Doug wrote:
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 . . .
No, I addressed the content. In fact it's YOU that tried to claim I
addressed something in the paragraph that I did NOT. Because that was
not factually incorrect, nor did it need addressing.
"....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."
That's one of the lies. It is misleading in that the judge in all cases,
criminal or otherwise, unless a warrant has been issued does not have
knowledge of cases not as yet presented to the court. I made my point on
that and you are avoiding responding to the point I made be reduction to
the absurd.
It's pointless to hold a hear until an investigation HAS has been made,
and in cases where the DJO, and DCF have found reason to remove, the
investigation has just started.
The paragraph refers to the involvement of the judge in the decision
making
leading to issuing a pick up order.
That's right. Please explain why and how this is done elsewhere and why
it should be done here, other than to cripple the process of child
protection.
In fact if that clumsy requirement were made across the board all
enforcement, including criminal, would be entirely crippled. One
investigates, THEN presents the evidence for hearing, you smarmy jackass.
This procedure happens before removal,
obviously.
Yes. And you did not see me argue otherwise.
After removal, as I have repeatedly stated in my previous posts,
a judge does become involved at the time of post-removal hearing.
"A judge" is legally involved in the process exactly as they are in
criminal cases using LEOs. In these cases, the DJO. Each serves the
court. You know it. I know it. The legislators know it, if they aren't
being lied to and manipulated by scum such as you. That makes the judge
"in the loop," not out of it.
Would you require everyone to be present at the phone line when the call
comes in? DCF, DJO, and the judge, all to decide whether or not to go
out on the call?
And YOU, of course, regardless of what the DCF investigator/worker
found, and brought to the attention of the DJO, would require they leave
without the child, right? Until they took what they found to the judge.
Right?
You stupid vicious little child hating *******.
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.
If a cop removes a child, or arrests someone without first notifying the
court and having a hearing or other judicial face to face exchange then
he would fit the same criteria you are asking for. There is no
difference in the actions of a police officer doing his job, and THEN
presenting his evidence (with a perp locked up for safe keeping if the
case warrants from the COPS judgement) to the court, than the DCF and
DJO doing their's and THEN presenting their evidence to the court with
the child in temporary out of home care.
You are a child hating monster as far as I can see.
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.
Why you lying ****er. You word twisting malicious unethical ****.
I never disagreed with the statement of WHAT the DJO but with your claim
as to intent and the ****ty hairsplitting over normal enforcement
proceedures that must be followed or immediately clog the court docket
to the point of the impossible.
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,
I misinterperted nothing. I asked you to prove that the purpose of the
DJO was to keep the judge out of the loop (not even actually arguing
whether or not he or she isn't until you came back with your bull**** on
that issue), that there is intentional violation of law, policy and some
fancied "intent" of the legislature.
You are dancing about with the only thing you can find to argue about as
though it mattered, when it doesn't, claiming I "agree" with something I
never disputed.
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.
And where did I argue that does not happen?
I asked you to prove the intententional violations by use of DJO. You
are dancing, liar.
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.
Oh? Please point out where you provided the proof of what I have asked
for repeatedly?
The intent to keep judges out of the loop, the intent to "fly in the
face of" law and police, and the intent of the legislature. Where IS the
proof of this claim of yours?
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.
That does NOT mean the judge is out of the loop, nor does it mean there
was, as YOU claimed, an intent to keep the judge out of the loop, or to
avoid responsibilty...as you claimed... nor does it address the other
three as yet unproven claims you made pertaining to law, policy and
legislative intent being deliberately violated.
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.
He is not out of the loop. He is, just as a criminal court judge not
hearing the evidence until the evidence is IN.
If no removal is possible until a judge hears the disposition of the
case, then the child would be required to be left, regardless of what is
found, with the alledged perp or perps.
You are one sick ****.
It applies in criminal cases, and it applies in the same manner in child
protection cases. In many cases the child is NOT removed. In those cases
were they are the DCF and DJO made the call and then have to justify it
in court....SO THERE IS NO KEEPING JUDGE OUT OF THE LOOP....unless YOU
wish to claim that their required appearance to testify as to the
reasons for removal are OUT OF THE LOOP.
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).
How are the proceedures "different?" You mean to tell me that in those
cases that come before the judge were he or she is not wearing their
"family court matters" there is a hearing required before a police
officer can effect an arrest, confiscate evidence, remove alledged
victims for further investigation and safety of evidence and persons?
Please explain. 0:-
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.
Then Liar, he or she is obviously IN THE LOOP.
He or she is certainly the tryer of fact in
hearings.
That puts them decidedly within the loop.
But that does not address what I was talking about
Yes it does, liar. And in addition it shows that you wish to destroy the
system by asking of it what is not even asked of criminal enforcement
proceedings.
Substitute "DCF," "worker," and "DJO," in the following sentence where
appropriate to see what I mean.
Scenario:
PD gets a call that a crime may be underway, suspicious activity. LEO
proceeds to identified location. LEO investigates. LEO determines there
is in fact a probable cause to believe there has been a crime, or one is
about to be committed. He or she does this by viewing and questioning.
LEO detains suspect. LEO collects evidence by view and interview, and
removal of evidence including persons that bear aspects of evidence on
their person. LEO secures the evidence, including the person that is
themselves part of the evidence so they may not be tampered with and
they may be protected.
LEO presents, within 72 hours, their evidence to the court. Court says,
"yer full of **** and pullin' a Douggie on me. Get out of here, return
the evidence, release the perp and don't do that again," OR " you are
mistaken, release evidence and persons."
OR, "yep you got a case. Proceed to take those actions I hereby deem
necessary to reach a legal conclusion of the case."
in the
paragraph to which you respond or in the partial quote you say is a lie.
You are making this up. I pointedly singled out four things...the INTENT
to keep the judge out of the loop, intentionally avoiding
responsibility, intentionally scoffing the law, the policy, and the
legislative intention. Each of these was enumerated by YOU, Doug, and
you said plainly that there was this intent to "fly in the face of" by
quasi-legal means.
I ask you for proof not only that these things actually occur, which
some do, and some do not, but that there is INTENT TO DO WRONG BY ANY
INVOLVED, DCF, DJO, the court, or any body else you'd like to slander
and libel.
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.
You did not say that. You made a general statement that the "judge is
out of the loop," with no caveat, no explaination.
I knew that, you knew that, and my challenge at that time and now, STILL
unanswered, is how that is in any way extraordinary in the enforcement
of law, civil or criminal.
Defend this standard practice, as I've pointed out to you repeatedly
now, by showing it is NOT a standard practice, and why and how it should
be changed.
How does the officer, DCF, or DJO determine that a child should be
removed or not and if they find cause to remove, they should LEAVE THE
CHILD UNTIL AFTER A DISPOSITIONAL HEARING.
You are a sneak. You have continually danced away from my questions. You
have done it be diddling around with issues that secondary to those I
bring up. You have even done it by claiming I argue points I do not.
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.
That you can dance well?
Hell, we've known that for years. Others have given up on you in
disgust, and probably with less free time than I have to challenge you.
I as yet have not given up nor do I lack the time.
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.
The very construction of your sentences above, there content and syntax
make plain that you are a skilled deceiver.
I asked perfectly plain questions that have not been answered, while you
focus on what that is secondary to the real issues, the actual questions
I asked.
You avoid answering my challenge that you charged someone in the system,
where DCF, DJOs, and the court are involved in child protection, with
intentionally defying or violation law, policy, and the intent of
legislators. And to up to this point you have NOT addressed this...the
more important of our issues here.
This practice of avoidance of the primary issues, while addressing
secondary, or even your imaginary issues you pretend I have brought up,
is old news here, Doug. You've done it for years. You are not better at
it now than in the beginning. I've simply been more patient with it in
the past. I no longer am.
Answer the questions asked. Not ONE of them, or TWO of them, but all of
them, so that the most important is NOT avoided by you.
What do you believe the intent is of any or all of the persons involved
in a removal of child in child protection...from DCF, to the court, to DJO.
Do you in fact assert that someone or ones in that group are
intentionally defying law, policy, and the legislators to avoid
responsibility or in any other way law breaking?
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.
Did you notice I did not use "if?" YOU did.
I am well aware, and so is any awake reader that in some cases an LEO
may have time to obtain a warrant, and sometimes not.
In those instances a DCF investigator finds NO reason to remove, no LEO
or DJO is called. No need to.
In those instance where a DCF investigator DOES find cause, there is no
TIME to hold a hearing or seek a warrant, and the court, the
legislature, and anyone with common sense KNOWS that having someone from
the court.....a DJO who is assigned this duty at the pleasure and demand
of the court, can and should execute the decision to remove.
You, on the other hand, seem to think that everyone should clear out and
leave the child the DCF investigator deems at risk, or injured, there
with the alledged perp.
As usual, Doug. I said you hate children, and I certainly see evidence
of it unless YOU can come up with a way to keep the child safe while
continuing to investigate.
It would be a constitutional violation to quarter a guard with the
children, would it not?
To obtain those
warrants, they need to argue their case to a judge with supporting
probable
cause.
LEOs are not required to obtain warrants for those instances where they
are simply investigating. They may take a call, investigate, and even
arrest, upon their own judgement, THEN present evidence to the court.
Or are you going to try and argue that all arrests and collections of
evidence have a warrant issued prior?
"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.
Yes, I am, and you are dodging and going back to the old argument that a
child should not be removed without warrant. That has been shot down by
me, and by others, including, I believe, court cases. You know it and I
know it, and most readers know it.
So you are dancing away again by going back to ages old arguments rather
than deal with your scandulous accusations against those you accuse of
intentional violations of law, etc.
You don't want to deal with that, do you?
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.
Yep. But you are wrong, or lying about adivisin them on the
psychiatrists. It was psychologists, and MSW therapists, and it was
advising them to make up their own mind, one way or the other.
You are a liar. As usual...and you brought this up to dance away from my
question.
Do they or do they not accomodate clients as to hours and days for
meetings?
See, Doug. You lie. You do it with misleading. You do it by finding ways
to respond honestly when you are caught making serious errors, and
errors accusing people, agencies, and systems of things that are
patently NOT true.
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.
You just dodged the point I made in two ways, dodging both, that I have
seen clients routinely and as standard practice, accomodated extremely
well, and workers having to do overtime they have difficulty collecting
for to make those accomodations.
So, you are sick to even go in this direction to avoid answering. See
below in your next sick weaseling statement.
Or do you mean that
to disagree with you is a sickness?
No, but to twist words and meaning in such a way is.
To make claims that are false, and when corrected, dodge instead of
admit your error or accept that all is not as YOU claim everywhere, is
sick. To ignore proofs, logic, and continue on as though nothing has
happened is 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.
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 there is, as I pointed out, a great deal of accomodation, and there
is a great deal of lying on their part that they couldn't. You have not
responded to what I actually said.
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.
And I find their unwillingness and focus on their "inconvenience" to be
a poor demonstration of their dedication to their children. Foster
parents as well as workers see a great deal of this bitching when it is
entirely unwarranted, and a great many clients that are NOT working in
any case, and on public assistence. They have a great deal of time, but
just hate to miss Oprah because their VCR can't record two programs at
once, and there's a Shopping Network show they must catch.
I've asked a number of foster parents, and a great many workers, why
they do not come to this newsgroup, and to the anti CPS websites and
allow themselve to be heard. They laugh at me. No one can waste their
time on lies given the job they have to do already.
I am telling you in this ng and have for years now what the truth is
from what those inside relate to me, even after they leave, as well. And
having been there in 1980-81 I KNOW it to be true. It was then, and
nothing has changed.
The vast majority of clients are not innocent put upon parents, rich,
poor, or middle class, but in fact child abusers who are NOT willing to
work to get their children back, in cases where they have lost them
temporarily. They just have another, in many cases. Gonna show them CPS
people a thing or two.
Go to the end of this post. I have a gift for you.
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.
You said, as I've pointed out, a quasi-extralegal process. That, by any
definition I can find is a claim of law breaking. Violation.
Policy is not
ignored.
So you believe you have stuffed enough of your bull**** after bull****
dancing rhetoric in this thread that now anyone but you and I are bored
and left, or fallen asleep, and you can lie with impunity?
That is why I did not say in my statement that policy was ignored.
You didn't use the word "ignored." Obviously you are right, if your
accusation is correct. They didn't ignore it, they defied it, as in "fly
in the face of" and "intentionally." YOUR WORDS. Not mine.
Hair splitting, Doug. To dance away from responsibility for your
accusation. A very dangerous one to make, I do believe, if you included
judges in that, as it seems by your entire statement.
You said, "fly in the face of." Did you mean something none of us but
you mean by that statement? Does it not mean NOT obey the law? The
policy? The intent of the legislature?
You even admit, presumably that there is legal support for the actions
of the DJO:
"It is a very HOT political problem that will be debated on the legislative
floors in Jefferson City in February. Currently, in effect, a DJO's
signature has the authority of a court order . . . they SIGN court orders
in leiu of a judge's decision. "
They have "authority?" Whose? The courts? The legislatures?
How would they then be doing as you accuse them, or someone out of the
three positions named in your statement:
" It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce
accountablity and keep judges out of the loop. "
(it is no more "quasi-extralegal" as the process of picking up a drunk,
slapping him in the tank, and presenting him to the court in the
morning. You are so full of ****.)
You yourself show the legality of the process when you say: "The DJO
finds "probable cause" and signs a "court order" for removal ..."
The DJO is either unauthorized by law, or authorized by law. Which is
it, Doug?
You claim it's partially or in some measure(quasi) not permitted or
governed by law (extra).
That is a clear accusation of law breaking on your part.
Let's see you support it. Or learn to say what you actually mean without
the artifice to jerk people's emotions and thereby their thinking
around. It's not a quasi anything. It's legal.
And:
"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. "
I bring your attention to the words in this sentence above, "practice in
this state" and "fly in the face of," "law," "legislative intent," and
"policy."
Are you going to answer my question, or not?
Does this "process" or practice break the law, or doesn' it?
Is it done to intentionally, "to reduce accountablity and keep judges
out of the loop?"
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.
Oh, "this particular process." I see. You weasel.
The judge is not only part of the general process, which is all you
addressed originally, but this is standard practice as well for LEOs in
other criminal proceedings and inforcement.
It is entirely illogical to have it otherwise. If the authority to
remove were vested solely in the judge, he or she would be overwhemled,
and forced into the same process used for warrant issuance, in every
single case....UNLIKE ANY OTHER ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING WHERE LEO'S CAN
AND DO REMOVE EVIDENCE, AND VICTIMS BEFORE A HEARING, as well as even
effecting an arrest.
You are, as usual, attempting to set up destructive barriers that will
get children killed should the legislators be asleep or as corrupt as I
believe you to be and set up such barriers unknown in other branches of
law enforcement.
Where a child endangerment claim exists in a situation where there is
time and reasonable characteristics for a warrant, of course a warrant
can be effected. But you know and I and anyone with half a brain or more
knows that in most instances child protection allegations do NOT fit
the criteria and more closely conform to exigent circumstances.
Where they do NOT, the child usually isn't removed. Where there is need
to remove the child more often it is. That is most likely the
legislative intent borne out by the use of DJO in your state, and DCF or
CPS investigators other states to effect safety removals.
You are attempting to cripple the system. I hope the legislators don't
let you get away with it.
It endangers children further.
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.
No, you and I do NOT know that. Only YOU knew that. I say you say "out
of the loop" without any clarification and with an accusation of
lawbreaking. You are refusing to respond to that issue of your
accusation, by focusing on this one point. I am not going to argue it
further with you. It is a he said they said dead end and you DO know
that, and you DID chose to go here to stay as far away as possible from
your accusation of intentional law breaking.
(Why do you say, BTW, that the 72 hour requirement is NOW the law.
It has been for years.)
I set no timeline. I am familiar with the time before it was.
Why do you bring it up, other than yet another complication to the dance
steps you are frantically doing?
That the judge hears the case after removal does not contradict my
statement
about the process that happens before removal.
Not according to how you phrased it, but that is NOT a concern. What is
a concern that you go on and on and on and STILL have not responded to
the more important question. Do you accuse anyone of the three, judge,
DJO, DCF worker, of trying to avoid responsibility by intentionally
breaking the law, defying policy, and circumventing the intent of the
legislators, as you put it in "fly in the face of?"
Well?
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.
Why have you not responded to this above?
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.
......snipping the repetitious and smarmy weasel dancing......
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?
Read, cited, and done so again and again. It says what it says, and only
after the fact of your posting it, are you coming back to weasel it, and
to avoid that part that I have repeatedly asked you to answer.
You would think I have repeated it
enough.
Enough to put any reader asleep so you could pull your bull**** with
less chance of being detected? Yes, you certainly have...and you done so
with out answer the specific questions put to you on intent of any or
all of the three: judges, DJOs, DCF workers.
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:
You distinctly addressed, over and over, in a manner that did NOT
actually answer the question I put to you. Describing the events,
players, and other cobbled up garbage does NOT answer the question.
Are you accusing them or any one of them of deliberate intent to skirt
the law, policy, or legislative intent? You said so, now I want you to
either prove they are doing so intentionally, or explain how you will
correct this libelous piece of trash.
"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.
Which of course shows quite clearly you are NOT addressing other
questions of considerably more importance. Your accusation of them being
intentional lawbreakers, how the process is NOT legal or defensible by
precident and analogous processes in other areas of law enforcement, and
why the hell you are a liar.
The last I don't expect an answer to, but the two previous I do, or the
last is proven, again.
You are accusing those involved with intent to avoid resposibility, defy
the law, policy, and the legislature. You left them individually unnamed
as to role, but you included these three titles: judges, DJOs, and DCF
worker/investigators in and around your accusation. Who among them do
you accuse of this intent to break the law, Doug?
I'm waiting.
Clearly, in a time line, that order to remove
comes before the actual removal.
I never argued otherwise. You simply haven't presented a convincing
argument this is wrong, illegal, or in fact a deliberate intentional, as
YOU claimed, attempt to "fly in the face" of law, policy, and
legislative intent. Let's see you do it.
LEOs "remove" in many instance with the same kinds of characteristics,
BEFORE a judicial hearing and without warrant. Car stops are typical.
But so are residential calls on domestic violence or other suspected
crimes.
1) Order for removal
2) Removal
3) Hearings after removal.
You have NOT provided proof that this done to intentionally skirt the
law, or defy or violate it, or policy, or the intent of the legislature.
I doubt THAT is going to be argued in the legislature, do you in the
next few days or so?
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.
No, I have made a very clear statement with specific items quoted, and
then referred again and again, that you have dodged answering.
DO YOU ACCUSE ANY OF THESE PEOPLE, DJOs, DCF workers, judges, of
deliberately breaking the law to avoid responsibility, law, policy, and
legislative intent?
Answer the actual questions asked, and do so directly.
Do you so accuse?
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.
Yep. And do they require the issuance of a warrant before every LEO
engagement, or are some judicial hearing held afterward?
Stop playing at being stupid. You are a serious contender...no need for
the play.
You knew perfectly well that "before all LEO actions" would be understood.
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."
You are now lying.
My review of this thread, and where you came in to respond to 127 shows
me that you jumped in again, as you do and have done so much in the
past, with someone fighting for recovery of their children.
You have taken their battle, and shoving aside REAL assistence focusing
on their need, and interjected our propaganda goals in most clever
seemingly sympathetic ways.
In so doing you drain OFF their focus and attention to the issue most
powerfully effecting their lives and that of their children.
If you were here I'd spit in your face. Consider it done.
127 needs help with the problem, not your bull**** political campaign
which may or may not have merit.
YOUR crappola in this thread is of zero usefullness to 127, other than
to distract, which is so very easy when someone is vulnerable and has to
fight to stay focused on the problem at hand.
I said you are sick. This is exactly what I mean.
If you can't give help and support ON TOPIC, Doug, take your ****ing
political schtick and shove it up your ass and let your lackeys fetch it
out for you all YOU to play with.
KNOW that when you load up someone such as 127 with it, a real person, a
parent, with real issues to struggle with, and real live children to
worry about, who want presumably to be with 127, you are SICK SICK SICK.
It's all about YOU and YOUR agenda though. Isn't it, Dickhead?
0:-