervene, leading to serious injury or death to the child, while others are removed from homes for reasons that do not warrant removal. Supposition that is not well founded. There are other reasons as well. CPS doesn't leave a child because they see risk and don't care, or can't tell...but often because they know they do not have enough to convince a judge to remove the child. And many cases show that there was NO prior hints, that without that same kind of intervention decried at the end of the sentence above, they would have missed. There will always be this problem. No law is going to change that. And you can train a person up to a certain level, and you can have one experienced up to a certain level that would be the best possible, and STILL, either by sheer luck, or their own perceptual characteristics, they will miss in both directions. When I did my practicum/workstudy in 1980, a CPS manager and my practicum supervisore wanted me to go to work for them...because I happened to have a very high hit rate on certain kinds of abuse situations that are very hard to pin down. I was doing in-home support of single mother clients of CPS. And again and again the hair would go up on my neck, and on closer inspection there was a sex abuser accessing the children. I had worked with them in prison settings and done a bit of consulting with a psychiatrist that did prison hospital work with them. Just absorbed something that sensitized my filters I guess. I believe this is due to the judgement calls that are made by inexperienced or improperly trained workers and their supervisors who are charged with intrepeting laws that are too vague in scope. Assumption one is good. Assumption two is not. "vague in scope" is pretty much meaningless. Think about it. Syntaxically it means nothing. "Scope" is not something concrete that can be measured, at least not in this context. Scope has two dimensions; width and height or depth. One doesn't define a problem by it's scope...but buy it's content. The speaker is trying to say that the laws are vague...they should say that. That wording suggests that the application of the laws is the problem, when the laws themselves lack clarity...or they are more subtle than I can fathom. By better defining child protection laws, we can reach a common goal, that is to serve "in the best interest of the child" and hold child welfare workers accountable to the position in which they have been entrusted. It would do, at this point, to interject some actually child welfare statute describing injury or neglect in a way that leaves it open to subjective interpretation. Failure to do so is a red flag to advisory staff folks that work for politicos...it's their job to apply critical thinking to such claims. I believe this bill to be to the benefit of all citizens. Not only will this offer protections to parents and children, but to the workers who serve families here in Michigan. The bill: HIB 6210 changes ONE LINE in Sec 8(3)(c) in the Child Protection Law (MCL 722.628) which has already been amended by Sheen in 2004 PA 195 (his previous bill passed into law). MCL 722.628 Sec. 8(3)(c) is CHANGED as follows...FROM THIS: (c) Abuse or neglect resulting in severe physical injury to the child requires medical treatment or hospitalization. For purposes of this subdivision and section 17, "severe physical injury" means brain damage, skull or bone fracture, subdural hemorrhage or hematoma, dislocation, sprains, internal injuries, poisoning, burns, scalds, severe cuts, or any other physical injury that seriously impairs the health or physical well-being of a child. TO THIS: (c) Abuse or neglect resulting in severe physical injury to the child requires medical treatment or hospitalization. For purposes of this subdivision and section 17, "severe physical injury" means brain damage, skull or bone fracture, subdural hemorrhage or hematoma, dislocation, sprains, internal injuries, poisoning, burns, scalds, severe cuts, or any other severe physical injury that threatens the life of a child. Do you really feel that there is an improvement in "scope"....let's change that to "clarity" just to make it easy.....in the rejection of "seriously impairs the health or physical well-being of a child" and replacement with "severe physical injury that threatens the life of a child?" Is this suggesting, or asking explicity for there being ONLY a death threat level as acceptable for intervention, or does "life" mean the day to day activity we refer to as living our lives? It needs much more clarity to be useful. I would suggest the following, if the intent is to make "risk of death" the criteria: "physical or psychological injury that threatens the child with death as a result." The offering the new bill makes is really no clearly than the one that came before, and in fact could be argued that it is MORE vague. And to put hair on the melon, it is asking for a standard so high that many children will be injured for life if it passes and is enforced as written. It makes citizens have to restrain workers from acting unless they can honestly say they believe there was a threat of death. Do we really want children injured, abused, and neglected, up to that level before CPS can intervene? Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Michelle XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Jackson, Mi 49203 (517) XXXXXXX Mark, were you the one behind this? (To be fair, he said that MOST CPS/FIA workers really do care about kids and mistakes happen. These workers are paid so very little for what they do.) He is correct. And except for a tiny minority of total ditzes, and all human organizations or demographics have those, criminals, dummies, whatever, the real cause of the mistakes is the job characteristics. People that abuse and neglect their children are, upon exposure, dedicated to, and able to immediately take on the coloration of the innocent...CPS then has to sort the two kinds of clients out. * That's why I am just flabbergasted that these cases of abuse and neglect, that are criminal acts, are not tried in the criminal courts, more than they are. I am confounded by the use of "more" in this contest. They are, with the risk of "death" or actual death, so tried. The defining determination is in statute. You may, for instance, us corporal punishment on your child to the point of injury, and then you have crossed the line. Knowing where that line is, is of course not an easy task, but it's NOT one we want the state deciding. That would be constraining parents in their right to discipline (by the way I'm an anti spanker........with a brain). So are we to restrain CPS to not intervene then until not only is their injury but it MUST be life threatening? If the standards of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt were employed in these cases, the state would probably have to rethink it's position on alot of the cases that floods the courts. I'm not clear on your meaning. You are asking for all child welfare cases that are now tried at the level of civil courts, as most are, be moved to criminal court and everyone not meeting the criminal court standards to be cut loose to go and abuse and neglect until they reach that standard, even if it kills the child? We have civil courts for a very good reason. In most matters they are courts that settle disputes BEFORE THEY REACH THE POINT of a criminal court charge. Battling neighbors take their cases to a civil court, before they start whaling on each other and end up in criminal court. CPS takes parents to civil court before they have done serious damage to their children. I think, if you looked much closer that you would find that cases that would be criminal assault, in child welfare, DO go to criminal court. I truly believe that caseworkers would see a reduction in caseloads and be able to offer more effective services to families, if the criminals in the real cases of abuse and neglect were criminally prosecuted. They are. What I think you are saying, given that you claim "the courts" would be less crowded, would result and the crowds just moving from one venue to another. If you wait long enough, and usually not all that long, a good deal of the neglect (the most deadly of child risk behaviors) and abuse that is still low level, would escalate as they do now when not caught...and it would reach criminal charge levels. And we would have more dead and injured children, the latter growing up badly. So many resources and man hours are wasted on cases where abuse and criminal neglect exsists, yet the only place the case is tried is in the civil court. On what do you base that assumption? If there is evidence of abuse and neglect, misdemeaners at the very least, then charge them criminally. If found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then start the TPR action. You are jumping to extremes. A TPR may not be warranted. Any more than a jail sentence is always given for an assault. It does absolutely no good to anyone to offer the abusers all these services, then when the time limit expires, start TPR proceedings, but nevergo after them criminally. Not give the child a chance to not lose their parent? The problem is one of balance...and taken advantage of by less than honorable self styled reformers. Think your way through. Start with the child. It's a rare child that even with an abusive and neglectful parent, wants to lose them forever. They want the abuse to stop, if they are old enough to understand and articulate that. Even sexually abused children will say they want it to stop, but they don't want to lose their parent. Next to think about, but still with the child in mind, parent's are not a replaceable person in a child's life, from a developmental standpoint. And expecially the primary caregiver, most often the mother (they DO kill more children at a rate higher than any other of those that kill childen). Everything else is second best, or worse, to do to the child. If the parent can be rehabilitated, as they should be, for the child's sake. Save those resources for and direct them to families who are at risk for neglect, by way of prevention services. Let the scumbags do their time in jail. Basically you are describing the system as it now exists. Those that are charged criminally usually do NOT recieve any services. Their children do....and sometimes there is a non-offending parent at home and the child and they receive services. Have you ever really dug into a CPS website of a state describing their services in detail? It's all out there. "They aren't psychics." * Nor should they be. Leave it up to the state to make the case of criminal abuse and neglect in criminal court. Then who decides if the children are just "at risk" and the family be afforded services to remove that risk? "And the caseloads are horrendous. In 1990, I surveyed one state...and was assured it was similar across the country, and caseloads were upwards of 60 per worker, with an occasional 80 here and there, mostly because some that needed to be closed couldn't be because the worker couldn't get the time to do all the work required....and the state was forbidding workers to log and collect for overtime. Even at that, working off the clock they STILL didn't have enough time to catch up." * If the decision to remove the child is made and the order is granted, then place the child. If the state has a case for criminal prosecution they do. If they don't, they don't. Close the case and move on to the next one. Your plan would suppose that there is no risk to the child, and until their have been injured or worse, killed, then there is no case. Many would like that as a solution. I don't care for it, having seen far too many children who were abused and negected to a point somewhere below that "serious" criminal charges level. Many a relative has gasped to find out what happened to the child that was NOT in that fictitious 3% of serious abuses category. Most sexual molestation would likely fall in that category, because one, most happen without physical trauma, and two, it is very difficult to prove emotional and psychological trauma...but it certainly does exist. Problem with it is though that much of it has to escalate to a rather high level to be apparent....and some developmental marks are points of departure....once passed a human being may NEVER get a chance at them again. Physical, emotional/social, psychological, intellectual potentials not just lost.....but gone to be replaced by "survival" behaviors. Many "survival" are illegal behaviors. Too many relatives I've helped have found that out the hard way....be sure, when I asked them if they were prepared for the children's who records and psych-vals, and behavioral journals from foster parents showed they were very sick children indeedy, gave me that old "love them enough and everything will be alright" crock of ripe manure. This removes the burden from the worker to the prosecutors office. Then you plan on all charges being tried in criminal court, or not at all. Who is going to decide when a family has done lessor offenses and just needs services? I'll tell you who...the same people that do it now..the decision maker.......the judge in a civil court, family court. Nothing will change much at all. Real reform is going to come by the kind of auto mechanic work tuning a car to precision race standards. THAT is what 's needed. We'll never get it but it's a goal that is worth working on and moving everyone further down that path. Better training, better pay, better educated coming in the door, caseworkers. MUCH lower caseloads, meaning more of them, so that more hours can be spent on professional development. I saw, from the 90s when they got around 50 hours a year, ANYONE THAT WANTED IT, to a few hours per year, as little as 15, apportioned out to supervisory units of from 8 to 15 people....to divid up among them. The agency had nothing left in the budget for more. There was, as far as I recall, no federal audit item for staff training to meet compliance standards. Guess then what got the attention and money? If their is no criminal act, send the kid home, if that's what the family wants. IN other words if the child is battered, raped, starved, but there is no criminal court level acceptable evidence, send the child home until there is. Many a charged criminal does NOT get convicted, and when they do, often on lessor charges. I've seen way too many child molesters get off, family and friends of family, that everyone KNOWS they did it, the child said they did it, another child witnessed it, but it does NOT meet the level of proof required for conviction in a criminal court. NOW CPS has some power, not enough, to keep that person away from the child ... in your scenario they will not. Offer them services, if that's what they ask for. Then get the hell out of their business. "Offer?" Yah gotta be kidding. How many would accept services? Don't you know any child abusers? They not only plead innocent, but they are hostile to the idea that they don't know how to parent. "Fortunately the next budget hearing resulted in an increase and they hired people to do nothing, their first year, but close case...rather a good way to learn about how to do casework, in fact." * That's sounds like a sensible approach to me. Up to a point it was. The backlog was mostly children waiting to be free for adoption...one cannot recruit a family for them until that point...a reliquishment or TPR, without a judges order, and those don't come easily..unless momma and daddy are in prison, or been missing for years. Or a couple of other kids have already been lost and the parent hasn't changed their partying ways. *(Maybe if there was more accountability for the ones who don't care and just do it to get the check, I would have been a little more consoled about the "mistakes happen" part.) The old "accountability" charge. Well, you'll be surprised to know there IS such accountability. I got a supervisored fired. Took me five damn years because she kept a letter of intent to sue the state active for all that time and the state kept blocking any investigation of her thereby. * Congratulations. I hope I achieve the same outcome. So far there has been no accountability for the worker. Just a child who nearly died as a result of her willful disregard for childs safety, although she was fully informed of the childs severe medical condition and the consequences of not having proper medical treatment. The doctors had professionally consulted her, yet she went againstthe sound medical advise and acted without regard to the childs best interest. She should be held accountable, along with those that swiftly moved to cover her ass. No doubt. And do we actually have all the information involved? The idea that a single worker acts alone is a very popular one around here, but my experience again and again, is that it is a concerted decision...with the judge being the end point. Was there no GAL, no child's attorney, no CASA, no CRB (citizen's review board), no worker's supervisor, no supervisor' manager, no district administrator, no state director, no governor? When anyone had a problem with CPS that I was helping, if they did not get the reponses they felt were appropriate I taught them not only how to go up the chain of command (don't skip a level, it ****es people of and makes them think you are a nitwit.....but going step by step starts everyone thinking more clearly.... 0:- ), but how to go sideways when needed............legislature, as seems to be the case here, and judicious use of the media, no a rant but a carefully thought out campaign withOUT a lot of hyperbole, just simple facts. No other oversight of the case, but the worker? That's impossible where I am. "Finally caught her at her games and presented evidence," I have presented evidence as well. Irrefutable evidence at that, yet no one seems bothered by it. Just alot of ass covering and hoping it just goes away. It won't. Irrefutable evidence would be recordings of actions vetted by an expert in doctoring recordings that testifies nothing has been on the said recordings. "Gone for good." * Good. Let's get rid of the bad seeds and those who cover for them. I've no problem with that, IF the one that's guilty is uncovered. I've seen instances where workers were faityfully following judges orders, and a child got killed. Guess who took the fall. I had a newspaper destroy a story from a week back that in fact said the judge made the decision .. when I went looking for it gone...and denied by them. I call them about once a year and rub it in. My bet is that's on a hard drive somewhere, if only I could have unlimited access for 15 minutes. 2) Although there were many that came from all around the State of Michigan for a common goal of educating the masses as to why reform is necessary, (and the public at large agree's) there is no clear cut message that we have as to how to make these changes. (Sorry for the long winded observances, it's a product of a public education? That, and I don't use spell check) NO matter. Not imporant. Much more important that you have identified that block to reform...and it's always the biggie. And here's the problem in CPS reform that so many face. A group of disaffected, and otherwise questionable folks, have been collecting "facts" about CPS for years, out of context, unwilling to have CPS explain what is standard practice and why those things are done, monumentally incorrect assumptions as to the motives of workers, or others involved in child protection. ** I'm glad that you brought this up. What I found interesting how little some workers knew of their own policy. Workers do NOT, and are forbidden, to do a a Q&A on policy. CPS has front office people to discuss policy....hence workers play dumb, just as you or I would. You can't know how much they know or don't. When I've presumed they knew, I was mostly right. I am also right they do not discuss policy in the argumentive manner we do here. They might site, even printout, a section to give to a foster parent for certification requirement information, or for a teen to demonstrate the state has their rights protected and how to obtain them in other venues. But they will NOT engage in "conversation" and most especially with someone that wants to argue. On the few occasions I've gone to policy and statute, I don't ask for discussion....I simply quote and move on. Works. I could cite their standard practice and when it applied, yet they knew not. Often you do not know PRACTICE. You know "policy" and on occasion it may relate to an action called practice, but not often. Cite one for me, and the policy and statute that supports it? Often it just says, the worker must attain a goal, and these items must be in place.......it does NOT say specifically how that is done. I've never worked in child protection, Other than a practicum, neither have I. but when I got my hands on the policy and proceedures manual, it seemed pretty clear to me what was and was not acceptable. That is the viewpoint from another position than the worker has, and is forced to have. YOU do not have to follow through, with a 40 case workload of kids problems poppin all over the landscape, judges and CRBs hounding you for the case the case the case....hundreds upon hundreds of facts you must no only have, but must correlate with information elsewhere that may be under others' control. Many times a worker is unable to move a case forward until others have signed of on items that MUST be done before appearing in court. Imagine what fun that must be when EVERY OTHER WORKER HAS THE SAME OVERLOAD SITUATION YOU DO? Get a background check on someone? Well, if the local cops aren't to busy....it's why direct access is so important and states try so hard to get it. It used to be one of the major case bottlenecks...not the workers fault..admin and money, admin and money, admin and money.... How is it that I, with no formal training, was able to recite policy but the trained & educated could not? I have read an email to "allstaff" that expressively directs them to direct public inquiry on any matter of policy interpretation to their central office consultants. Questions about policy can be answered, if they wish...if they have time....but the instant you introduce YOUR understanding of policy they have no authority to question or agree or disagree. Since that IS the case, they simply don't engage in policy discussion in the first place. It makes sense, and the propagandists take advantage of many of these same kinds of issues...and the state doesn't have much time to deal with each ****ass little self appointed reformer that hasn't a clue, but thinks they do. Very strange. Nothing strange about it all. When I worked with mentally ill teens many times parents would come up with similar kinds of approaches. They wanted discussion about treatment "methods." Anyone sucker enough to engage would simply find themselves in an argument with a pig. Never argue with pigs, just use a fence section and push them where they need to be. I know it sounds harsh, but staff can find themselves do NO actual work, if they constantly engage with clients, and interested parties on every issue brought up, or that can be. CPS often has trainers that handle at least that portion of the public that comes into preservice foster and adoption classes. I myself learned a great deal, that showed me how I had misconstrued the common knowledge (mostly assumptions) from media sources, or others a clueless as me, before the training. I recommend if you are really serious about reforming CPS, you apply to be an adoptive or foster family...I recommend the latter, because the NEED to know much more than and adoptive family...the latter gets one kid or sibling group and are gone after the adoption if final. Foster parents are in it for the duration and must have some basic understanding of all CPS processes and proceedures they'll ever be involved in. Can't do it all in preservice, but they get some basics about how kids come into the system, what routes they proceed on, and all the alternative routes, and what factors determine what route, who all the players are, and where their authority comes from, and what they can and cannot do. I really do recommend that training. It's becoming rather standarized across the country, but I would recommend an urban setting rather than rural. Things can be much more casual in the country, and folks can do more training more casually...just learning from the foster certifier/supervisor, and caseworker as they go. In the city they have to get you really prepared for some heavy slogging, and they really don't care to keep repeating the same lesson over and over again, so the trainers bear down on systems processes. Courts. CPS. LE, mental health rehab, substance abuse issues, loss issues for children (and a bit about the parents losses), abnormal behaviors and parenting with them, etc. Things you thought you knew, if you have an experience similar to mine, will turn out not to be right, or just different enough that you made incorrect assumptions. Mind you, I already had a background in mental health work with teens before I attended the CPS training. Thought I know it all...but in fact I had a bias from the MH perspective, and it was badly scewed. I thought CPS deliberately made these kids sick. Taint so...garbage. "I keep suggesting people become a volunteer at CPS...you will have, in short order, the policy manuals not only at your disposal but likely as part of yoru training. CPS volunteers are bg checked, and trained." *See above. If I were to try and volunteer at CPS, I may not be accepted. But I will try and see where it goes. Thank you. Doing the foster application would be easier and faster. And you'd get a lot of up front info, that volunteers learn on the job, much more slowly. Don't know why I didn't think of the foster route first, that being how I learned the most. "Here's the final problem....for you to keep your energy and commitment to reform (and we ALL must as citizens, do this if we want this government to stay OURS) in the face of findout out all the hot air is incorrect...or incorrect because it's based on ignorance, and the ensuing claims and conclusions are piles of manure." Yes. It is very difficult when first entering this realm, from a parents perspective. There are many stages that you go thru. Yep. Everybody needs to move one place to the right, and walk in those shoes for a time. Then take yet another step. Not everyone wants to go to the trouble....it's so much easy to believe what I believe and not waste time on someone elses knowledge so different than mine. One of the reasons I defer to Dan Sullivan is that though he hasn't done the same things I have, he is able to use my viewpoint, and I know he's had experiences I have not, that serve himself and families he helps. For me, it goes like this: 1) How could this happen to me? I didn't do anything wrong. 2) Try to educate yourself on your States policy and proceedure, because you know somewhere along the line, they are being violated. They have to be. This just can't happen. 3) You stumble across support groups and see that you are not alone. You tell your story and start asking for advise. 4) Advice comes your way, some good, some bad. You have to decide if it makes sense or not and what course of action you will take. 5) You get this false sense of security that someone can help you. As well intentioned as some of the advice givers are, they cannot do anything that you can't do yourself. They can offer a separate less involved viewpoint...and we all need someone else's objectivity when we are actually in the swamp, and they are back on the shore, well away from the alligators. Don't get me wrong. I think the support I received was & is fantastic. I am very grateful for the people that came to my hearings and guided me to the right authorities. People who wrote letters and made phone calls. People who testified before house committee's and have done radio talk shows dealing with my case. It's absolutely critical to get that kind of exposure when you are in fact innocent. Serves a lot of good purposes. We had an interesting conversation with a former Michigan foster child (whom has authored a book and contributes articles to various adoption egroups)who knows the system from the inside. What I found incredible about this individual is his ability to emotionally detatch (perhaps a trait acquired while being shuttled to 11 different foster homes, "some good, some bad") and not harbor resentment. His TRUE objective is to spreahead reform and advocate for the child. " A voice for the voiceless" as he puts it. Ah, now you are getting somewhere. This supposed "victim" isn't doing the nutcase, "DESTROY CPS" dance. What does that tell you? * No, he isn't. It tells me that he truly cares about the plight of children in the system. So do I. I have been TPR'd. But I still have obtained a prepaid 2 year college tuition for my son who will "age out" I do not trust the state to provide him anything. The State of Michigan turned down Millions in "age out" funds last year. Odd. Do you know why? Were there strings attached the public did not want? Look to your governor for answers. I'm glad you could get that tuition money. Sorry to hear you lost custody. And glad you refuse to be a victim and play that game. We got enough of those here to last a lifetime. From what I gathered, this gentleman wants to focus on the positives that CPS has done and can do. Yet put emphasis, by way of forming public policy, on the rights of the child. Could he be more on target, or more rational? * No. I think he has hit the nail on the head. "hat that does is then highlight those areas that DO need reform, and in fact ARE a problem..with the law, with funding, with hiring, with education, with caseloads." * I completely agree. Having been in the system in that capacity, he is a much stronger voice for change than someone like myself who has been in the system in a different capacity. I still know that I have a very useful purpose in the area of reform for being able to bring my perspective to the table. Don't sell yourself short. A former client who can keep their head, and continue to seek the truth is a powerful source for reform of the best kinds. I have a rule about how to smash bigotry...and that IS the central theme of the problem...towards CPS, towards the judicial, and towards YOU as a client. The rule is simple. ASK SOMEONE THAT KNOWS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SUBJECT-TARGET OF THE BIGOTRY. Instead of thinking we know, and projecting out own bias, go to the source. That IS why I recommend finding out FROM CPS what they are doing, rather than listening to all the distant pundits....that are busy with their own axe grinding. "(Wouldn't hurt either if the dang schools of social work and CPS all over the country would get together and adopt a practice standards in child welfare manual..the content is pretty much available "off the shelf" if they'll do it)" * Here...Here! Not....gonna.....happen, as the first George used to say. ( I suspect those were his very words when little George, or Jeb, ask for the keys to the car......R R R R R) I started on "manual of practice standards" arguments in the 70's. I'm no closer today. The argument against if fairly good too....not response quickly enough to changing issues. And too much variation in NEEDS for practices that differ from place to place. We'll see. He empahtically stated " I do not advocate for biological parents. I do not advocate for foster parents. I do not advocate for adoptive parents. I do not advocate for CPS or (insert your states agency name here) I advocate for the child." Which is the attitude of a lot of caseworkers. And their supervisors. And their managers, administrators, and the state's primary executive, the governor. * But this is not the attitude of some. I'd never deny that. That SOME, is by it's very nature reflective of how alot of families view these agencies. Yep. The old adage; You are judged by the company you keep, is what would use to describe the sentiments of many. The idea that a few can control the many in an organization works wonders, if you are talking about the boss....but will not hold water when you are talking about workers. They simply haven't the time or power to police each other. He went on to say that he observed our gathering and our message. He stated that he did not see many positives, rather alot of emphasis on the systems failures. ( IMNSHO, there are enough failures to warrant gathering and exposing the systems failures.) I do agree that we MUST find common ground and put the children's best interest first. YOu are, if you'll please not kill the messenger (I've been killed repeatedly and am thoroughly dead now so you can stop please....R R R R) a great deal of what YOU think are failures...meet the following criteria in part or collectively: you do not know why CPS did what it did; you are being tutored by the ignorant; you are being politicized by the patronising for their own ends..which they are NOT going to share knowledge of with you..they are, in a word, "hinkie;" and you are likely also being used by the very very guilty..who often are avoiding that truth themselves. We have such in this ng. **There is also a great deal that I KNOW to be the failures. Take for example a few caseworkers sitting in a court room prior to the start of a hearing. They are discussing and laughing about how 1 client now has housing to have an overnight visit with her children. There was monstorous laughter when the caseworker said that the housing consisted of a tent in a relatives back yard. Now when I commented how nice it was to see "family preservation at work" The laughter stopped and one worker crudely say's " Not in your case" and rolled her eyes. Now, that mother who had to live in a tent in a relatives back yard, was no closer to getting her children returned to her than I was. But at least she got to see hers. Here's another failure. (I wrote this to another group and it's excerpted.) ""Currently in Michigan, if a child has been in foster care for 15 of the last 22 months, than a petition for termination can be filed. Now, while we have "reasonable efforts" for family preservation on the books, (that could be ample time if the workers actually did their jobs and provided services that were available)reasonable efforts are interpreted rather vaguely from worker to worker, agency to agency. The reasonable efforts and 15 month rule has not been an effective measure of reuniting families. Mmmm....the rule actually is that the disposition of the case, concurrency, must be resolved...that includes either and end to parental right by voluntary relinquishment, or TPR, OR the return of the child to the parent. I'm going to use my case as an example to cite one workers idea of reasonable efforts. I had a false allegation of abandonment made against me. THe persons who made this charge later recanted it in front of the judge, on the record. The Judge asked the state. "Why are we even here? Why is this in my courtroom?" But, the judge didn't order the case closed. Rather the state jumped up and stated they wanted more time to make sure that reasonable efforts had been met and they requested a review in 90 days. Now, in that 90 day period, the worker employed every tactic in the book to make my situation so bad that when we had the next hearing (that XXXXXattended) all hope was lost. For example; They had transferred my visitation site to another county and I had no transportation. I had to ride a grey hound bus for 8 hours a day, requiring that I take a day off work EVERY WEEK! I was ordered to have weekly visits with their psychiatrist, which meant I had to take time from work. EVERY WEEK! I was ordered to complete a parenting class, that the worker said I didn't need when she stated " I know your a good mom, but just do this and it will look better for you when you go back to court." That meant I had to take more time off work, EVERY WEEK! So now from the employers perspective, here's an employee who has to take 16-20 hours out of 40 off of work EVERY WEEK! The employer could only be so flexible. Now I'm out of a job. The job search for a new job didn't go over well. Everytime I explained to a prospective employer that I needed every Monday off for this, 6 hours on Tuesday for that and an additional 4 hours off on Wednesday for this, to comply with a court approved case plan, I wasn't a very marketable employee. Without a job and an income, I wasn't able to keep the housing that I had and I was forced to move in to a friends apartment as a room mate. Now I didn't have suitable housing to bring my children home to or an income to provide for them if I did. So from this perspective, the worker made every "reasonable effort" to see me fail. My case is by no means unique in this facet. Now let's examine how the worker could have proceeded to exhaust reasonable effort towards reunification. The worker was asked by my childrens caretaker if she could facilitate the visits and coordinate them around my work schedule. In fact, the caretaker told the judge that I was more than welcome in her home and she encouraged that I spend more time with my children as the separation was starting to really negatively affect them. Seeings how the charge against me was neglect, that was later recanted on the record and there was never any question whatsoever by any party as to the safety of my children while in my company, this was more than "reasonable". The worker adamantly denied her request and scheduled me 1 hour visits once a week, supervised, at her office. There is absolutely NOTHING anywhere in my case that would warrant supervised visitation. That's an example of an "unreasonable effort". Had she approved the caretakers request, it may have made the difference between me keeping or losing my job, income, housing etc... So we need to expand the definition of "reasonable efforts" at the legislative level as well as the agency level. Another issue that needs to be SERIOUSLY addressed and changed is "Qualified Immunity" The confidentiality laws are packaged and wrapped so tight, that they are a shield for workers who don't perform ethically or legally. If you can prove that a worker was acting illegally in carrying out the duties, it does no good. Whoa...qualified immunity does NOT cover illegal acts. The qualified immunity that's granted them literally allows them to get away with murder. I think you are now reliving some of your emotions from your past. That isn't the kind of comment I can respond to because of course it is literally untrue. If a worker steals from you, assaults you, or engages in any other criminal act they are most surely subject to the same laws I am and you are. My youngest son was on the verge of death as a result of the negligent actions of the caseworker. The worker was fully informed as to the medical condition of my son, yet she acted with intentional malice and willful disregard to my son's safety and knowingly placed him at risk for imminent harm. She isn't immune under those circumstances. Ask an attorney. The same standards that CPS uses to remove a child from the home, is the very practice that the worker engaged in when she she jeopardized the safety of the child. Using CPS practices to commit crimes is not protected behavior. Yet, she was not held accountable BECAUSE of the Immunity protection that was afforded her. And quite grateful for, I'm sure. I don't know why she was protected, but I suspect it was more likely that she lied to someone about the acts and they presumed when they should not have. Had she committed a crime, and they KNEW it and covered it up, they are indictable for their part in it. The problem is pressing a case for what you have described...which would be attempted murder. Now the law may be insufficient, or a perp may be too clever, but there is no immunity of any kind involved. This is a constant problem with "reformers" projecting meanings and intents, and "the law" that is simply not true. You are, like most, expecting the state to press charges when they may well not have enough evidence to do so. If YOU are the injured party, as you would be as your son's lawful guardian, assuming this happened at a time you were, then YOU must file charges against her based on your belief and hopefully enough evidence to bring the DA around to your way of thinking. Stop and think: what does a police officer ask you to do when they interview you as the victim of a crime? They ASK YOU to sign a complaint. The state isn't going to press charges. YOU must do so. IF the DA get's a go HE or SHE will then charge "for the people of the city, county, state, etc." but not until YOU make the complaint to the proper authority. And CPS ain't it, in cases of abuse or neglect NOT alledged to be instigated by the parents. That an LEO problem, and where you should have gone. Please don't consider this slam, but you are indulging in exactly what I accuse and call peoples names over in this ng...they initiate their OWN impotence by NOT taking the RIGHT action. They do anything but, and want everyone else to do it for the. In our case here most often, it's "why doesn't the state, or cps, or the doctor, or the worker, or someone" anyone but the person take the action? Well, in a criminal case the injured party takes the action, not someone's supervisor. They aren't going to bring criminal charges. If you want them, then you do it. We need to demand that the laws on the books are enforced Immunity and penalties stiffened when a worker has violated the law......."" I'll give yah a big 10 4 on that, and remind you that it's a matter of which laws. If it's criminal law, fine. Go for it....but YOU must do it. It's isn't automatic. There's no one standing around watching you, and potentional perps, to see if they attack you, then running in and screaming 'I arrest you in the name of the Lone Ranger, Tonto, and The Green Hornet and his faithfull man Cato, and the state of Nuevo Fandango, on behalf of this poor injured women." All others are witnesses at best. "Now in there somewhere, hopefully, there are those such as you that want to cut through the bs. Wanna borrow my machete?" May I please? lol. It's double edged. YOU have to pay attention and use it correctly. Did you bring a criminal charge against the worker? If not why not...because someone told you it would be useless as she has "qualified immunity?" Well, if it wasn't an attorney versed in criminal law, and sometimes even that's not sufficient, then it was horse pucky. You might not be able to get her for NOT KNOWING something was happening to your son, but if she deliberately, with malice (see, that's the hot piece) acted to injure your son, then you have a case....or at least you should be asking an attorney .... as I'm not one, and certainly don't know the laws in your state. "To study CPS you have to read and think adn discuss with people you see as opponnents, just what they think is going on, or how they see it, and them come to your own conclusions. If you give yourself up to the Ferns, and Dougs, and Gregs of the issue, and buy into the emotions they are trying to infect you with, how objective do you think your examination of truth about CPS will be?" * Now I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm not the dullest either. I've always been pretty good about evaluating a matter at hand and deciding which way to proceed. I'm not familiar with Doug's or greg's writings, I have read post by fern. Because I have read posts by fern, I can comment to that. I think we need ferns in this movement. If their were no ferns posting these articles and giving her commentary, then we would have is a very dull and slow moving wheel. Nope. Can't agree. She's a crackpot that posts things that have either nothing to do with CPS, but claims they do, or in fact when read, show that she got it backwards and CPS did the RIGHT thing. She posts so wacky the public that COULD provide support turn their backs on any that appear to be in any way affiliated with her, and her kind. There are plenty of people posting here, that can and could continue to post thoughtful pieces criticizing CPS, and they do NOT post lying subject lines to mislead, nor do they hide the data sources that she ignores. Nor do they post advice that can get someone injured or killed, and or risk the loss of children. She DOES that. When I read some of the links that are posted by others, it keeps that fire lit under my ass. Yep, as I said, some do a great job here, even ones I disagree most strongly with on some issues. But FERN? Come on. You need to read more of her post. She looks more to me like someone "Evil CPS" has sent to make reformers look like nutcases. Everyday, there are rants and raves about how CPS does families wrong. I am quite guilty of this myself and I have absolutley no intention of stopping this practice. But I have learned after speaking with this gentleman, that the method I employ and the subjects that I employ it to, are drastically going to change. YOu have only one more step to go to become a "reformer." Insist on finding the truth for yourself. And when you are gladhanded and treated to these "horrors of CPS" stories, think about the risk you take of being patronized right out of rational thought. * That is the very reason that I decided to not just take someones word for it, but actually attend some hearings myself. The last hearing that I attended, while I didn't actually go in the courtroom, I did speak with an aid from the State rep.s office over dinner. I trust that the information that was given to me was accurate as to not shame the name of the boss by putting misinformation out there. I am treated to these CPS horror stories, yes. SOme of them are with merit. I know mine is. Others may disagree and think that there's got to be more to it, and that's fine. But I know the truth and so does every worker and participant in my case. My family and friends and most importantly, my children know the truth. So what strangers think of my case, or me for that matter, is really irrelevant. My focus isn't to scare good families into taking there children and running for the hills because of what happened to me. I'd like to see the system changed so that what has happened to me, doesn't happen to others. An yes, that old "accountability" thing is a big part of it. I don't disagree. I was honored to have made this gentlemans acquaintance. I hope to work closely with him in the future. I realized today, perhaps there is no one better to try to give voice to the voiceless, than someone who WAS voiceless and at the mercy of a system that had it's failures then....and today. Isn't it interesting that he neither acts like nor claims to be a victim of CPS? *He's an adult in his 40-50's now, and know's that he's been victimized by the system that he entered all those years ago when his young mother placed him up for adoption as an infant. There was never any adoption. That's extraordinary, even 50 years ago. That would be only 1954...and there certainly were plenty of folks wishing to adopt. Babies were in short supply even back then. I wonder what happened? Just alot of foster placements. Why would the state have had him? If she "placed" that was private was it not? But to answer your question, No he does not publicly claim to be a victim. He publicly states that we need to work on reform in a positive way and I believe that. "While I certainly hear individual workers, and individual foster families, pitch a bitch about their personal issues, the ALWAYS set them aside in favor of the child when it comes to delivering." ALWAYS? The good one's maybe. Yes, always, even the less than perfect ones. I did not say the acted that way, but that they speak that way..."pitch a bitch" refers to talking. The worker in my case almost delivered my son to his death. What's worse is that it didn't even phase her. She never showed any remorse or compassion for me. In fact, she started making our relations even more strained. She actually started treating me worse and distanced me even further from my children. Go figure. Can't. Don't know the lady, or her motives. I'm talking with you, and I'd prefer to believe you, but I know that that kind of thinking is exactly what get's people screwing up on reform issues. You could be no more than a sock puppet. I have to withhold any judgement of you and her. I presume, if you are being candid and honest, that has to hurt, but in reform, THAT is not the issue. Facts ARE. "Do you see the 'reformers' doing that" * The one's that I care to be associated with do. I feel the same about workers. I don't have any more use for bad ones than you. On the other hand a great many are portrayed as "bad" when the standard and judgement is based on lack of knowledge of just why the worker acted as they did. Your assumption that workers don't know policy is one example that comes to mind. Some might not, but most are damn good at it, and have ready access to it, both hard copy on their desk, and now in many states instantly available on line. "ARe there bad workers? You betcha. I did a little housecleaning among them when I helped get that supervisor fired...just wandered around to their lunch hangouts and buttonholed the ones I knew protected her..and had a little chat. I like to get personal. It was a Fish or Cut Bait talk...as in clean up your act or I'll introduce you to a plumber that needs a helper." * I wonder how many of the 40 that came forward, had reported this worker previously. Do you know? Officially or off the record if any complaints were lodged by co-workers? Yep...a great many. And sadly the workers were not listened to...but the political expediency in the mix. I'd rather not go into all of it, but she had a couple of advantages in the civil rights area that she was unfairly using to threated to sue individuals over. I knew I had to wait until we had her dead to rights, and in fact asked those that wanted to march on the directors office, to hold off until they had her cold. Made them mad as hell. People assigned to her unit, or if she was moved to a new unit, threatened to resign rather than work for her. Everyone KNEW what she was up to by the third year, but no one HAD anything concrete. I nailed her electronically. Me and the phone company. The collective sigh of relief among workers could be heard in another state. I didn't even know, in the beginning, what she was up to, and just heard rumors that a long time worker of impeccable credentials was having a nervous breakdown. I went to her and asked her what was up and after a time she told me....I could see it wasn't "nerves," but rather pent up barely contained rage. And she was very gentle soul that specialized in working with foster parents. When she laid the story out for me and the harm being done to clients and foster parents, some of whom were relatives that had had very difficult times with her in the past, it all fell together for me. She was a true nutcase.. Violent, substance abuser, and sly as a fox, buttter wouldn't melt in her mouth, as they used to say, when higher ups where in the room, but the instant she was alone with anyone she thought she had power over, it was The Exorcist and then some. "There are a few people, as in any profession, that shouldn't be doing it." Right on! "One final thought. How could there be the volume of evil intent and malpractice that the anti CPS folks proclaim?" I don't think the intent is evil initially. I think what turns things south is when parents, or other's, find out that these workers are violating standard policy and the law, and call them to the carpet. Be it ego or fear of job loss and prosecution, I don't know. But I do know that the evil exsists and there is even protection for it. Well, I tend not to think of people or situations as "evil," so much as not the way I wish them to be. Saves me a lot of emotional termoil and hopefully allows me to have more access to facts through more objectivity. I can find more out about what needs fixing at CPS than any ten people could fix in a livetime. I hardly need to dream things up. Problem is, with folks that get emotional, is they tend to create what isn't actually there, or uncover things that are of little matter to reform and waste energy, time, and sometimes their money on windmills. Is at as wide scale as what we are led to believe? Probably not. "Does that make sense to you? If it makes sense to you that there is something wrong with that proclamation, then where will you go to find out what IS wrong, and study how to fix it? YOu just going to stand around and diddle with a pile of manure you can never overcome, when one or two rows in the garden needs cultivating, and you CAN do that?" * I am trying to study how to fix it, while making my vegetables grow. R R R R "The best way of all to learn though would be to apply for a job and work for CPS for a year or two." * Again, that's good in theory, but that avenue may not be open to me. I don't think the workers and agency that failed me and my son's would welcome me too kindly. I don't think they want the fox guarding the hen house. But you never know. Someone you really trust not to just feed you what they think you want to hear, then? Hell, if you are close to a state border you can drive over and do it there. Tell'em you are planning on moving in the next three months. "Do you REALLY care about the child as that Ex foster child does?" *ABSOLUTELY!!! All my life I have involved myself in projects that try to make a positive impact on the life of children. From being a reading mentor, cub scouts, big brother/big sister and most recently, fundraising and education awareness for juvenile diabete's. So yes, I really do care about the child. "I did a yearlong combined practicum-workstudy project with a state CPS in 1980-81. Got to practice my minor on them..anthropology, without them even knowing. I blended in with the tribe by the third month." * Heheheheh! I like you. So do you have it available online? Naw, it's about five feet behind me in a old five drawer filing cabinet. "What did I find? About 90% of what I believed about CPS went down the drain. I was highly ****ed that I had been sold a bill of goods about CPS, and propagandized by people not unlike the little pack of hyenas you have run into here." * That's encouraging. I'm glad that your faith in CPS was restored and you had a positive experience. I didn't have "faith in CPS." I had gravely incorrect information. Could I see faults? You betcha got in the middle of one. Me, surrounded by MSWs, and the branch manager, and they planned to entrap a parent that they had good reason to believe was drugging her children to control them while she partied. I was "the student" sitting in for what students sit in for, to learn...of course I was mature, and quite well versed in LE issues. Basically they were putting the children at risk by waiting, based on what they said they KNEW. I said so. Much suffling of feet, and many ebarrassed clearings of throats, and a manager stating clearly, "He is right. Go and take the children NOW and prove your case based on what you have....if you cannot, at least she's on notice to stop the drugging." Turned up with dirty UAs on the kids, luckily. Well, from one perspective. I know where the weaknesses are, and they are typical of ALL organizations. It's not like you have to kill everyone and replace them to get things squared away. I did it that day, lowest man on the totempole in a room of about 8 workers, and a manager. They tried to recruit me to work for CPS fulltime...my field was mental health and I turned them down to finish school and work in that field. Well, and adult education. "Even the media misinformed me" * What can I say to that? Other than, I'm not suprised. The media misinforms everyday. Lots of folks like to take that misinformation and pretend it's fact though and run with it, even in the face of better information that disputes and rebuts it. . I'm dealing with one right now in another related ng. "I only found two vampires, a single ghoul, and just one small coven of witches in CPS employ" * So you are familiar with my case too? lol. You my neighbor? R R R R Thanks for the response. Looking forward to more talks with you. Yep...same oh. Kane |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the food for thought.
As I would like to answer your reply, point by point, I don't have the time just yet. I'm leaving for Ohio today and I will be gome for 2-3 weeks. If I have net access while I'm there, I'll stop back in. If not, I'll have to wait. I hope you aren't going anywhere and you will be around when I am able to make my return. While I'm in Ohio, I will look into volunteering at a local agency. Great idea! I really wish I had the time to respond in full. This is a great discussion. Take care. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |