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.

There were no "lies" in the remainder of the post that you snipped or
in the statement above, that you left intact.

Kane responds:

Sure there are. A veritable pack of them. And colorfully diverse. Flat out
misinformation type, evasions out the ying yang, misleading, weasel
wording, oversimplifying, equivocating by claiming I make arguments I did
not make. Your a talented phenomena. I've met few that could lie with the
equinamity you manage.

It is one paragraph, the one appearing above. It is the single paragraph
that you quoted and replied to previously with a longwinded narrative,
citation and quotation of material that never once addressed the items in
the paragraph. The paragraph clearly deals with one process and one process
only . . .

"....Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this
procedure is done without hearing and without knowledge of the presidng
judge."

The paragraph refers to the involvement of the judge in the decision making
leading to issuing a pick up order. This procedure happens before removal,
obviously. After removal, as I have repeatedly stated in my previous posts,
a judge does become involved at the time of post-removal hearing.

You lied about the majority of cases, and about the use to circumvent or
leave the court out of the loop.

Nope. If the DJO signs the "court order" without the judge's involvement,
the judge is out of the loop in issuing that order.

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).

I did not argue this point. Why are you pretending I did? Because you got
caught again in a misleading lie?

LOL! No, because you spent 16k worth of type in your response to that
single paragraph. That paragraph clearly makes just the point you now say
you are in agreement with.

You are simply, among other
things, building up a wave of boring diversions, in the repetitive
extreme, to drive off the few that might be interested, so that you can
hope to carry out your lies unexposed. I hope they are not so bored that
they won't stick around and watch me spank your lying ass soundly. With
facts, and with uncovering your trickery.

LOL! You may want to read my paragraph again. I can understand how you
could have misinterpreted it the first time, but I have cut and pasted it a
number of times in my latter post. It refers to the procedures followed in
obtaining a "court order" for removal, not the process that follows.

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.

See above. Not argued. You are right. Never said you weren't.

Good. Then we have no argument.

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."

The lie begins, since I did not argue concerning the other things you
mention, at "in the majority of cases."

Okay, lets take a look at the segment of the paragraph beginning with "in
the majority of cases. "...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 a quasi-extralegal process
intentionally done to reduce accountability and keep judges out of the
loop."

1) Nothing in this partial quote refers to the process after removal. It
all refers to the procedure done to obtain a court order for removal. This
procedure, ending with a signed "court order" is obviously done before
removal.

2) I have placed astericks around the terms used to address the only
procedure talked about in the entire quote.

First of all, if you are referring to the presiding judge for the juvenile
court system, that is disingenuous pap.

I am not referring to the presiding judge for the juvenile court system. I
don't even know if there is such a critter. I was referring to the circuit
judge that hears the cases. Except in large metropolitan cities in
Missouri, there really isn't a "juvenile judge." The judge for the district
hears many different types of cases (except probate). When she or he hears
a family court matter, he simply puts on a different hat, if you will. The
procedures are different in juvenile matters, not the personnel. (except
probate).

They regularly are concerned with the administration of the system, not the
case by case content unless some irregularity or are asked for help brings
it to their attention. They sit in authority over the judges that make up
their particular bailiwick. What you wanted people to assume and miss the
reality of, is that there IS a judge that will be involved with every
single case where removal is done and the DJO is responsible to him or her
and must appear in front of him or her in the course of the dependency or
dispositional hearing.

As I have written myself repeatedly, a judge is involved in some aspects of
the case after removal. He or she is certainly the tryer of fact in
hearings. But that does not address what I was talking about in the
paragraph to which you respond or in the partial quote you say is a lie.
Both deal exclusively with the involvement of the judge in deciding to issue
a "court order" for removal. That procedure, obviously, unfolds before
removal. If the DJO signs that order, and the judge is unaware of the facts
presented in support of the order, the judge is out of the loop in issuing
that order.

The fact you are a lying word spinning cheat does not diminish in any way
that you are a liar.

That you call the paragraph a lie and its construction word spinning is the
very point I am hoping gets across in this thread. It gives everyone a
clear idea of what you mean by lies, cheats, and word spinning. In other
incidences when you make these charges, it is not as easy to detect their
basis.

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."

What nonsense. That is what police do as well. Then the case appears
before the judge. Not just in juvenile court, but in any system of
enforcement.

No. If police need a search warrant, or an arrest warrant, they do not sign
the search warrant in leiu of talking to the judge. To obtain those
warrants, they need to argue their case to a judge with supporting probable
cause. "No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized." You may be familiar with that
language.

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.

It does no such thing. The actions of the DJO are by policy, which should
be by both law and legislative intent. Show the law and legislative INTENT
if you wish to make such claims, Doug the Liar.

You say it's not, but you fail to PROVE it's not.

Well, lets not get ahead of ourselves. I am still trying to respond to your
rebuttal of a single paragraph I wrote. We have both spent a great deal of
text trying to clarify this. After we do, maybe we can move on to bigger
and better things . . . like arguing paragraph two. g

You'll see in this document that the current function of the DJO is not
only accepted but they are key element of the team, and they operate under
policy guidelines. And this even goes to TPR waaay beyond the removal
stage.

Yes, but the document does not address in any way what I said in the
paragraph to which you are responding. In that paragraph, I was talking
about the procedures carried out to obtain a court order for removal, not
the countless other processes that follow, including TPR.

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

So give us your proof the legislative intent proscribed the use of DJO as
currently utilized was something different. Try to find statute. Show us
the policy items you appear to be saying are violated, as in "fly in the
face of."

The intent of the legislature in requiring a "court order" for removal was
that a judge would sign the order after finding there was probable cause for
the removal.

Where's the beef, Doug? 0:-

Right in that very first paragraph you are having so many problems with. We
are in the process of deboning it for you, sir. g

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 are lying yet again. You said very plainly this is used to keep the
judge out of the loop.
As in, " It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce
accountablity and keep judges out of the loop."

Yes, when the DJO signs the "court order" for removal and the judge knows
nothing of the facts of the case, the judge is out of the loop at that
point.

That is difficult to reconcile with the posted material I provided that
shows the court indeed is involved in the removals by making a judgment
about them within 2 days of said action by the DJO ASSIGNED TO THEIR
COURT.

Not hard to reconcile at all, since the material you posted explained the
judges involvement in the process AFTER removal. That is why your cited
material does not address what I was talking about in the paragraph, which
is the procedure of obtaining a court order BEFORE removal.

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.

It is a lie. The services are rarely factually more than the family can
handle and indeed accommodations for many of them are to fit the family's
schedule. Contracts with providers often include wording that they will
accommodate by holding their meetings on weekends, evenings, and even
holidays.

We disagree. Legions of child welfare experts, researchers, advocates,
foster caregivers, members of this newsgroup, and parents themselves
disagree with you as well. They agree with me that services and the times
they are offered are often a barrier to parents -- especially low-income
parents who are struggling to keep their job or multiple jobs. Many
researchers and advocates have said that the way these services are
scheduled and their substance sets the parents up to fail.

No lies, Kane. Just differences of opinion. Spokespeople for both
positions are well qualified. Neither are liars.

You are lying. I've read those contracts, I've attended such events with
kin and their client relatives on Saturdays, Sundays, and evenings as late
running as late as 10 and 11 o'clock if need be to accommodate the client.

I hope you understand that I am not interested in stories about your
personal experiences. I am a bit overloaded. I have heard you speak of
killing rabbits and paralizing criminals with a single shout, watching
police officers vomit in bushes and restrooms, developing interragation
techniques for detectives, walking through international airports with a
briefcase handcuffed to your wrist, collecting consulation fees from CPS
workers for advising them their young clients did not need 3 psychiatrists,
breaking the jaws of kids who bullied you as a child, etc, etc.

I have listened to the arguments for overtime by workers who had to set up
meetings to allow clients to meet at the client's convenience at all
hours. I've never been to a 4 am meeting but I've heard of one. So the
client could make it to work later and not have to come in in the late
afternoon tired.

Yer a sick ****.

Well, my response to the stories hasn't gotten that bad. Or do you mean that
to disagree with you is a sickness?

What I have also heard is even more of what workers said in my quotation,
directly from the mouths of clients myself, talking with their kin who had
the children in care, defiantly refusing to accept services including drug
rehab, psychological counseling, job search assistance. They just don't
wanna, and they were already unemployed.

Well, what I was talking about in particular was impoverished parents who
were sometimes working two jobs to support their families and may find
attending therapy, and parenting classes two days a week difficult. And
when they object to these services being mandated as a condition for getting
their children out of state custody, they may find the anger management
classes a little frustrating.

I am sure CPS runs into clients who fit into either of our categories.

It's common to CPS cases, there and everywhere I've been. And obviously to
the workers quoted.

It's more often the professionals that are hard pressed to make the
meetings given their workload, as below. While the family is just
interested in being late for the dart game at the tavern. Yer a liar.

Hmm. I thought state workers worked 8-5. I know that's when the meetings
are held. Sometimes, clients work 8-5, too. I wonder which one has to take
off work and risk losing their jobs to attend the meetings?

That, Doug the Liar, is an accommodation. You claim they do not
accommodate.

It Does counter your bull****, because YOUR reports come from sources that
are clients self reporting. Do you think the are going to gush over having
to/. go to any meeting or service delivery at any time when they discuss
it with anyone not in the loop that could check their claims?

Your opinion, which differs from many child welfare professionals and others
who have drawn different conclusions from talking to many different sources,
does not "counter" those differing opinions. My sources of information for
my opinion are many other than parents, including the research available in
the literature.

I said you lied about the judicial process, and you did. You claimed that
the DJO action was used deliberately to keep the judge out of the loop.

In particular, ""...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 a quasi-extralegal process intentionally done
to reduce accountability and keep judges out of the loop."

You cannot defend that and I can refute it by citing the quote above. There
is a court process precisely for addressing the things you claim are
avoided, and that is proved by the citation above. Among other things.

The court process referred to in the cited material happens after the
removal, as your source and you clearly explain. My quote above refers to
the process in obtaining a "court order" for a removal, which of course,
plays out before the child is removed. Neither you or the report on the
Juvenile Court Improvement Project in St. Louis respond to my statement.

These hearings follow removal and should occur within 72 hours of that
removal.

They do. You claimed the court is not part of the process, by design. And
that is against the law, the legislative intent, and policy. You've proved
none of those.

No, I just said above that the court is involved in the process (hearings)
after the removal. So, obviously I did NOT claim that the court was not
part of that process. What I DID claim was that in the majority of cases,
the DJO signs the court order and for removal and that this procedure is
done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge.
Again, again, again, my claim was about the procedures for obtaining a
"court order" for removal of a child and that this process is often done
without the involvement of the judge.

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."

It is a lie. The DJO pickup process cannot conceal from or hold the judge
out of the loop as other processes, and the authority go to and derive
from the court. You are a liar.

If the judge knows nothing of the facts of the case presented as basis for
probable cause and the DJO signs the order, then the judge is out of the
loop at that point.

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:

Did you see me argue this one way or another?

....Yes. You spent a whole post arguing what I said in the single paragraph,
which was essentially just that.

Is it relevant to my claim that you are lying and to the material I cited
from MO sources in rebuttal?

No, it is not relevant to your claim because I was not lying and because the
material you cited did not address in any way the process I discussed in the
paragraph, let alone rebute it.

The answer, of course, is "no" and "no," and I see it is nothing more than
yet another of your weasel tactics to slip away from the actual
issue....the claim by you that the process of using the DJO as currently
done is to avoid having the judge in the loop.

If the judge knows nothing of the facts of the case presented as basis for
probable cause and the DJO makes the decision to remove unilaterally by
signing the "court order," then the judge is obviously out of the loop at
that point in time.

Your OWN WORDS today show that to be wrong. You cannot weasel out of your
lie or mistake, which ever it was, and your continued denial it was a
mistake, makes it a lie.

Not at all. My own words in this post that a judge is involved in hearings
AFTER the removal does not in any way show that my statement that the judge
is often not involved in signing the order for removal BEFORE removal is
wrong. The statement stands as correct.

1) CD worker (as the result of an CAN investigation or assessment)
makes a
request for removal to the DJO

I've read more of this than you.

2) The DJO finds "probable cause" and signs a "court order" for removal;

That's right. Just like a police officer would do, or if the DCF where
charged with this duty as they are in some other states, the worker. They
must, ALL OF THEM, however, appear, as in all such cases, criminal or
civil, appear before a judge if they remove the child, and prove their
probable cause. MO is no different.

AFTER the child is removed, the judge becomes involved as I have said.
(Although the burden of proof at this point is preponderance of the
evidence, not probable cause). But that is not what my statement in the
paragraph we have discussed for three posts now referred to. That statement
referred to the process of who decides whether there is probable cause for a
"court order" for removal and who usually signs that order before the
removal takes place. The statement was that the DJO signs the order in many
cases and that the judge is out of the loop at that time.

So tell us how the court or judge is kept out of the loop please?

....By not hearing anything about the facts supporting probable cause before
the child is actually removed from her home. By not making the decision
about whether their is probable cause and by not being around to sign the
order. That's how he is out of the loop.

Statute requires they be IN the loop and current practice is within two
days.

Within two days of what? Within two days AFTER the child is actually
removed from her home? (Actually, the requirement is 72 hours and has been
for many years).
If so, you do not address my statement. My statement concerned the process
of obtaining a court order to remove the child, which occurs, obviously
BEFORE the child is removed. Do we need to look at 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."

You provided a lot of characters to print to my screen, but you have
provided NO proofs or even logical argument for your claim, as yet.

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.

I did not claim that the DJO didn't sign without involvement of the court.
A police officer can arrest without the involvement of the court on
probable cause. That is the DJO authority.

The Missouri legislature, by statute, requires a court order to empower
Children's Division to remove children from their homes.

Like an LEO, however, he or she must present to the court. What you are
asking is that all cases have MORE than probable cause to remove,
apparently.

Nope, just probable cause.

"No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."

Yer scum.

LOL!

You are truly ignorant and stupid.

LOL!

You claimed that the major function of using the DJO removal sign off was
to keep the judge out of the loop. As I said, and you have NOT so far
responded to, that would be hard to do considering they are assigned their
duties BY the court, and they must appear IN the court at the disposition
hearing. WHO holds a dispositional hearing, Doug? WHO?

WHEN is the dispositional hearing held, Kane? AFTER the child has been
removed from her home? This does not address my statement, which concerned
the process of determining probable cause and signing the "court order" for
removal. That process plays out, of course, before the child is removed.

How is the court out of the loop, and how is this in violation of the
intent of the legislature, law, and the policy of CPS, as YOU claimed and
is the ONLY issue I am arguing with you, and refuting you soundly as you
dodge, weasel dodge, the bullet?

If the judge did not hear the arguments supporting probable cause, does not
know of the facts of the case before removal, and does not sign the court
order for removal, the judge is out of the loop at that time, to summarize
once again the paragraph to which you respond.

If you want to "refute" the statement, address it. So far, you continue to
talk about procedures after the child is removed when the statement confined
itself to the process leading to the signing of the removal order, which is
done before the removal.

After removal, when the
case goes to the court for hearing, the DJO attends the hearing.

Yep. Are you not the one that claimed the DJO was an agent used to keep
the court out of the loop? Then why are you posting the the DJO actually
attends a hearing? In fact how can the court be out of the loop if
HEARINGS ARE PART OF THE PROCESS?

I am the one that claimed that the judge was out of the loop if the DJO
unilaterally determined that probable cause existed for a removal and signed
the "court order." That the judge becomes part of the loop AFTER the removal
does not address, let alone dispute, my claim that the judge was out of the
loop at the time the decision to remove was made. So, as you can see, it is
understandable that I post that the judge is in the loop after the removal
but not in the loop beforehand, when the DJO signs the "court order" for
removal BEFORE the removal.

From the top of this post, from your attributed remarks:

" 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."

I challenged that statement, nothing else. I never said that DJOs don't
sign, a point you keep babbling about as though I had. How unethical you
are.

And yet, over and over again, you continue to write about processes after
removal, when the selected quote deals exclusively with the process of
deciding probable cause and issuing a court order for removal BEFORE actual
removal.

Show us how it is "quasi-extralegal" and please define the term first.

....Because it is not technically illegal. The legislature intended by
requiring a court order and providing a space for a judge to sign, that a
judge would hear the showing of probable cause and issue the court order.

So far, nothing you have posted challenges the statement I
made and you left intact.

No, you have NOT even addressed what I did. You keep answering or
responding to claims you make up and assign to me while avoiding the ones
I actually did make.

I am trying to restrict myself to the statement I made and your rebuttal of
it in pages of pages of text. In your narrative, you consistantly talk
about other processes that occur after the process I was talking about in
the paragraph you claimed to be responding to.

It is only now that you come to the realization we have been talking about
apples and oranges?

I want to see the proof for your opening statement end of paragraph claims
concerning
"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."

Well, to keep the context, lets include the words leading to the quote
above, which defines the procedure the sentence is talking about. We will
take the section of the quote that you pointed out in the top of your post
as the "lie":

"Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this
procedure is done without hearing and without knowledge of the presidng
judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce
accountablity and keep judges out of the loop."

See? Context makes a difference, no?

You may begin in topic any time you like. The rest is window dressing you
are adding that do NOT address my question and demand that you prove what
you say.

I will try to keep away from the window dressing and restrict myself to the
part of my statement quoted above. The proof that the judge is out of the
loop when the decision is made that there is probable cause for a removal
order and that order signed by the DJO without the judge knowing the facts
of the case or making the decision. Pretty simple. It is my opinion that
this unilateral action by the DJO is a quasi-legal process because the
legislature requires a court order and reasonably expected a judge to hear
the argument in support of probable cause and then sign the order.

You continue to respond without contradicting
what I have said.

No, you keep posting commentary that YOU claim or insinuate I have said
that I have not. Show me where I claimed DJOs don't sign for removals.

Good. We agree.

I have not done that.

I have asked you to justify your lying claim about their INTENT in doing
so. And their process being for the purpose of keeping the judge out of
the loop, the law violated, and policy ignored.

Law is not violated. I did not say that it was. You did. Policy is not
ignored. That is why I did not say in my statement that policy was ignored.
But if the judge is not around to hear the facts of the case and does not
have anything to do with producing the "court order" for removal, then the
judge is clearly out of the loop for that particular process.

I made argument, not one about anything before this statement: "and this
procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the
presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to
reduce accountability and keep judges out of the loop."

Well, I will have to include a few words before it, since they define what
the procedure I am talking about is. The type of procedure and when the
process occurs is the very crux of the misunderstanding. You somehow missed
that the paragraph addresses only that process, which occurs before the
child is removed.

"Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this
procedure is done without hearing and without knowledge of the presidng
judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce
accountablity and keep judges out of the loop."

Context makes a difference, you see.

That is not the truth, and I want proofs from you that it is, or you are
attempting to foist a factually wrong claim on the reader and me. And
since you continue to ignore it, you are then lying by design and fancy
footwork.

I have answered above, about six paragraphs ago.

If they do NOT and the DJOs are being used to deliberately, as you claim,
circumvent the judge, and the law, and policy, then I want some proof that
is so.

I did not say that the DJO's are being used to deliberately circumvent the
judge. That's your claim, not mine. I said that the judge is often out of
the loop when the DJO makes the decision there is probable cause and signs
the removal order. Where did I ever suggest that this was done to
circumvent the judge or that the judge did not know it was happening?

I have already answered the subset of your question about law and policy.

Since the judge holds the hearing within 72 hours, and that is now the law
in MO, and presumably the DJO is a legally constituted job in MO and is
legally assigned to the court (the other, higher profile job of DJOs is in
juvenile offender and justice proceedings) then you have one hell of a job
to do to find proof of this claim of law breaking, quasi legal, violations
etc.

The hearing is held within 72 hours AFTER the child is removed. As you
know, I was talking about the process that occurs before the child is
removed. (Why do you say, BTW, that the 72 hour requirement is NOW the law.
It has been for years.)
That the judge hears the case after removal does not contradict my statement
about the process that happens before removal.

But I wish to see it and charge you with being either mistaken or lying.
Given that you have gone to great trouble to avoid answering my challenge
and have invented challenges I did not make, I count you as a liar, sir.
That IS how liars operate in argument and discussion.
You are a weasel.

our 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.

How would the court be out of loop if the DJO is assigned to his or her
job with the court, by the DJO agency, and there must be an appearance
within 72 hours for a dispositional hearing WITH THE COURT, PRESUMABLY
WITH A JUDGE SITTING?

BEFORE removal, AFTER removal. My statement addressed only the process that
occurs before removal. The judges involvement AFTER removal does not mean
he was in the loop before the removal.

That's NOT out of the loop, Doug.

At the time the DJO solely made the decision probable cause existed and
signed the order to remove, which is the process the paragraph addressed,
the judge was out of the loop.

It is most decidedly within the loop, and I presume within the law, and
within policy, and within legislative intent.

YOU claimed a violation of the latter three, and the intent of the first,
and you have provided NO proof, and avoided responding to my point by
pretending and even making up OTHER points out of other commentary here
that was no more than corroboration of conditions that refute your claim
above.

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.

Doug. You are hairsplitting. You did NOT say before the hearing. You said,
with NO time line, and anyone can look up a few inches and see it plain,
that there as NO hearing. "without hearing."

You still haven't read the paragraph? You would think I have repeated it
enough. I distinctly addressed in that paragraph only the process of
deciding whether to issue a court order for removal and who was involved in
signing that order in many cases. Here is the portion of the paragraph we
are discussing one more time:

"Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this
procedure is done without hearing and without knowledge of the presidng
judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce
accountablity and keep judges out of the loop."

Quite clearly, I am addressing only the procedures of deciding upon and
executing a order to remove. Clearly, in a time line, that order to remove
comes before the actual removal.

1) Order for removal
2) Removal
3) Hearings after removal.

The paragraph to which you have been responding for two posts concerns only
item one. You continue to talk about item 3. Apples and oranges.

What court of any kind holds a hearing BEFORE the "perp" is engaged by
enforcement agents?

Oh, geez, let me see, those kind of courts that decide whether there is
probable cause to issue a search warrant or an arrest warrant.

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

Are you still beating your wife?

No, as I never beat her.

Oh, okay. Then my answer to your question above is, "No, because I never
mislead."