A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Foster Parents
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Disinformation feed responded, now let's get to the truth.....Info please ...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 26th 05, 09:43 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disinformation feed responded, now let's get to the truth.....Info please ...

Doug wrote:
127.0.0.1" wrote in message
...


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



Hi, 127!

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


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



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


....SNIP.,..

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


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

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

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

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

As you have lied about the judicial process:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He's lying, AGAIN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get the real picture yet?

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

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

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

0:-
  #2  
Old November 26th 05, 10:59 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disinformation feed responded, now let's get to the truth..... Info please ...


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



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


...SNIP.,..

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


Hi, Kane,

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

Before a child is removed in Missouri, a court order must be issued --
called by caseworkers a "pick up order". This court order, in the majority
of cases, is signed not by a judge but by the Deputy Juvenile Officer (DJO).

That is a fact. And it remains a fact. It was a fact in 1990. It was a
fact in 2003. And it is a fact today.

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


Here is my statement again.

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

Prior to the removal of the child by DFS, a court order must be secured.
This "court order" is usually signed by the DJO on the line reserved for the
judge. The judge does not, as was intended by the legislature, hear ex
parte arguments showing probable cause for the removal and then make the
decision. Instead, the DJO makes this determination and signs the order.
Usually, the DJO will make the comment below his/her signature, "judge not
available."

This is the practice. And, as 127 points out, the practice in this state
seems to fly in the face of the statutory requirements, legislative intent
of the laws, and published policy.

Nothing you have posted contradicts in the slightest my statement above,
that prior to removal, a "court order" for removal is usually signed by the
DJO in leiu of the judge and without involvement of the court at this stage.

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


I have joined other members of this newsgroup in saying that "services" and
the time they require are often a barrier to parents, yes. That is not a
lie. It is the truth.


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


This statement of policy, excerpted from the St. Louis Juvenile Court
Improvement Project does not in any way challenge or counter our statement
that services and the times they are offered are a barrier to parents.

As you have lied about the judicial process:

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


Your pasted statement from the Juvenile Court Improvement Project and its
pilot population in the City of St. Louis does not in any way address the
procedures followed in securing a pick up order prior to removing children,
who signs that "court order," or anything else that 127 and I addressed.

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


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


These hearings follow removal and should occur within 72 hours of that
removal. This does not address in the slightest way the statement I made
concerning the procedure used to secure a "court order" for the removal of
the child in the first place or who signs that order. Here is the statement
to which you reply again. It is the truth. It is not a lie.

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

" ... Child Removal in Missouri
For those not familiar with the child protection system in Missouri, an
explanation of a certain unique characteristic is necessary. In Missouri
the responsibilities associated with removal of children in child abuse
and neglect reports are divided between agencies. DFS county workers
respond to reports of child abuse and neglect received via the statewide
telephone hotline. An investigator or a family assessment worker conducts
necessary home visits and interviews to determine the safety status of the
child. Either type of worker may determine that removal of the child from
the home is necessary for the child’s protection. However, the DFS worker
cannot physically remove the child. A law enforcement representative, a
physician, or a juvenile officer must carry out physical removal.
Furthermore, the jurisdictional basis to remove a child from his/her home
ultimately lies with the juvenile officer, as does the decision to file a
child abuse and neglect petition. DFS workers will call law enforcement to
assist in the child


Actually, as anyone who lives in Missouri can tell you, DFS does physically
remove the children. However, they do not have the legal authority to issue
the order to remove. That requires a court order, which in reality is
usually an order signed by the DJO and not a judge. The common practice is
this:

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

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

3) The CD workers, usually with courtesy assist from law enforcement,
enforces the order and physically removes the child from the home. The
removal is done under authority of the order signed by the DJO, not the
unilateral authority of the police officer.

Yet again, however, your posted exerpt does not in any way challenge my
statement that the DJO, without involvement of the court, commonly signs the
pick up order prior to removal of the child.

3
abuse/neglect investigation, which may result in the officer removing the
child from the home. This is particularly true if the child is in imminent
danger. Upon removal, the juvenile officer is to be immediately notified
and jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court immediately attaches to the child.
By contrast, in most other states the investigative function and the
decision to remove a child or file a petition are both made by the public
child welfare (child protection) agency.


This is incorrect. In most states, a court order is required before CPS can
remove a child. Most states do not give CPS authority to remove children on
their own. In almost all states, however, police officers have the
unilateral authority to remove children, as do physicians. The latter is
true in Missouri, although police or doctors rarely do so.

In the City of St. Louis, DJOs traditionally continued to work directly
with families alongside DFS workers, making appearances at hearings held
in family court as long as children were in active cases. As the JCIP
continued into the third year, the role of DJO’s changed. typically
within 90 days of the date of the protective custody hearing. After this
and for subsequent court hearings, DFS workers have responsibility for
cases and for attending court hearings. However, while DJOs were not
present at later hearings, their representative, the full time attorney
for the Juvenile Officer, was present at every hearing. ... "

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


DJO's began playing a role in the case prior to removal, by signing the
order, and throughout the duration of the case. After removal, when the
case goes to the court for hearing, the DJO attends the hearing. In rural
counties, the DJO actually represents the state and takes on the role of a
county attorney during the initial hearings. Astounding, since they are not
members of the bar.

Once again, however, your pasted comments from the St Louis Juvenile Court
Improvement Project do not in the slightest dispute my statement that DJO's
many times sign the "court orders" for removal of children.

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


Yes, after removal, the DJO plays an active role in the case throughout.
They appear in court -- often, as I have explained, taking on the role of an
attorney representing the state in rural counties.

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


Only a few counties in Missouri have CASA. In those counties that do, a
CASA volunteer may participate in the case throughout. DJO's are involved
in the case throughout its duration. While GAL's are not always appointed,
they also are involved in the team when they are appointed.

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

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

Liar.


LOL! Show me. So far, nothing you have posted challenges the statement I
made and you left intact. You continue to respond without contradicting
what I have said. This is what I said again. It is the truth. It is not a
lie. It was the truth in 1990 and it is the truth today.

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

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


The Juvenile Court Improvement Project (JCIP) in the City of St. Louis has a
number of time frames unique to that project I am sure. The citizens of
that city certainly needed a court improvement project. However, the JCIP
timeframes in St. Louis do not in the slightest address the statement I made
that you call a lie. That statement stands unchallenged as the truth.

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


Yes, in the JCIP in St. Louis, within 72 hours after removal. Consider my
attention duly drawn to that statement and my notice to you that it does not
address in the slightest way my statement to which you claim to respond.

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


Here is my statement again:

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

Is the court kept out of the loop when the decision is made to remove and
the pickup order signed by the DJO. Yep. That is the truth. Your
statement refers to the court's involvement after removal.

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


Yes, that's when the Juvenile Court Improvement Project in St. Louis was
reported on. However, I was talking about the practice in Missouri in
securing a pick up order for the removal of children by CD workers. That
practice was in place in 1990, 1991,
1992,1993,1994,1195,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001, 2002,2003,2004 and 2005.

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


LOL! You clearly don't know what you think you know. You are quoting a
report about a court improvement project in one city of Missouri that does
not address my statement in the slightest and claiming it makes my statement
a lie. LOL!

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


Are you still beating your wife?

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

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


Here is my statement to which you reply in this post once again:

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

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


What makes you think that the snips from the Court Improvement Project in
St. Louis are anything new in Missouri? Your snippets certainly don't
address the ongoing practice of DJO's signing pick up orders prior to
removal that I was talking about. And the procedures followed by the
various parties after removal as described in the snippets are pretty much
the practices followed for the last decade.

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


I said that you were invested in defending the present foster care system,
yes. That is my opinion of your responses to the research criticizing its
practice. What changes would you like to see to the current foster care
system?

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


The cited information, which reports on situations other than what my
statement concerned, illustrates procedures in place long before 2003.
Nonetheless, they do not address the real reform efforts made in Missouri.
Those were initiated by child advocates, families and concerned citizens and
implimented during the past few years by the Missouri legislature. The
legislature attempted to deal with the problem of DJO's signing court orders
prior to removal, but this particular clause was taken out of the last
reform measure by a joint House/Senate committee. It will be reintroduced
this year.

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

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


Again, this does not address my statement, to which you claim to be
replying.

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


The DJO does not usually arrive to remove the child. The CD (DFS) workers
usually physically remove the child on legal authority of the "court order"
signed by the DJO. Secondly, the "decision" by CD to remove is not a
binding decision at all, but CD's reccomendation. The DJO decides whether
the CD has probable cause for the removal and makes the decision by signing
the court order.

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


Yes, the DJO does not that there will be a hearing in court after the child
is removed. At that hearing, the judge many times decides that the removal
was wrongful and returns the child. However, the judge often does not have
a hand in the court order effecting the removal, which, of course, is what I
was talking about in my statement.

He's lying, AGAIN.


No lie. It is the truth. Here is the statement again.

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

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


Yes, a great deal of CPS reform has been made in the Missouri legislature
during the past few years and the movement continues. None of those
legislative reforms are reflected in the report from the Juvenile Court
Improvement Project in one of its cities. The reform effort continues and
new legislation will be introduced in Jefferson City this February.

It won't be long, now.



  #3  
Old November 27th 05, 03:38 AM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disinformation feed responded, now let's get to the truth.....Info please ...


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:-?
  #4  
Old November 27th 05, 12:43 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disinformation feed responded, now let's get to the truth..... Info please ...

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

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

Kane responds:

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


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

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

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

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


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

Before a child is removed in Missouri, a court order must be issued --
called by caseworkers a "pick up order". This court order, in the

majority
of cases, is signed not by a judge but by the Deputy Juvenile Officer

(DJO).

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


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

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


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

That is a fact. And it remains a fact. It was a fact in 1990. It was a
fact in 2003. And it is a fact today.


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


Good. Then we have no argument.

You are lying through your teeth when you attempt this artifice of

DJOs in
MO operating, in the majority of cases, without court involvement.

That is
a flat out lie.


Here is my statement again.

"Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is

the only
one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS

does not
have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do

have the
unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS

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


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


Okay, lets take a look at the segment of the paragraph beginning with "in
the majority of cases. "...In the majority of cases, the DJO signs the
court order and *this* procedure is done without hearing and without the
knowledge of the presiding judge. *It* is a quasi-extralegal process
intentionally done to reduce accountability and keep judges out of the
loop."

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Prior to the removal of the child by DFS, a court order must be secured.
This "court order" is usually signed by the DJO on the line reserved

for the
judge. The judge does not, as was intended by the legislature, hear ex
parte arguments showing probable cause for the removal and then make the
decision. Instead, the DJO makes this determination and signs the

order.
Usually, the DJO will make the comment below his/her signature,

"judge not
available."


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


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

This is the practice. And, as 127 points out, the practice in this

state
seems to fly in the face of the statutory requirements, legislative

intent
of the laws, and published policy.


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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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

Where's the beef, Doug? 0:-


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

Nothing you have posted contradicts in the slightest my statement above,
that prior to removal, a "court order" for removal is usually signed

by the
DJO in leiu of the judge and without involvement of the court at this

stage.

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


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

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


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

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


I have joined other members of this newsgroup in saying that

"services" and
the time they require are often a barrier to parents, yes. That is

not a
lie. It is the truth.


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


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

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

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


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

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


Yer a sick ****.


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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


In particular, ""...In the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order
and *this* procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of
the presiding judge. *It* is a quasi-extralegal process intentionally done
to reduce accountability and keep judges out of the loop."

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


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

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


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


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

This does not address in the slightest way the statement I made
concerning the procedure used to secure a "court order" for the

removal of
the child in the first place or who signs that order. Here is the

statement
to which you reply again. It is the truth. It is not a lie.

"Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is

the only
one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS

does not
have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have
the
unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS

needs a
"court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the
DJO
signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and

without
the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process
intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the

loop."

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


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

That requires a court order, which in reality is
usually an order signed by the DJO and not a judge. The common

practice is
this:


Did you see me argue this one way or another?


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

1) CD worker (as the result of an CAN investigation or assessment)

makes a
request for removal to the DJO


I've read more of this than you.

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Yet again, however, your posted exerpt does not in any way challenge my
statement that the DJO, without involvement of the court, commonly

signs the
pick up order prior to removal of the child.


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


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

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


Nope, just probable cause.

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

Yer scum.


LOL!

You are truly ignorant and stupid.


LOL!

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


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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

" Yet, in the majority of
cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done

without
hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is
quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce

accountablity and
keep judges out of the loop."


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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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

I want to see the proof for your opening statement end of paragraph claims
concerning
"and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of
the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to
reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop."


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

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

See? Context makes a difference, no?

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


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

You continue to respond without contradicting
what I have said.


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


Good. We agree.

I have not done that.

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


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

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


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

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

Context makes a difference, you see.

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


I have answered above, about six paragraphs ago.

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


Yes, in the JCIP in St. Louis, within 72 hours after removal.

Consider my
attention duly drawn to that statement and my notice to you that it

does not
address in the slightest way my statement to which you claim to respond.


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


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

That's NOT out of the loop, Doug.


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

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

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

Court's kept out of the loop by the design and artifice of the

authority
of the DJO? I don't think so, liar!


Here is my statement again:

"Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is

the only
one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS

does not
have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have
the
unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS

needs a
"court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the
DJO
signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and

without
the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process
intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the

loop."

Is the court kept out of the loop when the decision is made to remove

and
the pickup order signed by the DJO. Yep. That is the truth. Your
statement refers to the court's involvement after removal.


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Are you still beating your wife?


No, as I never beat her.


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



  #5  
Old November 27th 05, 11:47 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.support.foster-parents
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Disinformation feed responded, now let's get to the truth.....Info please ...


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:-
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dr. Menke: For babies: 'Worship truth and justice - you need no other God.' Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 March 30th 05 10:51 PM
Parent-Child Negotiations Nathan A. Barclay Spanking 623 January 28th 05 05:24 AM
How Children REALLY React To Control Chris General 444 July 20th 04 07:14 PM
How Children REALLY React To Control Chris Solutions 437 July 11th 04 02:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.