Doug wrote:
127.0.0.1" wrote in message
...


You ARE correct in that it's a political problem. But at the same time
it's also a legal issue. And I do have grounds to sue the State of course.


Hi, 127!

It is a very HOT political problem that will be debated on the legislative
floors in Jefferson City in February. Currently, in effect, a DJO's
signature has the authority of a court order . . . they SIGN court orders
in leiu of a judge's decision.


This is a common problem, as this group should know. In Missouri DFS can't
remove a child. A juvenile officer does. And those are two different
branches of government.


Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only
one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not
have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the
unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a
"court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO
signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without
the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process
intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop.


....SNIP.,..

The extent to which you will go to lie is nearly unbelievable, Doug.


http://www.iarstl.org/papers/JCIPSLC.pdf

You are lying through your teeth when you attempt this artifice of DJOs
in MO operating, in the majority of cases, without court involvement.
That is a flat out lie.

You have lied about the state making services a barrier to parents:

" ... Family Support Team (FST) Meetings. Initial FST meetings typically
were less than one-half hour in duration because of the press of other
cases. Most felt that even with these limitations FST meetings were
valuable, and while scheduling them at other times might make longer
meetings possible, it would also decrease attendance by parents. ... "

As you have lied about the judicial process:

" ... Protective Custody Hearings (PCH). Interview respondents agreed
that PCHs were being held in nearly all cases and within the 72-hour
time frame. Most felt the requirement was beneficial. Over half of those
interviewed saw improvements in motivating parents to attend later
hearings (59.6 percent), promoting protective custody (57.1 percent),
leading to an earlier return of children to parents when custody is not
needed (59.3 percent), and leading to identification of absent parents
(57.1 percent). Only a minority felt that PCHs promoted the involvement
of both parents in the family court process. The majority of respondents
felt that holding protective custody hearings in all cases improved the
process in the areas considered. ... "

And you have lied about just what the role of the DJO is in relation to
those hearings, pretending they do not even happen in the majority of cases:

" ... The Missouri Division of Family Services (DFS), the public child
welfare agency, directs such cases to the court, usually following child
abuse and neglect reports and emergency removals of children from their
homes. ... "

That tends to make the DJOs have a hard time concealing their actions
from the courts, if DFS is directing those cases with removals "to the
court" wouldn't you say? 0:-

" ... Child Removal in Missouri
For those not familiar with the child protection system in Missouri, an
explanation of a certain unique characteristic is necessary. In Missouri
the responsibilities associated with removal of children in child abuse
and neglect reports are divided between agencies. DFS county workers
respond to reports of child abuse and neglect received via the statewide
telephone hotline. An investigator or a family assessment worker
conducts necessary home visits and interviews to determine the safety
status of the child. Either type of worker may determine that removal of
the child from the home is necessary for the child’s protection.
However, the DFS worker cannot physically remove the child. A law
enforcement representative, a physician, or a juvenile officer must
carry out physical removal. Furthermore, the jurisdictional basis to
remove a child from his/her home ultimately lies with the juvenile
officer, as does the decision to file a child abuse and neglect
petition. DFS workers will call law enforcement to assist in the child
3
abuse/neglect investigation, which may result in the officer removing
the child from the home. This is particularly true if the child is in
imminent danger. Upon removal, the juvenile officer is to be immediately
notified and jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court immediately attaches to
the child. By contrast, in most other states the investigative function
and the decision to remove a child or file a petition are both made by
the public child welfare (child protection) agency.
In the City of St. Louis, DJOs traditionally continued to work directly
with families alongside DFS workers, making appearances at hearings held
in family court as long as children were in active cases. As the JCIP
continued into the third year, the role of DJO’s changed. typically
within 90 days of the date of the protective custody hearing. After this
and for subsequent court hearings, DFS workers have responsibility for
cases and for attending court hearings. However, while DJOs were not
present at later hearings, their representative, the full time attorney
for the Juvenile Officer, was present at every hearing. ... "

I draw your and the other readers attention to: "DJOs began to play an
active part in cases only during the initial phases and through the
disposition hearing, ... "

In other words they are not informing they court, (contrary to your
claim the court is kept out of the loop) they are required to APPEAR in
court themselves for the dispositional hearing of any child removed by
them, or by the police, who must keep them informed.

They are part of the mix, the child protection team, made up of DFS
workers, GAL, and CASA. They are required to work alongside them WITH
THE COURT. You are lying again.

You do it so smoothly though, and with lots of butter for your
unsuspecting reader, I notice.

Liar.

" ... The JCIP timeframes for hearings were designed to bring together
the child welfare and judicial processes in the following fashion.
Within twenty-four hours of the child’s placement, a DFS case manager is
assigned to the case and is to contact the child and parents. The first
family support team meeting is held within 72 hours of removal, in order
to begin assessing the needs of the child and family, including the need
for continued out-of-home placement. ... "

Your attention is directed to the phrase: "...designed to bring
together the child welfare and judicial processes..."

Court's kept out of the loop by the design and artifice of the authority
of the DJO? I don't think so, liar!

Consider Doug, our posts are dated in November 2005. This cited and
quoted report is dated June 2003.

That is why I KNOW you are lying. You could not be that far behind in
your own home state. Or could you?

Do you mislead out of ignorance, or out of malicious intent?

Even your claims of parents being left out of the proceedings is bogus.

" ... Under the DFS Family-Centered Out-of-Home project (FCOH), a joint
meeting of the initial members of the family support team (FST)—a DFS
worker, the parents and relatives, a deputy juvenile officer, and other
individuals involved with the family—is required within 72 hours of
protective custody, where the purpose and possible consequences of
protective custody are explained to parents. (As noted in Chapter 3, the
current practice in the City of St. Louis is to hold such meetings
immediately after the protective custody hearing.) ... "

For over two years now, Doug, even the semi true claim you make against
MO has NOT been the case. I believe you know that already, and counted
on others not knowing how to find the correct information. But that's
old news for you in this ng. It's your nearly constant modus operandi.

By the way, you know perfectly well you are lying in another post when
you claim that I have an investment in the current Foster Care system. I
have posted before concerning the changes I wished to see. You are lying
again.

Remember any readers that have swallowed Doug's nonsense, that all cited
information is now nearly 2.5 years old, and obviously much of it could
not have been reported unless it was in fact in place PRIOR to the date
of the report...so it is actually older.

Referring to the post judicial hearings meetings that immediately follow
the court hearing on disposition of the removed child and their family:

" ... These comments must be seen in the context of the initial FST
meetings that followed the PCH in which the outcomes of the hearing
could be discussed and clarified. The parents learn that removal and
placement is a legal process, not the whim of DFS, that a review of
matters that led to the removal of their children is underway, and that
they have a voice in the proceedings. Most importantly from the parents’
standpoint, they learn about the strict 12-month timeframe for
permanency decisions. On the other side, the individuals who will be
dealing with the family on an ongoing basis are present and have the
opportunity to learn the strengths, deficiencies, and needs of the
parents and children in cases. ... "

If you read the report at, http://www.iarstl.org/papers/JCIPSLC.pdf, and
are objective and logical you will note that DJOs are not described as
arriving to remove a child UNLESS DFS informs them of their
investigation and THEIR decision that removal is warranted. Even a cop
much notify the DJO.

And the DJO knows that there WILL be a dispositional hearing in court.
Hardly consistent with the claim that the court is deliberately kept out
of the loop by the use of a DJO for effecting the physical act of removal.

He's lying, AGAIN.

The reforms he likes to threaten with his ****-assed "it won't be long
now," have already been instituted. Long ago.

That is the only "investment" I have in the foster care system....that
he NOT lie about it continually.

Such things as he refers other to like the strengths needs based
casework were instituted in the early 90s, for **** sake. What a sly
ugly little propagandist to pretend it's a threat to the current system
and just around the corner when such things are over a decade old.

Even MO family meeting following the dispositional hearing has been
around in many other states for years. They have different names in
different states, but have gone of for a long time. I first heard of
some of them in 1992. They had been in place then.

By 2002 in MO the following was already well in place:

" ... Protective custody hearings occurred significantly sooner
(p.0001) for pilot children. This shows that the time from removal and
initial placement of the children until a formal hearing to determine
whether protective custody was appropriate was reduced from four to five
days to less than two days per child on average. ... "

The reader can fall for the big lie, or they can think for themselves
based on available information. One of the most vicious of Doug's claims
is how DFS abuses parents by forcing services on them. Let's look,
finally, at what the workers official say in response, from this report:

" ... Preparation of Parents. DFS workers and DJOs interviewed at the
end of the first year of the project provided more specific information
on some of these issues. They generally thought that parents understood
the timeframes of hearings, especially the one-year deadline for
permanency planning. They generally did not believe or were unsure that
parents comprehended the process or what the court was requiring of
them. The following comments regarding disposition and review hearings
illustrate this. “It’s hard for parents to process all that information;
their kids are in care; they are dealing with that and with other
issues.” As we mentioned above, some DFS and DJO respondents also cited
poor attitudes of parents as a reason for their lack of understanding.
For example: “What they know and what they say they know are different;
they sometimes say I did not tell them something when I know that I did;
they use this as an excuse not to work.” The following comments reflect
more direct statements of poor parental attitudes and lack of
compliance: “Some don't have the mindset of wanting to visit their
children, to do what they have to do to get kids back. [Some] parents
get content with situation of having kids in foster care and they are
fine with that.” // “We offer all our families the services to prepare
them, but whether they utilize them is another story.” // “Not many
parents do what they are supposed to do; the judge explains clearly, but
one year later, they still do not understand because [they do not use]
the resources [provided by] DJOs and DFS.” // “Additional services are
given, but parents must utilize [them and this] shows their true colors
by the review hearing…”

Get the real picture yet?

I know that you can recognize that you were being offered only part of
the picture.

Keep digging if you care. Don't let the Doug's of the world have their
sick way.

I am a CPS reform advocate, but I refuse to operate on half truths and
outright lies to advocate "reforms" that do not address reality. The
reality is that we have an horrendous child abuse and neglect problem in
this country and it's getting worse under the kindly attention of ****s
that want to excuse abusive and neglectful parents, and provide them
handy escape hatches.

0:-