Continuing my response to Kane's single post . . . .

Kane writes:

Nor are the parents
under any obligation to sign the agreement.

That depends entirely upon the evidence uncovered. But you are
correct
that is not obligatory. They can refuse and take the
consequences.

Yes. And an investigation has to take place to gather evidence.
If the
safety plan suggests they have done something they haven't done,
they
should
not sign it. Dan has also suggested, if I understand him, that
the
parent
should not sign anything without first consulting their attorney.

This is rather far outside the topic of the claim I made. It isn't
anything I have an argument with. In fact I have made the same
suggestion myself. Though I've also made the suggestion that some
attorney's are worth spit in such matters. They may well urge the
client to agree to things they should not, and have been known to
do
so as reported in this ng.

Hi, Kane!

I agree that many attorney's do not understand this area of the law and do
misrepresent parents.


I believe, if I understand him correctly, that Dan advises not
signing
in just such circumstance, and signing and performing the plan if
it
does no define the signer as being guilty of some shortcomings.

I have suggested before to families in similar circumstances that
they
do what business people do with such things. Simply get up with the
document in hand, walk out of the meeting with the words, "I will
have
to review this CONTRACT and I will get back to you in three working
days with my decision."

Yep. Good procedure.

Yep. And I'm not the orginator.

Unless you are under arrest or being detained by the police (and
even
then you may well get away with it) that puts you back in control
without appearing in any way uncooperative. In fact you can insist
that you are cooperating MORE fully by your care and consideration
of
the CONTRACT.

Precisely. I agree.

I should hope. Don't know about the precision.

You can run it at your leisure by an attorney, or use it to line
your
birdcage, but it important to think about your children who have
been
taken, if they have, and proceed with that in mind.

I think your suggestions are excellent. I would think they would be
particularly effective in cases where the child has not been removed but CPS
is seeking to provide services. Often done under the implied or stated
threat of removal, these cases are more common.

It't common in other circumstances like these to treat the
contracts
with care, making and initialing needed changes (representing your
interests), and with a service plan or safety plan (call it what
you
will in your area) include what the other party will do, and do not
sign it until they do in your presence and that of a witness you
have
produced.

All safety plans (treatment plans) should specify what CPS will do
and the
worker (supervisor) signs as a party.

What..........did.................I............... just............say?
You playing at "little echo"?

....Emphasis on ALL. ALL treatment plans should specify what each party will
do. My point was even CPS will tell you that...it is a standard
condition -- in fact, the very essence of the safety plan.
My point is that we are not discussing anything novel.

Adding conditions, as you suggest, is
an excellent idea.

Absolutely. The willingness to sign is vital to being able to can
their asses later in court, should the need arise. Only hand them back
one copy...r r r r, keep the other for evidence of your attempt to
comply.

Good idea.


Parents should not be surprised if the caseworker
refuses to sign,

Whatever did you think my point was? The worker has two choices, sign
and live with the results, which means the family damn well will get
the kid back, which according to PS workers recently inteviewed is
exactly what they want, or refuse and have that to deal with later.

Yes. I understand. I can see this procedure working in many situations
where CPS is seeking to secure a safety plan for an intervention. Most of
these efforts will be made when the child has not been removed. My point
was, in cases where the child has been removed, the individual worker may
not be ABLE to agree to returning the child should the parent meet her
conditions of the safety plan.

I have sent out an email to workers in states around the country to check on
their procedures. In jurisdictions I am familiar with, the decision to
return the child is made by a team of people. In these jurisdictions, the
caseworker could not sign a safety plan guaranteeing the return of the child
in a certain time frame because it would be beyond his power to unilaterally
perform that part of the contract (returning the child).

however, because she does not agree with the conditions.

The point you miss, or do you really, is the one Dan keeps making so
eloquently and the little turds here keep running from, is that you
agree to what is reasonable...that gives you BIG JUJU.

I do miss this point. In fact, I understand and agree with your point.

The problem in this ng is that the turds keep diverting reall needy
folks who could profit by Dan's carefully thought out and FULLY TESTED
WITH SUCCESSES advice and insist on being unreasonable as hell with
self serving self centered selfish (am I getting across to you?)
motives that will torpedo others here that really DO want their
children back if they are sucked in by the blood suckers.

Don't you be one too, Doug. I'd like to see better of you.

What you see is what you get, for better or for worse. g

Now think that over...the bit about how to corner and defeat CPS by
agreeing to the reasonable. Hell, one can even agree to some of the
unreasonable just to show their asses up in court.

....If the unreasonable does not compromise the parent's position or
stipulate to allegations the parent can later challenge at the evidencial
hearing (adjudication), where the merits of the child abuse/neglect
allegations will be weighed.

The game is best played with careful attention to logistics though.
I'm including those. I'm very good at those. Dan hot with tactics, but
when it comes to the low level mechanics, I'm probably unbeatable.

I know what you mean about timing, logistics, etc. I would appreciate you
sharing some of the insights you have gained, when you have the time.


I even will tell folks, given the color of the form, what color ink to
use. Carry three pens. Black, blue, and red. All heavy tips that mark
broadly. YOUR marks must stand out over theirs. Remeber, that document
will last all the way to a courtroom, and YOU do not want to look
wimply when the judge sees it.

Interesting. Orientation to detail can be very effective. CPS bureaucrats
know that the devil is in the details, but they are not accustomed to being
bitten by them. I admire your focus.

But you do want to look like you mean to follow through, and
willingness to agree in bold strokes is a mind bender for the Workers
and their Supers.

Beautiful.


You can be polite, calm, businesslike, but not obnoxious, and you will
get the job done if you are innocent. If you aren't well, you can use
my methods and go **** up a rope. They are designed to catch you as
much as free the innocent.

In such an instance, what would you suggest the parent do?

Answered above. Make it reasonable changes, like don't try for the
whole pot on the first hand, and you aren't going to see a lot of
refusal. They may want to run it by Momma super, but it's likely to
come back with their little chicken scratches and you can boldly mark
it up again.

Of course -- offer, counter-offer. Moma super amending the contract opens
the entire document for reconsideration and amendment, no? Wonderful.

Back and forth. Each passage amounts to a bell for the judge to wake
up...that is if the worker hasn't heard if first and just runs you
through the plan and out the other end with babes in arms. It is FAR
less likely to get to termination if you think and act tactictly.

Well, hopefully it stops the case far, far short of termination. I think
this is what you mean. The approach would be highly effective in cases
where the child remains in home as well as those where the parent seeks
rapid return of the child. ("Rapid" is used in a relative sense, of
course).

My first encounter with CPS was very much like that. They caved. No
service agreement contract was completed and the child was not
removed
from the parent.

Fantasic. I can see this approach working in just this way under similar
circumstances -- BEFORE the child is removed. My take is that this would be
the best situation for this approach.

This situation is certainly the more common.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't give legal advice but I do point out
what
is sensible and well within any legal constraints or expectations.
When asked to sign a contract one can refuse and take the
consequences, or they can agree with stipulations as I've pointed
out,
time and editing priveleges, and refuse to sign a one sided
contract...as it isn't unless both sides are represented.

An agreement can be one sided, but a contract cannot and should
not.
So the object is to turn the onesided pile of crap into a nice two
sided bouquet of flowers.

While they are sometimes called "agreements", safety plans/treatment
plans/service plans are contracts requiring the agreement of both
parties.

Are we becoming sweethearts or something? While I appreciate the
effort of clarifying if it's meant to help the reader, assuming they
need our help, it can look like more nonsense reframing to refute.
Don't do that. You'll be wasting my effort to educate.

I did not intend to reframe or to refute. I meant to convey that safety
plans (or treatment plans) are supposed to be contracts....they are intended
to include conditions each side agrees to perform. In other words, this is
what the instruments are supposed to be, regardless of the parent's push for
them to be that way. You are right that the parent does have to push for
tits in return for their tats. Suffice to say that we agree.

And no, you are wrong on detail. It may LOOK like it's a two party
agreement if all the content is about what YOU will do and nothing
substancial about what the other will do, it's not a contract. It's
toilet paper.

An example: If it says, "Ms Client Millie will attend parenting
classes, deliver herself and for bottle filling on demand, attend
anger management therapy, and visit her children 4 times a week during
her normal working hours at the bank, Ms Prissyass Worker will give
serious and long contemplative consideration to the possiblility she
might and maybe ask the judge if on his worst days he'll burp out "six
more months" then we don't have a contract. We have an agreement that
this is just rough toilet paper. Used at that.

It should read much closer to:

Parenting classes one night a week for the 10 week duration (mom)

During which the child will remain with the mother (worker)

Show for drug testing once a week (mom)

If a drug evaluation shows risk of drug use in the recent past
(worker)

Attendance at an anger management class and ACOA or a twelve step to
learn to deal with the other parties drug and anger issues (mom)

(worker signs on for this too...meaningfull classes in the real world)

(and don't give me **** about 12 steps being confession to drug or
alcohol use. I have attended and I got a lot from it and have never
been a drunk or drug user and I've seen many workers there that are
attending with their clients out of real concern for them and their
children)

Hopefully, you attended "open meetings." Closed meetings of Alcoholics
Anonymous are restricted to those who have a problem with drinking. I would
hope that caseworkers would also honor the traditions of their host,
Alcoholics Anonymous. They should not, under any circumstances, attend
closed meetings with their client unless the caseworker has a problem with
alcohol and has a desire to quit drinking.

You get my drift here on how to tune up and maintain a contract?

Yes I do. Good stuff.

The last line should read, Upon completion of these time delimited and
completion based activities or assignments, full legal custody of
Annie, Sammy, Buster, and Julio wille be fully restored to client
Millie.

x sign here, and x sign here.

I am following you fine, but here is where I run into a logistical problem.
In my jurisdiction -- and others -- the caseworker and his supervisor do not
have sole authority over returning the child. Therefore, the caseworker
could refuse to sign a safety plan with a condition for return of full
custody of the child because it is beyond her power to fullfil that
condition.

You see my point? What would you advise a parent who gets such a response
from the caseworker?

By the way, if you do make editing changes to the document, do both
copies and keep one for yourself unsigned.

Innocent Parents often
mistakenly sign this plan under actual or perceived threats.

You are correct. The innocent mistakenly sign this plan. They
should
simply go to the wall and fight CPS from the getgo, having
their
children in foster care for up to a year, maybe year and a
half, and
very possibly lose them in the end.

Are you saying that children are removed and forcibly kept in custody
for a
year and a half just because an innocent parent does not sign a
service
plan?

No, I think I was saying DON'T DO THAT. It a suggestion of the idiots
here. Play the fight the CPS game when your kids are on the line...oh
sure.

BTW, I never suggested that innocent parents "go to the wall and
fight CPS
from the getgo."

Did I seem to single you out? Sorry. I meant some of the people YOU
rarely (I've only seen once I think) have engaged when they suggest
such garbage. You really do have to stop trying to fence walk Doug.
It's very ugly. I know you think it look professional but tolerating
some of the junk here with no comment, or coming back at me for going
after them starts to put a little mud on your skirts you don't need.

There are a host of options other than signing the plan as
is or fighting CPS from the getgo. You have shared some of those
options.

Well, you can call HSLDA and if they decide they want to, maybe
they'll get on the horn and start amendment spouting. That will last
about ten seconds and the other worker waiting in the judges chambers
with phone to ear will be the double beep that says..."go for it,
warrant time."

And you can be sure that when PS workers across the nation see that
amendment HSLDA helped with there will be a new industry born. And if
you think reasons to get a warrant can be obtained in the majority of
cases you don't know police work.

I am in favor of the new ammendment to ASFA that was recently passed by
Congress. It specifies that workers must tell parents what the allegations
against them are and inform them of their rights. It also requires that
caseworkers be trained in Constitutional rights, including rights to due
process.

The tiniest of scratches or even the testimony of a witness that they
exist can trigger a warrant. I put it to you that this new amendment
to ASFA isn't going to do a damn thing but make the swim longer and
the water deeper. If a warrant has to be served what do you think that
is going to do to influence CRBs and family court judges?

I think there will be far less intrusions into homes.

If you are in a corner and you have some scraps to through the lion
why would you think that grabbing a twig and fighting for your life
would be the best strategy. Feed the damn thing while you work your
way out of the danger.

LOL! I like the analogy. I would prefer to feed the damn thing until I was
out of danger.

Do I like that? Naw. I'd rather find an ax and cut his head off and
have HIM for lunch, but that isn't how it works and you know it.

True.

I don't want to see workers at the door of innocent people any more
than you do. But I am realistic enough to know that in the course of
trying put some kind of limits on child abuse that it will happen, and
can happen very often indeed.

Yes. We agree.

Giving the worker and those backing them some paper to look at, and
holding off signing for a reasonable time...think about that a
bit...gives you the breathing room to reconsider, call up a friend or
two, that knows how to deal with it, and then come back fresh the next
encounter.

Absolutely!

And those that are guilty but can rehabilitate? It's the only damn
chance they got. The BETTER learn how to work the paper.

No, they should calmly and with courtesy decline to sign a safety
plan
that
suggests they have done something wrong if they haven't done
anything
wrong
(innocent). Or, they should politely ask the caseworker to wait
while
they
review the document with their attorney and receive her
recommendation
whether to sign it or not.

And they should feel perfectly free to signal their cooperation to
any
judge waiting down the line somewhere in the process by editing and
adding a line where the worker or supervisor (latter is prefered)
has
to sign it BEFORE the parent does, with witnesses who come with the
parent.

The safety plan already has a space for the worker and supervisor to
sign.
Both parties receive a copy, so I am not sure why the order of who
signs
first is important.

Ah, tactics, Doug. Tactics.

You do your editing and hand it too them unsigned. You DO NOT let them
walk away with a copy with your signature on it without theirs. That's
why you keep an unsigned copy yourself, and you don't sign the one you
hand them. They could take it back and work it over and only sign it
down the line when it suits them. Or never, and you know you've seen
that.

Okay, I see your point. It is well taken.

Hey, I'll tell you what. Let me sell you my pickup on contract. Write
in the amount you'll pay, sign it and hand it to me and watch me walk
away. How do you know I won't add a zero or two.

NO no...put the price you'll pay on the paper, hand it too me, and
even if I change your price and sign it YOU will be in control because
your sig is NOT on it yet. You are free to change it again and hand it
back, UNSIGNED BY YOU, until you are satisfied with the results.

Get my drift here.

Yes, I do.

Hell, I worked my way through college doing all kinds of things, and
one was curbing cars. I could make about 2k per month doing it when
that was a whoooooole lot of money. And I never handed a signed piece
of paper to someone until they had signed it first.

I can trust me. I can't trust you.

And it's really that simple.

And it's a super way to stall someone that wants to pull a fast one on
you. sweetly "No, you first, please."

....With emphasis on sweetly, of course.

Balking on the part of CPS at this point while retaining the
child(ren) puts them in an untenable position in court. THEY didn't
cooperate with perfectly reasonable requests of the parents. That's
why the witnesses are important.

Many a time CPS caves unless they have a solid case with ample
evidence.

Excellent advice. One does wonder, however, about what happens to
those
parents who do not have the savvy to proceed as you reccomend.

One also wonders about all the people in the world cornered by the
lion that don't have the savvy to throw it a bone before trying to
run.

Doug, one can argue forver with "yes but" Surely you know that. Don't
yes butt me. Work through your "yes buts" until YOU have reached YOUR
limit, then I might be able to come up with something

"Yes but" just means I'm debating for effect and to keep from having
to do something I want to be suspicious of because...well, because
that's how most fools, like a few here, operate.

In these
cases, CPS proceeds to remove the children without ample evidence and
a
solid case.

Doug. Have you seen me once deny that? What a nonsense argument. I
can't stop them from doing that. They'll do it until the laws are
piled up to the sky, and beyond.

Well, efforts still have to be made to change those laws and to educate
lawmakers that the intent of their laws is being ignored by CPS. Not
everyone is interested in the macro-practice end of reform. Some prefer to
restrict themselves to the micro-practice of helping one family at a time.
There is most certainly nothing wrong with that. Children need them both.

The idea is to develop a method for dealing with it. Not try to stop
it. That way lies your police state, that in the end will become
worse, as they always do. If you think CPS is hungry for business wait
until you deal with cops. They want waaaay more toys than social
workers want. Waaaay more expensive. Don't kid yourself about your
favorite answer to CPS failure. It wil eat families alive. And fill
those jails even fuller.

The whole transaction takes on the tone of trickery and deceit.

Preaching to the chorus. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.
We are dealing with when it does. Stop pretending to more.

It is an
uneven playing field with the more powerful party willing to exploit
the
weaker unless the parents are privvy to outside information.

Did you mean, inside information?

Yes. Thank you.

That's the burden of society. All societies, and two or more is a
society, have these kinds of challenges. Can't be stopped, only
controlled.

Frankly, though it makes my heart bleed...no sarcasm intended....there
are those who will not learn to deal with any skill with the society
they find themselves in.

I've always been willing to teach people more skills. I do it all the
time. I'm particularly disgusted with some of the stubborn numbskulls
here, or was until I realilzed that WANT to be stupid...they think it
will give them some kind of advantage and that it's really smart to be
stupid.

It doesn't
sound much like "child protection," does it?

I does. It sounds exactly like all agencies and functions of society
work. Wobbly, but needed. I like them not TOO damn efficient. That is
where folks can deal most effectively with them.

Why do you think americans (and other folks) get up in arms over the
curtailing of freedoms by increases in effeciency of people
management?

We know what we are doing, and one of the things I admired about Dan
when I first came here was his adroit handling of the holes in the
wobbly structure. And the payoff families got because of his neato
numbers on the structure.

This is one of the reasons why the systemic reform is called for.

You will simply create a more efficient monster. Why do you think I'd
be against an amendment that would appear, on the surface, to provide
more protection for families? Hell, I like the idea, but I know it is
crippled on it's premise..that it will cut anyone loose after the
first few times it's involked.

I don't think reforms I seek would make the system more efficient at all.
The reforms would lead to a more just and reasonable way of treating
children and their families at the EXPENSE of efficiency.

It will create a more efficient warrant mill and that's all it will
do.

The process of applying for and receiving a warrant is markedly inefficient.
It is intended to be.

At the
minimum all parents have to be informed of how to negotiate the
conditions
of a safety plan.

I tend to put the priority WAY over the minimum. That should be the
subject of considerable study, and stop wasting their time with cries
to defend their constitutional rights. It fails on the argument of
children not being posessions with it's own dangers on having THAT go
to the supreme court.

When I discuss constitutional rights in relationship to child protective
cases, I am primarily addressing the Constitutional rights of the child, not
the parent. The child has a right to live in her own home with her own
parents unless the state proves with clear and convincing evidence that she
has been abused or her parents are unfit.

No sane court is going to declare children property. In fact it could
cause a fearce backlash from liberals. Blood everywhere and kids more
being raised by "it takes a village" bull****. Just an excuse to
preempt parents.

I agree with you that the "it takes a village" dogma is worthless. However,
I believe it is more often the state that takes a position suggesting it
views children as property.

If CPS was used right, instead of lied about, and deliberately
crippled in what it supposed to do it could be the best tool the true
conservative (not right with, just conserving) could hope for.

I disagree.


So the advice I suggest in no way will help the guilty get their
child
back. Those instances should run the course to insure there WILL be
compliance, but they can still and should, insist on both parties
signing and outcomes spelled out clearly in the contract: "when
steps
one, two, three are completed the child will be returned within 48
hours" or words to that effect.

In my jurisdiction a worker would not sign a safety agreement with
such a
stipulation because he or she could not commit to when a child would
be
returned.

Then every family in the area needs to be canvassed and pamphleted to
only agree to those terms should CPS show up at their door.

Good idea.

Setting a time line on return of the child after the plan steps are
completed is vital. It can have amendments to it, like 6 more months
of supervison or whatnot, but it has to have a cutoff, or Doug, it is
NOT a contract.

I understand what you are saying. However, my problem remains what I have
explained many paragraphs back. What if the worker cannot make a solid
committment to returning the child?

All contracts require a completion date and criteria. All, and that is
defensible in court.

True. Concerning safety plans, we hear "concrete, do-able and measurable" a
lot. Completion dates are crucial. However, in my jurisdiction, the
criteria on a certain date would more likely be a stipulation that return of
the child would be REVIEWED at that particular date.


That decision is made later by what will then be a "team" of
salaried experts who consider as one element the fact that the parent
has
completed "steps one, two and three."

Nope. That is the weakness of the "fight CPS" crowd. They continually
claim "it's hopeless, CPS has all the cards and they are big and we,
poor dears, are helplessly small."

I did not claim that it was hopeless. Just that there are many people in on
the decision to return a child to his parents.

All one has to do is be highly cooperative in some areas, and
assertive in others, strategically.

Precisely. Your approach has considerable merit.