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.
Hi, Kane,
There were no "lies" in the remainder of the post that you snipped or in the
statement above, that you left intact.
Before a child is removed in Missouri, a court order must be issued --
called by caseworkers a "pick up order". This court order, in the majority
of cases, is signed not by a judge but by the Deputy Juvenile Officer (DJO).
That is a fact. And it remains a fact. It was a fact in 1990. It was a
fact in 2003. And it is a fact today.
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.
Here is my statement again.
"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."
Prior to the removal of the child by DFS, a court order must be secured.
This "court order" is usually signed by the DJO on the line reserved for the
judge. The judge does not, as was intended by the legislature, hear ex
parte arguments showing probable cause for the removal and then make the
decision. Instead, the DJO makes this determination and signs the order.
Usually, the DJO will make the comment below his/her signature, "judge not
available."
This is the practice. And, as 127 points out, the practice in this state
seems to fly in the face of the statutory requirements, legislative intent
of the laws, and published policy.
Nothing you have posted contradicts in the slightest my statement above,
that prior to removal, a "court order" for removal is usually signed by the
DJO in leiu of the judge and without involvement of the court at this stage.
You have lied about the state making services a barrier to parents:
I have joined other members of this newsgroup in saying that "services" and
the time they require are often a barrier to parents, yes. That is not a
lie. It is the truth.
" ... 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. ... "
This statement of policy, excerpted from the St. Louis Juvenile Court
Improvement Project does not in any way challenge or counter our statement
that services and the times they are offered are a barrier to 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. ... "
Your pasted statement from the Juvenile Court Improvement Project and its
pilot population in the City of St. Louis does not in any way address the
procedures followed in securing a pick up order prior to removing children,
who signs that "court order," or anything else that 127 and I addressed.
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. ... "
These hearings follow removal and should occur within 72 hours of that
removal. This does not address in the slightest way the statement I made
concerning the procedure used to secure a "court order" for the removal of
the child in the first place or who signs that order. Here is the statement
to which you reply again. It is the truth. It is not a lie.
"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."
" ... 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
Actually, as anyone who lives in Missouri can tell you, DFS does physically
remove the children. However, they do not have the legal authority to issue
the order to remove. That requires a court order, which in reality is
usually an order signed by the DJO and not a judge. The common practice is
this:
1) CD worker (as the result of an CAN investigation or assessment) makes a
request for removal to the DJO
2) The DJO finds "probable cause" and signs a "court order" for removal;
3) The CD workers, usually with courtesy assist from law enforcement,
enforces the order and physically removes the child from the home. The
removal is done under authority of the order signed by the DJO, not the
unilateral authority of the police officer.
Yet again, however, your posted exerpt does not in any way challenge my
statement that the DJO, without involvement of the court, commonly signs the
pick up order prior to removal of 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.
This is incorrect. In most states, a court order is required before CPS can
remove a child. Most states do not give CPS authority to remove children on
their own. In almost all states, however, police officers have the
unilateral authority to remove children, as do physicians. The latter is
true in Missouri, although police or doctors rarely do so.
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, ... "
DJO's began playing a role in the case prior to removal, by signing the
order, and throughout the duration of the case. After removal, when the
case goes to the court for hearing, the DJO attends the hearing. In rural
counties, the DJO actually represents the state and takes on the role of a
county attorney during the initial hearings. Astounding, since they are not
members of the bar.
Once again, however, your pasted comments from the St Louis Juvenile Court
Improvement Project do not in the slightest dispute my statement that DJO's
many times sign the "court orders" for removal of children.
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.
Yes, after removal, the DJO plays an active role in the case throughout.
They appear in court -- often, as I have explained, taking on the role of an
attorney representing the state in rural counties.
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.
Only a few counties in Missouri have CASA. In those counties that do, a
CASA volunteer may participate in the case throughout. DJO's are involved
in the case throughout its duration. While GAL's are not always appointed,
they also are involved in the team when they are appointed.
Again, this statement does not in any way dispute, challenge, or make my
statement that DJO's sign court orders for removal a lie.
You do it so smoothly though, and with lots of butter for your
unsuspecting reader, I notice.
Liar.
LOL! Show me. So far, nothing you have posted challenges the statement I
made and you left intact. You continue to respond without contradicting
what I have said. This is what I said again. It is the truth. It is not a
lie. It was the truth in 1990 and it is the truth today.
"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."
" ... 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. ... "
The Juvenile Court Improvement Project (JCIP) in the City of St. Louis has a
number of time frames unique to that project I am sure. The citizens of
that city certainly needed a court improvement project. However, the JCIP
timeframes in St. Louis do not in the slightest address the statement I made
that you call a lie. That statement stands unchallenged as the truth.
Your attention is directed to the phrase: "...designed to bring together
the child welfare and judicial processes..."
Yes, in the JCIP in St. Louis, within 72 hours after removal. Consider my
attention duly drawn to that statement and my notice to you that it does not
address in the slightest way my statement to which you claim to respond.
Court's kept out of the loop by the design and artifice of the authority
of the DJO? I don't think so, liar!
Here is my statement again:
"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."
Is the court kept out of the loop when the decision is made to remove and
the pickup order signed by the DJO. Yep. That is the truth. Your
statement refers to the court's involvement after removal.
Consider Doug, our posts are dated in November 2005. This cited and quoted
report is dated June 2003.
Yes, that's when the Juvenile Court Improvement Project in St. Louis was
reported on. However, I was talking about the practice in Missouri in
securing a pick up order for the removal of children by CD workers. That
practice was in place in 1990, 1991,
1992,1993,1994,1195,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001, 2002,2003,2004 and 2005.
That is why I KNOW you are lying. You could not be that far behind in your
own home state. Or could you?
LOL! You clearly don't know what you think you know. You are quoting a
report about a court improvement project in one city of Missouri that does
not address my statement in the slightest and claiming it makes my statement
a lie. LOL!
Do you mislead out of ignorance, or out of malicious intent?
Are you still beating your wife?
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.) ... "
Here is my statement to which you reply in this post once again:
"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."
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.
What makes you think that the snips from the Court Improvement Project in
St. Louis are anything new in Missouri? Your snippets certainly don't
address the ongoing practice of DJO's signing pick up orders prior to
removal that I was talking about. And the procedures followed by the
various parties after removal as described in the snippets are pretty much
the practices followed for the last decade.
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.
I said that you were invested in defending the present foster care system,
yes. That is my opinion of your responses to the research criticizing its
practice. What changes would you like to see to the current foster care
system?
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.
The cited information, which reports on situations other than what my
statement concerned, illustrates procedures in place long before 2003.
Nonetheless, they do not address the real reform efforts made in Missouri.
Those were initiated by child advocates, families and concerned citizens and
implimented during the past few years by the Missouri legislature. The
legislature attempted to deal with the problem of DJO's signing court orders
prior to removal, but this particular clause was taken out of the last
reform measure by a joint House/Senate committee. It will be reintroduced
this year.
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. ... "
Again, this does not address my statement, to which you claim to be
replying.
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.
The DJO does not usually arrive to remove the child. The CD (DFS) workers
usually physically remove the child on legal authority of the "court order"
signed by the DJO. Secondly, the "decision" by CD to remove is not a
binding decision at all, but CD's reccomendation. The DJO decides whether
the CD has probable cause for the removal and makes the decision by signing
the court order.
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.
Yes, the DJO does not that there will be a hearing in court after the child
is removed. At that hearing, the judge many times decides that the removal
was wrongful and returns the child. However, the judge often does not have
a hand in the court order effecting the removal, which, of course, is what I
was talking about in my statement.
He's lying, AGAIN.
No lie. It is the truth. Here is the statement again.
"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."
The reforms he likes to threaten with his ****-assed "it won't be long
now," have already been instituted. Long ago.
Yes, a great deal of CPS reform has been made in the Missouri legislature
during the past few years and the movement continues. None of those
legislative reforms are reflected in the report from the Juvenile Court
Improvement Project in one of its cities. The reform effort continues and
new legislation will be introduced in Jefferson City this February.
It won't be long, now.