Doug wrote:
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.

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.

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

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? 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.

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.

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."

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

Where's the beef, Doug? 0:-

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."

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.

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.

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 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 ****.

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.

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.

" ... 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.

"and while scheduling them at other times might make longer meetings
possible, it would also decrease attendance by parents. ... "

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?

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

" ... 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.

Of course they do. They cannot until they have that sign off, by a COURT
ASSIGNED DJO. It would be hard to keep the court out of considering he
or she IS part of the judicial system, no?

However, they do not have the legal authority to issue
the order to remove.

That's not been argued by me. Why are you addressing me with it. You
said it before. I did not challenge. You are repeating simply to create
and atmosphere of contention on this issue to avoid the others that I do
call you, most accurately at that, a liar about.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

That's nice. It does NOT however do a thing to further your argument and
claim that the action is in violation "flies in the face of" as you put
it, the law, the legislative intent, or DCF "policy."

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.

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.

Yer scum.

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.

Speak to the document cited. That is not me writing.

It is, to my knowledge, true in some areas, but with the same
requirement to appear in a dispositional hearing within 24 to 72 hours
after removal. There's nothing to argue here, but you need to to avoid
facing that you once again lied about CPS, in this case, MO, and you
were caught at it.

In most states, a court order is required before CPS can
remove a child.

That is not true. Name all those states. Most would have to be a
majority. In fact the use of most insinuates that all but a few, a super
majority, would be so required.

In MOST states if there is any resistance to a worker removing a police
officer assists, just as you said earlier in this post about MO.

You are truly ignorant and stupid.

Most states do not give CPS authority to remove children on
their own.

That is correct. They are empowered by the court, and must justify their
actions to the court post haste.

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.

Well, it's true in every state I know of, so it blows your bs out of the
water, and in many states LEO and doctors do in fact remove rather a lot
of them and turn them over to...yes, you guessed it...CPS, who then must
appear, often with the officer, and or with the doctor's affidavit in
front of who? WHO DOUG? Santa Claus?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

One has to be a member of the bar to be an officer of the court? You are
dancing, Doug.

Just dancing.

I can recall when some civil magistrates, with powers up to and
including findings of guilt and imposing fines, even public service
fines, were not required to be members of the bar either.

In fact some years ago I spent many hours with a retired magistrate
teaching him basic computer skills, at his home, and was surprised at
his answer when I asked where he had gone to law school. And if he had
had bar membership (my obvious next question) in the state where he
served. No, he had not. It had become only a recent requirement. That
was about 1997 or 98.

And I have heard rumors that one can be an "non-judicial" officer of
the court as well.

How about finding transcripts of such cases and posting them here. I'll
bet you are bluffing and that it would be rare anomaly.

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.

Where did I dispute they did. I dispute that is intended to circumvent
court involvement, as YOU claimed. And that is is counter to the intent
of the legislature, and in violation of law and policy.

All issues you have carefully avoided responding to. Repeatedly.

Just as in other of our debates. Though I'd hardly call what you do a
debate or ethical argument.

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.

Yep. So how's he or she keeping the court out of the loop, and how does
his action signing for the removal "fly in the face" of legislative
intent, the law, and policy? I'm waaaiting.

They appear in court -- often, as I have explained, taking on the
role of an
attorney representing the state in rural counties.

How often? Is that illegal? Please explain and show statute related.

Must the representative of the state by an attorney, or even an officer
of the court? Where does the law say that?

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.

As you know Doug, that was included to show that the situation does NOT
amount to keeping the court out of the loop, or in anyway a violation of
law, or legislative intent, or policy. They, the DJO, are required if
those people are present, to work with them, under the court's control,
which of course shows the COURT IS NOT KEPT OUT OF THE LOOP.

Your claims are bogus, and you are a liar to continue to pursue them by
avoidance of discussing them while nitpicking any other thing you find
on the page.

Again, this statement does not in any way dispute, challenge, or make my
statement that DJO's sign court orders for removal a lie.

And where did I claim the DJO didn't sign the court order for removal?

I did claim, however, that your claim, your accusation actually, that
they are used to circumvent the court, and violate the intent of the
legislature, the law, and CPS policy in MO is a mistake. It has now
become an elaborate LIE on your part by avoidance of the rebuttal I
offered.

You are arguing nothing in that context. Show us where the use of the
DJO violates law, policy, or legislative intent.

Stop running and dodging.

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

Liar.

LOL! Show me.

Okay.

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.

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

Show us how the judges are kept out of the loop. And do NOT try to claim
they don't get in until afterward. Police officers, CPS workers in some
states, and obviously this functionary, the DJO, is a duly appointed
person acting under the control of the court, on the court's behalf. And
this is a legal, NOT a "quasi" at all. procedure in yours and other
states. Stop pretending you don't live in MO.

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 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."

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.

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.

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.

Where's the beef?

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."

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."

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.

" ... 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.

Within the report there are references to people's roles, and the
timelines and procedure that MUST be followed statewide because they are
law, both federal and state.

I presume practice and policy must needs follow there for.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

That's NOT out of the loop, Doug.

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."

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

You described a normal procedure and went on to claim it was a
"quasi-extralegal process."

That is flew in the face of law, policy, and legislative intent. I'm
simply NOT going to take your word on that.

Show us the law, show us the policy, find some record of legislative
intent you can share with us that we can verify without having to fly to
MO and put up in a hotel for ten days running down whoever in the
legislature expressed intent that is NOT consistent with the use of the
DJO as you described it.

I'd like a bit of proof beyond your insinuation. I tire of them. You are
good at them. Practiced at them. But they are not true because they are
'pretty' and cleverly formed to split hairs and avoid the facts and the
truth.

You must show concrete proof, or we can recognize that you are bluffing
and insinuating, not providing good sound useful and accurate information.

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.

And I said otherwise?

Where?

You are arguing on a bias that carries you, and I'd guess you are
hopeful the reader as well, away from what I actually put to you as a
challenge. It was only one or two phrases, not all this handy chaff you
throw up to avoid exposure.

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!

I do that. And it shows clearly you do not know what your are talking
about or you are lying about it.

The content of that document shows standard procedures, law, policy
reflected in actions described concerning the DJO, and the courts. It is
not offered to defend the current or past practice of MO DCF, but to
show that those few points YOU made are simply not true.

You are requested to show proof of your claims of deliberate use of DJOs
to put judges out of the loop, circumvent law, and policy, and avoid the
legislative intent of those in the MO statehouse.

I'm waiting for something other than you bogus but cleverly worded
insinuations.

Do I think I get proof from you? No, but it would be a refreshing change.

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

Are you still beating your wife?

No, as I never beat her.

I did throw my second wife into a snow drift once during an argument.
Went with here, we both got over it, and made out like crazy. Your
avoidance bull**** is duly noted.

Do you mislead out of what looks to me like ignorance or malicious
intent, or is there some other agenda you are concealing?

I could easily and honestly answer your question and even elaborate
transparently about myself.

What am I going to get from you, another dodge?

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."

You have in prior postings for over a very long time quoted others, and
made claims yourself that clients are deliberately left out of proceedings.

Stop dodging.

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?

I don't. I think much of what they did around 2002 was in fact old hat
in many states. Already in pilot in many places, and instituted fully in
others. I watched it take place, so it's real hard to lie to me, Doug,
even if others who didn't watch can be more easily fooled. I wouldn't'
bet on it though. A little bit of you goes a long way to someone that is
objective and critical in their thinking.

Your snippets certainly don't
address the ongoing practice of DJO's signing pick up orders prior to
removal that I was talking about.

I'm sorry for you. You have to lie to yourself to do this, don't you?
That's so neurotic I can hardly believe someone in your profession would
allow themselves that little fit of nonsense.

I did not argue they don't, but that your claim for why is insinuation
and no proof that it's true.

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.

Yep. I said that myself, and that is why, those very practices, I want
proof that some of them, specifically the use of the DJO for signing for
removal, is done without judicial knowledge, to keep the judge out of
the loop, to "fly in the face" of the law, policy, and legislative
intent, as YOU claim and I challenge.

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.

I am not.

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?

I would like to see more training and support (costly at that) for
foster parents. Respite, vacations, more clothing allowance for the
children, more money from the citizens to provide more transition
support to those leaving the system by their majority, (it's not CPS
withholding from that activity), better educated foster parents overall,
about half again the stipend for supporting the foster child so that
their very expensive activities are met (foster children tend to be
highly destructive of the home and of their own possessions), and
something done to whip ass on you you liar when you claim that they kill
and or injure at a higher rate than abusive parents, who you lump in
with the larger general population to cook the numbers.

Give me a couple of days, I might come up with more.

I have, you of poor memory, or a propensity to lie by misleading and
insinuation, posted such reforms before.

It is consistent with the Pew report, and federal findings. Nothing
really new here, except the reference to you. Though I believe I may
have mentioned your ugly vicious destructive tactics in other contexts
in the past. 0:-

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.

Yep.

Nonetheless, they do not address the real reform efforts made in
Missouri.

We were discussing, for now, a very small subset...the reforming of the
part of the system that uses DJOs, as YOU claim, and I want proof of, to
keep judges out of the loop, "fly in the face of" policy, law, and
legislative intent.

And I going to get that proof from you, or am I going to get an
admission that you are guessing and insinuating, or that you were simply
carried away by your passion for CPS and foster bashing and let out a
little excessive bull****?

Those were initiated by child advocates, families and concerned
citizens and
implimented during the past few years by the Missouri legislature.

That's nice. Where in my argument did I bring that up, or attempt to
argue against it?

You have made a kind of hobby out of creating intent on my part that
does not in fact exist. You pretend that I have not, from my first days
debating you, come down strongly against some shortcomings of CPS.
Shortcomings experts agree with ME on.

I don't bring them up to often because YOUR habit of endlessly droning
the same crappola isn't something I'd want the reader to associate me
with.

The
legislature attempted to deal with the problem of DJO's signing court
orders
prior to removal,

PROOF required. That is a claim. Claims are not proof. Where do you get
off?

Considering your history here, it's an obligation for you to provide
proof of such outlandish claims. It may BE the problem you claim and it
may be something entirely different for the legislature.

Did they say it went against their intent? I want to see transcripts.
Did in fact such actions leave the judge out of the loop? Not according
to what I have cited here. The judge is part of the same court process
the DJO is, as assigned to the court, and sees everything within 72
hours. That's NOT out of the loop, and it's standard procedure in
judicial and enforcement proceedings in any such matters, or any other
similar matters.

but this particular clause was taken out of the last
reform measure by a joint House/Senate committee. It will be
reintroduced
this year.

Provide us with the clause. I want to see the wording and see if it
addresses, violation of law, as you claimed, and of policy, and of
legislative intent.

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.

No, it does not address what YOU made up and claimed was what I was
replying to.

I was replying only to your claim the DJOs are used to leaven judges out
of the loop, and to violate the law, and policy, and the intent of the
legislature.

It DOES address that. The cited paragraph makes plain that some of the
duties of the DJO include this court involved activity and adherence to
points of law, such as the 12 month permanency decision. In other words,
the DJO is on board with the court and DCF from the get go. There is a
point that comes when they are not, but the evidence goes to the lack of
credibility in your claim:

"flies in the face."

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.

I just said that. The point made by me is in the part where the court is
involved and you deny it. By playing with splitting hairs.

The CD (DFS) workers
usually physically remove the child on legal authority of the "court
order"
signed by the DJO.

Yep. You see me argue that doesn't happen, or did you see me, and run
like a dog, claim that you haven't provided proof the judge is out of
the loop, the law is being violated, policy is being circumvented, and
the intent of the legislature is being ignored.?

Anything but the actual points being discussed, Doug. That IS how you
argue endlessly to tire and distract the reader from what a scumbag you
actually are.

Secondly, the "decision" by CD to remove is not a
binding decision at all, but CD's reccomendation.

Please point out where I argued that it was a binding decision, or
argued in any context about CD actions.

The DJO decides whether
the CD has probable cause for the removal and makes the decision by
signing
the court order.

Endless repetition of what has not been argued. Do you know that was one
of the most common techniques of North Korean and Chinese Communist
warders of POWS during brain washing? What ever was logical was always
avoided.

Such tactics dulls the victims thinking, bores them into submission.
Eventually even very bright people simply tire. My bet is no one but I
have read this far at this point...unless of course, they are catching
on to you and want to see just how far you'll go.

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.

Yep. And leaves the judge out of the loop how again?

At that hearing, the judge many times decides that the removal
was wrongful and returns the child.

Yep. And you wish to reform this how again?

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.

You are stupid or a liar. This time I'm betting on the latter.

The DJO acts on the authority of the judge. The judge knows that cases,
every single one where a removal occurs, are going to show up within 72
hours in their court. He or she is NOT out of the loop on the removal.
Nor more than a criminal court judge would be seeing his docket for the
first time that day. A cop arrested a perp on probable cause. The perp
and the cop show up in front of the judge. Ho hum.

That is all that is happening here, or do you think the cop is keeping
the judge out of the loop because he didn't ask for a hearing first,
before the arrest?

The nature of time precludes them doing so in many instances. People
don't get reported for abuse during the 8 to five time frame all that
often. In fact cops come across kids all hours of the night, day,
weekends, and holidays. That IS why there is a process for cop, or in
this instance, DJO to make the call and have it vetted, validated, or
dumped by the court within that 72 hour requirement.

You want more than probable cause before intervention Doug. Your same
old dance, new tune. I expect it about once a week. I hope the holiday
is what delayed you bit and you had a good time.

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 ...

I have made NO argument, claim, or challenge concerning anything above
this point in the comment you made. Yet YOU wish to argue as though I
had, making up my "challenge" to it as you meander along on your muddy
little path.

My challenge was, is, and will continue to be with the following:

... 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."

Prove to use the judge has no knowledge the DJO performs this assignment
of the court.

Prove to us that there are any procedures in criminal or civil (family
court) where a hearing must be held before arrest (criminal
proceedings)or removal (civil family court child protection
proceedings), or that this process is being used, as you claim, to keep
judges out of the loop, is quasi-extralegal, is done to reduce
accountability (whose?), and is for the purpose of circumventing the
law, policy and legislative intent, and is all "intentional."

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.

Yep, so why end your bull**** with. "it won't be long now?" Other than
for effect?
An appeal to emotion, rather than to reason?

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.

That's great. Now all you have to do is come up with the reform showing
it is in the area ONLY where I challenged you, since I agree with most
reforms, and disagree ONLY with where you lie.

Tell us, what reforms specifically are to stop the illegal actions of
DJOs, with their intentional violation of law, policy, and legislative
intent?

You've got to deal with that vicious claim that they are acting
illegally with intent, Doug. Stop spitting hairs, and stop your dancing,
and stop your avoidance.

You have actually claimed they are breaking the law. You just very
carefully weasel worded it in hopes no one in decision making in your
state saw your post and got that you were so accusing.

I see it. Anyone that can think critically can see it. You said they
intentionally broke the law, intentionally violated policy, and
intentionally violated legislative intent.

Let's get real here. I want proof they did that. If you were to be heard
in the up coming proceedings saying those things, someone there that can
think beyond our callous and vicious slyness might well ask the same
question.

Were is your proof of the DJOs criminal intent and activities?

It won't be long, now.

It might be sooner than you think. I might contact the MO legislature
about you and let them read your rantings and figure you out for
themselves.

And I might not. You get to guess.

But you can be sure if I am asked for proof, I have hundreds of your
posts, and my challenges and replies to provide.

YOU, when asked simply to provide proof of the claim of law breaking,
policy violation, and intentionally leaving the judge out of the loop.

This would be very hard to explain, wouldn't it, to a DJO and the court
he is assigned to, and
the legislature you claim his in intentionally violating their desires?

"It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce
accountablity and keep judges out of the loop."

You like lively debate, don't you Doug? Well, learn to live with what
you actually say. This world is not invisible to the outside world.

What you make up about what I say is easily challenged.

Want to play?

Give us the proof of what you claim about the DJO program and by golly
I'll back off. But not unless you can provide supportable proof.

It won't be very long now, will it 0:-?