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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional
Kane writes:
http://wislawjournal.com/archive/200...buse-0423.html Doe v Heck r r r r r, you really think it will stick? It's as full of holes as a termite riddled dead Tree, Sappy. Hi, Kane! What are some of the holes you see this Constitutional case "riddled" with, Kane? You do understand the Constitutional question involved in this case, do you not? And you do understand how appeals courts examine statutes to determine issues at law and the Constitutional questions involved? The issue in the present case is that Section 48.981(3)(c)(1) of the state's child welfare code is unconstitutional to the extent it authorizes government officials to conduct an investigation of child abuse on private property without a warrant, probable cause, consent, or exigent circumstances. The appeals court ruling found in the set of facts that there was no consent, no warrant, no exigent cirumstances and no probable cause in the caseworker's intervention. The issue at law was whether the statute relied upon by the caseworker and police was Consitutitional. the judge ruled it was not for the reasons cited above. Where are the holes? And even if it did, can you say, "here come the cops?" Can you say, "the decision is binding on cops as well as caseworkers," as the judge did? Actually, the reason 4th Amendment issues regarding child welfare are so prevelent right now is that there has been an assumption in some jurisdictions that CPS caseworkers have more authority than police to override or ignore Constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure. Police have always been so restricted, but caseworkers sometimes wrongfully assume they are not. In this case, the appeals court in the Seventh Circuit in Wisconcin, set them straight by ruling the statute relied upon by the caseworker as unconstitutional. The mother who complained had ample grounds to do so on the complaint of her daughter for the discipline without permission. Who says? If the mother who complained did not do so anonymously and the complaint was crediable, it MAY have been grounds for the judge finding probable cause. It MAY have been. Close call for the judge to make. Probable cause, if found, would have led to a warrant issued by the judge. But the agency didn't seek a warrant (common practice), which is the point of it all. That will get a warrant everytime if one is required. Nope. It would be a close call for the judge. Brilliant. r r r r r Well, it is another step in the right direction. The decision piles upon many recently across the states requiring caseworkers to honor the Constitution of the United States. Silly, no? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:09:51 GMT, "Doug"
wrote: Kane writes: http://wislawjournal.com/archive/200...buse-0423.html Doe v Heck r r r r r, you really think it will stick? It's as full of holes as a termite riddled dead Tree, Sappy. Hi, Kane! What are some of the holes you see this Constitutional case "riddled" with, Kane? The wholes are in the decision and the outcomes it will foster. Read on. You do understand the Constitutional question involved in this case, do you not? Extremely well, and I don't make the assumptions you do. Your assumption is that this is going to result in better casework and fewer families involved. My assumption is that it's going to result in a shift over to more of what already is a system fact....warrants are issued now. Incoming calls are screened NOW. And one of the questions is, "is this abuse underway at the moment." Want to guess how many callers say yes, expecially the malicious false allegation types? And have you any idea how hard it is to prove they were making a false accusation for malicious reasons? And you do understand how appeals courts examine statutes to determine issues at law and the Constitutional questions involved? Oh, yes, very well indeedy. Better than you do, I'll guarantee it. The issue in the present case is that Section 48.981(3)(c)(1) of the state's child welfare code is unconstitutional to the extent it authorizes government officials to conduct an investigation of child abuse on private property without a warrant, probable cause, consent, or exigent circumstances. Ah, there it is. The usual stupidity by you. I love when you come racing forward to "refute" my claims. Why do you think I make the outlandish ones I do, and I even warn you about them and my reasons for them, but here you come, tip pot hat and all. r r r r "Consent" is pretty damn easy to get even when ones constitutional rights are read to one. Any hangup in time or access is going to be nicely taken care of, as it already is now, by the other two items you listed though: exigent circumstance, and probable cause. Cops know how to use these very well indeed, to gain access. And many caseworkers do as well. My guess is that even now, or in very short order cw's will be going to trainings on how to ensure they have all three, or any of the above. consent, probable cause, exigent circumstances. Hell, they already know a great deal about these things. They run into judges all the time that require it or they kick the worker out of the placement hearing. The appeals court ruling found in the set of facts that there was no consent, no warrant, no exigent cirumstances and no probable cause in the caseworker's intervention. Yep...this case. And it will be true for any other case,and it's been true for ever, as constitutional issues are ruled on by the SCOTUS. Are you so blind that you can't see that my claim of a coming police state...that is more power to the executive and enforcement...is happening? What profit do you derive from this, Doug. You must given how hard you campaign for it. The issue at law was whether the statute relied upon by the caseworker and police was Consitutitional. the judge ruled it was not for the reasons cited above. And all that it says is that what is was. There's nothing new here but a response from CPS and the cops that will simply apply the law much more stringently at the front end. And there is no shortage of abusive parents, and the feds aren't going to get to decide what is and isn't abusive...that is a state's right matter, and they will NOT let go of it. Where are the holes? Right were I've pointed out. If you knew your history, if you understood what actually works to keep CPS tamed and available for reform you wouldn't be pushing this as the be all end all of system reform. It will just harden the system up. The mechanism are in place and in use and have been for years...about 40 of them. And even if it did, can you say, "here come the cops?" Can you say, "the decision is binding on cops as well as caseworkers," as the judge did? Yep! Can you say "the cops and workers will simply rely on the very terminology in the decision to make sure parents go to jail more"? Actually, the reason 4th Amendment issues regarding child welfare are so prevelent right now is that there has been an assumption in some jurisdictions that CPS caseworkers have more authority than police to override or ignore Constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure. Crock of ****. Workers are trained to get permission, everywhere. Just as cops are, if their is no probable cause a crime is in progress, and if there IS probable cause, which worker and cop will strain hard to find, they can go through that door like it's warm butter, and you know it. Police have always been so restricted, but caseworkers sometimes wrongfully assume they are not. What a totally dumb ass you are. Some cops make the same mistake. Hell anyone that reads the paper knows that. And Some cs's do that. It's an individual thing...stupidity is everywhere, Doug..you are a perfect model. The rest of the cops and the rest of the cw's, the vast majority, know all about the three legs of access to the alledged perps: exigence, probable cause, consent. And they are well trained, dispite your lies to the contrary. Usually the first cw job assigned to a new employee is Protective Services and the first training they get is in approaching an alledged abuser/neglecter. In this case, the appeals court in the Seventh Circuit in Wisconcin, set them straight by ruling the statute relied upon by the caseworker as unconstitutional. It doesn't ****ing matter you idiot. The mother who complained had ample grounds to do so on the complaint of her daughter for the discipline without permission. Who says? If the mother who complained did not do so anonymously and the complaint was crediable, it MAY have been grounds for the judge finding probable cause. It MAY have been. Close call for the judge to make. Probable cause, if found, would have led to a warrant issued by the judge. Have you any idea about what takes place in the real world? On just how flimsy a claim judges can and do issue warrants, with no more than a "tut tut" from the president of the court they serve in? You have a lot to learn, and I presume you'll sit their on your dead but smart ass, watching families take it in the neck as you get educated. But the agency didn't seek a warrant (common practice), which is the point of it all. That is because they are trained to proceed in the order of, consent, probable cause, exigent circumstances. They reverse it only if they think they are going to have, or do have, problems getting access to investigate. The easy cheaper road first. Saving the tax payers money. That will get a warrant everytime if one is required. Nope. It would be a close call for the judge. And if he or she is in error? Tell us, what do you think the "punishment" will be? r r r r How may bad warrants do you think get issued and still result in a charge being brought and carried through to conviction? All the cop has to do is find something else in the home to go back and get another warrant for, and the error in the first warrant is nullified, and the second warrant carries the weight the worker and the cop want. My family is full of cops, state (5, two generations), local(1), and federal(2), and I watch and ask questions. You should try it. Brilliant. r r r r r Well, it is another step in the right direction. The decision piles upon many recently across the states requiring caseworkers to honor the Constitution of the United States. Silly, no? Nope. I've always supported the constitution, even when it hurts. I don't think you do. I think you are just grandstanding for whatever your cause is. That decision you so proudly tout here has the neck of families in it, and a much tighter noose. It promotes MORE stringent efforts. Many a caseworker, and the stories are told here by the few honest habitue's, just quietly fade away when confronted with a weak allegation and a assertive parent at the door. What do you really think will happen now? Hell, at worst the workers will just wait for more serious events, and then drop like a ton of bricks on the family. All they have to do is keep asking, as the do for every incoming abuse complaint (I know, I've made a couple), "will you be available for testemony if this results in charges and a trial?" And children in real danger will die as this takes time to become the NEXT wave of standard child welfare practices. Facists like you never quite get it: the very best government for a free and independent people is an ineffectual government. Keeping it crippled is built right into our governing system. You self serving little pricks think you can make the trains run on time and that that is a good thing no matter how many bodies it takes to grease the wheels. Kane |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional
"Kane" wrote in message om... Want to guess how many callers say yes, expecially the malicious false allegation types? And have you any idea how hard it is to prove they were making a false accusation for malicious reasons? And you do understand how appeals courts examine statutes to determine issues at law and the Constitutional questions involved? Even when a person admits, in court, on a transcript, they called in a malicious report -- NOT A BLOODY THING IS DONE ABOUT IT. Yes, this happened to us. Why? Because the bloody states have the feeling that CPS is the victim of a false report, NOT the families. HOGWASH and other sayings. There is NO way for a family to have a person who makes a malicious report criminally charged. Only CPS can do that. They never do. Tere |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional
Concerning Doe v Heck, I asked:
What are some of the holes you see this Constitutional case "riddled" with, Kane? To which, Kane replied: The wholes are in the decision and the outcomes it will foster. Read on. ... and I don't make the assumptions you do. Your assumption is that this is going to result in better casework and fewer families involved. My assumption is that it's going to result in a shift over to more of what already is a system fact....warrants are issued now. Incoming calls are screened NOW. And one of the questions is, "is this abuse underway at the moment." Want to guess how many callers say yes, expecially the malicious false allegation types? And have you any idea how hard it is to prove they were making a false accusation for malicious reasons? Hi, Kane! Thanks for answering my question. My assumption is not that Doe v Heck will result in better casework, just less of it. You mention that in current practice hotline calls are rightfully screened. And it may be true that on rare occassions CPS now proceeds lawfully and obtains a warrant. Hotline workers should ask reporters if the abuse is occurring at the time, since the answer to that question suggests response time, among other things. Since the vast majority of calls involve neglect or third-party incidents that have allegedly occurred in the past, the current practice does not result in CPS obtaining warrants. I wrote: The issue in the present case is that Section 48.981(3)(c)(1) of the state's child welfare code is unconstitutional to the extent it authorizes government officials to conduct an investigation of child abuse on private property without a warrant, probable cause, consent, or exigent circumstances. To which, you respond: Ah, there it is. The usual stupidity by you. I love when you come racing forward to "refute" my claims. Why do you think I make the outlandish ones I do, and I even warn you about them and my reasons for them, but here you come, tip pot hat and all. r r r r Why, again, do you make the outlandish claims that you do? You are saying that you make them just to retrieve a reply informing you that they are wrong? "Consent" is pretty damn easy to get even when ones constitutional rights are read to one. Any hangup in time or access is going to be nicely taken care of, as it already is now, by the other two items you listed though: exigent circumstance, and probable cause. Yes, almost all parents grant "consent" to CPS to enter their home and conduct fishing expeditions. Sometimes, this consent is granted under duress -- the caseworker has threatened the parent with removing her children if she does not grant access (a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, by the way.) In most cases, consent is granted immediately because the parent does not know they have a choice or because the parent misperceives the role of CPS. I will give you a typical example. CPS receives a report from an anonymous caller that mom was outside in the front yard yesterday beating her 4 year old daughter over the head with a 2 x 4. CPS shows up at the door a few hours later with a cop. Mom perceives that she is a good mother and has nothing to worry about. She knows damn well that she did not hit her child. She is likely to be highly upset that someone would have the audicity to call in such an allegation. She will ask who made the report. The caseworker will reply that, by law, she can't tell her that. Mom will guess at the name. She will usually be right, although the caseworker cannot confirm the quess. Then she will say, "come on in." Afterall, what does mom have to worry about? The cop leaves and the caseworker talks to the daugther, who is really 8 years old and more than a little ****ed herself. Caseworker notices no marks or bruises. The child says she doesn't like going outside on the front lawn because the "weirdo" next door yells at her. She plays in the backyard. And she plays a lot inside. And, no, mom does not hit her with anything, let alone boards like the caseworker describes. The caseworker then sits down with mom and does an "assessment." She asks lots of questions about extended family, income, mom's family history, partridges, pear trees and the birds that perch in them. The fridge is examined and cupboards gone through to check on food supplies. The little girl's room is examined. Bathrooms are checked. The worker is all smiles. Mom has calmed down a bit by the time the caseworker prances off three hours later. The caseworker goes back to the office to call relatives and the "weirdo" next door. Then she substantiates the single mom for neglect. The house was cluttered with toys shewn about by the child who prefers to play inside. The eight year old is a terrible housekeeper -- she doesn't follow her mom's daily request to clean her room. There wasn't enough food in the fridge (mom gets paid tomorrow, when she does the shopping). Worse, mom told the smiling caseworker during the assessment that her parents argued a lot when she was growing up. Her dad drank a lot. The completed "assessment" has a lot of "indicators" of "risk." (You know some of these indicators, Kane. I do as well. I will happily list some of them). Mom is likely to be of some danger to her eight year old sometime, maybe, in the future. The caseworker substantiates. Thirty days later, the caseworker mails a notice to mom stating that she has been substantiated for neglect and that the agency has determined she is "in need of services." The oddity in this tragic, although common, situation is that mom granted consent to the caseworker to varify whether she had hit her child with a two by four, not to do a life history on her family or to look for "risk indicators" that exist in every home across the country. Mom now deeply regrets that she granted her "consent." But it is too late. Mom now knows the real role of the caseworker, but it is too late. Cops know how to use these very well indeed, to gain access. And many caseworkers do as well. My guess is that even now, or in very short order cw's will be going to trainings on how to ensure they have all three, or any of the above. consent, probable cause, exigent circumstances. Hell, they already know a great deal about these things. They run into judges all the time that require it or they kick the worker out of the placement hearing. They do not need all three. Consent eliminates the need for a showing of exigent circumstances or probable cause. A showing of probable cause eliminates the need for consent or exigent circumstances. I would hope that someday agencies would get around to teaching their employees what probable cause and exigent circumstances are. More importantly, they need to be trained that they cannot threaten parents gain "consent." If you position is that the Doe v Heck will lead to more training of CPS workers, this would be a good outcome. Why would training CPS workers on exigent circumstances, probable cause and consent be a bad thing for families? The appeals court ruling found in the set of facts that there was no consent, no warrant, no exigent cirumstances and no probable cause in the caseworker's intervention. Yep...this case. And it will be true for any other case,and it's been true for ever, as constitutional issues are ruled on by the SCOTUS. Are you so blind that you can't see that my claim of a coming police state...that is more power to the executive and enforcement...is happening? What profit do you derive from this, Doug. You must given how hard you campaign for it. The Doe v Heck decision, and similar ones that preceded it, are a check against the police state mentality that currently exists in child welfare procedure. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:10:03 GMT, "Doug"
wrote: Concerning Doe v Heck, I asked: What are some of the holes you see this Constitutional case "riddled" with, Kane? To which, Kane replied: The wholes are in the decision and the outcomes it will foster. Read on. ... and I don't make the assumptions you do. Your assumption is that this is going to result in better casework and fewer families involved. My assumption is that it's going to result in a shift over to more of what already is a system fact....warrants are issued now. Incoming calls are screened NOW. And one of the questions is, "is this abuse underway at the moment." Want to guess how many callers say yes, expecially the malicious false allegation types? And have you any idea how hard it is to prove they were making a false accusation for malicious reasons? Hi, Kane! Thanks for answering my question. My assumption is not that Doe v Heck will result in better casework, just less of it. Dreamer. The "better casework" won't mean less. It will mean more, with yet another perfect reason to ask for more tax payer dollars.. How hard do you think it is to get "better" as in collect more information that will provide a much tighter reason to send an investigator out? You mention that in current practice hotline calls are rightfully screened. And it may be true that on rare occassions CPS now proceeds lawfully and obtains a warrant. Ah, the propagandist kant. No, Doug. CPS doesn't have just rare occasions when they proceed lawfully. They proceed perfectly within the limits of the law the vast majority of the time. Those few times they don't is what you count on for your propaganda rant. And it only bothers, because of the much greater expense in time and court costs...yes, CPS has to pay for the services of the court if it requires an attorney, and most motions or requests of the court are vetted by a lawyers before presentations, or specially trained CPS staff...more expense, of course, vet them, to get a warrant when it must. Hotline workers should ask reporters if the abuse is occurring at the time, You aren't really a worker at all are you. Never have been. That is usually question number one. And it's question number one on a 911 police emergency call, which a very high proportion of child abuse calls are. since the answer to that question suggests response time, among other things. Well, I guess. Since the vast majority of calls involve neglect or third-party incidents that have allegedly occurred in the past, Define vast please. the current practice does not result in CPS obtaining warrants. Why would it need to at the point of the call being made? It still won't result in more of it except for a few weeks while CPS sorts out the results of the case you sited in that state. They'll get a routine in place with the courts soon enough, and workers will be trained in yet more subtle ways of obtaining consent to enter and question. I wrote: The issue in the present case is that Section 48.981(3)(c)(1) of the state's child welfare code is unconstitutional to the extent it authorizes government officials to conduct an investigation of child abuse on private property without a warrant, probable cause, consent, or exigent circumstances. To which, you respond: Ah, there it is. The usual stupidity by you. I love when you come racing forward to "refute" my claims. Why do you think I make the outlandish ones I do, and I even warn you about them and my reasons for them, but here you come, tip pot hat and all. r r r r Why, again, do you make the outlandish claims that you do? You are saying that you make them just to retrieve a reply informing you that they are wrong? Because you are a lieing underhanded asshole that deserves little better. "Consent" is pretty damn easy to get even when ones constitutional rights are read to one. Any hangup in time or access is going to be nicely taken care of, as it already is now, by the other two items you listed though: exigent circumstance, and probable cause. Yes, almost all parents grant "consent" to CPS to enter their home and conduct fishing expeditions. Yep. But I don't think they are after fish. They are required by law to investigate. If a call is made that has the content requiring such an investigation, they must. It isn't "fishing"...it's the law. Sometimes, this consent is granted under duress -- I cannot imagine a child abuse/neglect investigation NOT creating a sense of anxiety, hence duress, in the recipient. No one should ever suggest that such an investigation must, to be allowable, be a happy affair for all parties. But I've seen lots of complaints in these ngs that started off with claims the worker frightened the family. Well, I guess. the caseworker has threatened the parent with removing her children if she does not grant access (a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, by the way.) Liar. That would be an extremely rare occurance. No worker is trained to "threaten." They are trained to tell the parent of probable or possible outcomes for the express intent of gaining consent to enter. In most cases, consent is granted immediately because the parent does not know they have a choice or because the parent misperceives the role of CPS. Bull****. Consent is most often granted because the parent believes themselves to be innocent, or if they are guilty, that they can bull**** their way out of it having trained the kids very carefully in what to say in just such a situation, or they are drugged out of their gourds and can't sort out what is going on, and in the "vast" r r r majority of the cases the very last circumstance is the most common. You keep pretending that the exception is the rule. The fact is that most families that CPS speaks to that fit in your category are left completely alone....the complaint or allegation doesn't rise to the level of investigation, or, as has been related recently in this ng, the worker is invited in, they question, look, and leave with no finding whatsoever except that the call was unfounded by the evidence they have gathered in the investigation. I will give you a typical example. No you won't. You'll cut and paste a few wild fantasies from your head and from instances in related in this ng or wherever you hang out and sock back a few, and pretend it's all the truth, when it isn't. CPS receives a report from an anonymous caller that mom was outside in the front yard yesterday beating her 4 year old daughter over the head with a 2 x 4. CPS shows up at the door a few hours later with a cop. Bull**** from the getgo. They know damn well that such a scenario would result in an IMMEDIATE call while the attack was underway or within seconds. You show your capacity to prevaricate right from the start. I think I mentioned in a recent post that you are one of the saddest propagandists for child abusers I've every run across. Mom perceives that she is a good mother and has nothing to worry about. She knows damn well that she did not hit her child. She is likely to be highly upset that someone would have the audicity to call in such an allegation. She will ask who made the report. The caseworker will reply that, by law, she can't tell her that. Mom will guess at the name. She will usually be right, although the caseworker cannot confirm the quess. Then she will say, "come on in." Afterall, what does mom have to worry about? Not a thing. You are lying. The cop leaves and the caseworker talks to the daugther, who is really 8 years old and more than a little ****ed herself. Caseworker notices no marks or bruises. The child says she doesn't like going outside on the front lawn because the "weirdo" next door yells at her. She plays in the backyard. And she plays a lot inside. And, no, mom does not hit her with anything, let alone boards like the caseworker describes. The caseworker then sits down with mom and does an "assessment." She asks lots of questions about extended family, income, mom's family history, partridges, pear trees and the birds that perch in them. Caseworkers are paid to investigate all this? Interesting. Maybe you could be one after all. r r r r But not in this lifetime or reality. If the parent is even capable of waking in the morning they know they don't have to answer such questions. It isn't hard to figure out that if someone is asking about an alledged attack on the child that that is all one need answer (and not even that if they don't wish to) are questions related to the allegation. Please, Doug. You are embarrassing yourself again. The fridge is examined and cupboards gone through to check on food supplies. The little girl's room is examined. Bathrooms are checked. Well, a druggie might be too out of it to tell the worker to leave, but anyone that is breathing normally knows damn well they can stop that worker immediately. No one is going to allow someone to walk about their house, and you know. The worker is all smiles. Mom has calmed down a bit by the time the caseworker prances off three hours later. I didn't know caseworkers pranced? The caseworker goes back to the office to call relatives and the "weirdo" next door. Then she substantiates the single mom for neglect. How? The house was cluttered with toys shewn about by the child who prefers to play inside. Crock of **** and you know it. The eight year old is a terrible housekeeper -- she doesn't follow her mom's daily request to clean her room. There wasn't enough food in the fridge (mom gets paid tomorrow, when she does the shopping). Worse, mom told the smiling caseworker during the assessment that her parents argued a lot when she was growing up. Her dad drank a lot. Larger crock, same ****. The completed "assessment" has a lot of "indicators" of "risk." (You know some of these indicators, Kane. I do as well. I will happily list some of them). Do so then. Mom is likely to be of some danger to her eight year old sometime, maybe, in the future. The caseworker substantiates. Even bigger crock, same ****. Thirty days later, the caseworker mails a notice to mom stating that she has been substantiated for neglect and that the agency has determined she is "in need of services." The truth is more often it comes down like this: Caseworker examines child and finds typical marks she was trained to recognise as cigarette or hotplate burns on the child, and some wrap around marks on legs and arms that are typical of being whipped with an electric cord. Child is either inarticulate for his or her age, or has a highly questionable sophisticated beyond his or her years excuse for the marks and or burns. The worker sees drug paraphenalia peaking out from under the babies mattress where the drugged out mom thought no one would ever look, and a back room with some meth precursor chemical containers in carboys. The oddity in this tragic, In the rare instance it happens, you bet. Tragic as hell and gets workers fired. I know. I've had them fired. although common, situation is that mom granted consent to the caseworker to varify whether she had hit her child with a two by four, That's correct. And in the vast majority of cases, one even related here recently, the worker asked the questions related to the allegation, did the child examine, and left with no further actions of any kind....until another call was made. The problem isn't the worker, or the practice, it's the malicious caller. not to do a life history on her family or to look for "risk indicators" that exist in every home across the country. As I said, crock, ****. Mom now deeply regrets that she granted her "consent." She didn't grant any general consent to a flock of questions. If they are asked all she has to do is either order the worker out of the house...and that is a constitutional right, or refuse to engage in a question and answer session on any subject but the allegation. But it is too late. Well, maybe too late for you to con the reader. Mom now knows the real role of the caseworker, but it is too late. Ho hum. Have you a kleenex? Cops know how to use these very well indeed, to gain access. And many caseworkers do as well. My guess is that even now, or in very short order cw's will be going to trainings on how to ensure they have all three, or any of the above. consent, probable cause, exigent circumstances. Hell, they already know a great deal about these things. They run into judges all the time that require it or they kick the worker out of the placement hearing. They do not need all three. I didn't say they needed all three in any single instance. I said get trained to get them. You really don't have an ounce of ethics, do you? Consent eliminates the need for a showing of exigent circumstances or probable cause. Thanks for proving my case. We all know that however. This isn't anything but patronizing the reader when you go on this way. A showing of probable cause eliminates the need for consent or exigent circumstances. But you don't think the worker and LE won't, if there is no exigence, simply ask for consent to enter? The judge would have their butts if they ran up a very high number of WARRANTS without first trying for consent to enter and question. I would hope that someday agencies would get around to teaching their employees what probable cause and exigent circumstances are. Why don't you speak to your supervisor or local admin and management about it? I've interviewed a large number of CPS employees that do investigations. I haven't found one that didn't teach ME things about exigence and probably cause. They are highly sophisticated about both, but they don't go running around spouting off about it as they conduct investigations to prove to the alleged perp how smart they are. More importantly, they need to be trained that they cannot threaten parents gain "consent." You still live in Lower Slobbovia don't you? My experience is that CPS investigators take one semester of a college course to learn how to do their job. They get updates periodically from the DA and sometimes even the states AG's office on how to do their job within the law. You are a crock of ****, you don't just shovel it out. If you position is that the Doe v Heck will lead to more training of CPS workers, this would be a good outcome. Hmmmm.. Well I think I've made my position clear on "efficient" government. I prefer slop. Even if there are some abuses. The abuses of efficient government are far far greater. Or don't you learn from history? Why would training CPS workers on exigent circumstances, probable cause and consent be a bad thing for families? Tightening of the screw. One thing about the young, the child bearing age young....they **** up a lot. I know, I was one once. They can be recovered. The often are. More efficient government will cut a broad swath through them, as it did with the inception of ASFA. I've watched the rate of terminations skyrocket, and finally start to level off recently (they can't make'em faster than CPS can take 'em) as a result of more efficient government. In most instances where parents do battle to get their kids back and win it isn't because the allegations didn't have SOME basis, but because CPS slipped and screwed up in their PRACTICE. I rather like it that young folks, screwing up as they do, still get to keep their kids. The public sometimes disagrees with my values. ****'em. You'd be surprized to learn that I've talked with many workers that have the same attitude I do.... Many, for instance, think there is nothing at all wrong with spanking a child. Or having them go without a meal, or being overweight. and they laugh their heads off at states where this is claimed to be a reason a child was removed. They know perfectly well it was more likely an accompanying condition along with much much more egregious harm being done the child. That Maine case we got to watch on TV was case in point. "Clutter" turned out to be a dangerous pigsty with flammables stored next to wood stoves, broken plate glass at toddler level...etc. The appeals court ruling found in the set of facts that there was no consent, no warrant, no exigent cirumstances and no probable cause in the caseworker's intervention. Yep...this case. And it will be true for any other case,and it's been true for ever, as constitutional issues are ruled on by the SCOTUS. Are you so blind that you can't see that my claim of a coming police state...that is more power to the executive and enforcement...is happening? What profit do you derive from this, Doug. You must given how hard you campaign for it. The Doe v Heck decision, and similar ones that preceded it, are a check against the police state mentality that currently exists in child welfare procedure. You are dreaming, Doug. As usual. There is no "police state mentality" in CPS. That's bull**** statement of high order coming from you. It is a "follow the law" mentality and always has been. If you are living where the former occurs, you should move. If you see them defy the caselaw you cite, then you can claim police state. Until understand it's you that I accuse of a police state mentality. And you are a very unpolished propagandist. You'd never make a living at it. r r r r r Kane |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:10:03 GMT, "Doug"
wrote: Concerning Doe v Heck, I asked: What are some of the holes you see this Constitutional case "riddled" with, Kane? To which, Kane replied: The wholes are in the decision and the outcomes it will foster. Read on. ... and I don't make the assumptions you do. Your assumption is that this is going to result in better casework and fewer families involved. My assumption is that it's going to result in a shift over to more of what already is a system fact....warrants are issued now. Incoming calls are screened NOW. And one of the questions is, "is this abuse underway at the moment." Want to guess how many callers say yes, expecially the malicious false allegation types? And have you any idea how hard it is to prove they were making a false accusation for malicious reasons? Hi, Kane! Thanks for answering my question. My assumption is not that Doe v Heck will result in better casework, just less of it. Dreamer. The "better casework" won't mean less. It will mean more, with yet another perfect reason to ask for more tax payer dollars.. How hard do you think it is to get "better" as in collect more information that will provide a much tighter reason to send an investigator out? You mention that in current practice hotline calls are rightfully screened. And it may be true that on rare occassions CPS now proceeds lawfully and obtains a warrant. Ah, the propagandist kant. No, Doug. CPS doesn't have just rare occasions when they proceed lawfully. They proceed perfectly within the limits of the law the vast majority of the time. Those few times they don't is what you count on for your propaganda rant. And it only bothers, because of the much greater expense in time and court costs...yes, CPS has to pay for the services of the court if it requires an attorney, and most motions or requests of the court are vetted by a lawyers before presentations, or specially trained CPS staff...more expense, of course, vet them, to get a warrant when it must. Hotline workers should ask reporters if the abuse is occurring at the time, You aren't really a worker at all are you. Never have been. That is usually question number one. And it's question number one on a 911 police emergency call, which a very high proportion of child abuse calls are. since the answer to that question suggests response time, among other things. Well, I guess. Since the vast majority of calls involve neglect or third-party incidents that have allegedly occurred in the past, Define vast please. the current practice does not result in CPS obtaining warrants. Why would it need to at the point of the call being made? It still won't result in more of it except for a few weeks while CPS sorts out the results of the case you sited in that state. They'll get a routine in place with the courts soon enough, and workers will be trained in yet more subtle ways of obtaining consent to enter and question. I wrote: The issue in the present case is that Section 48.981(3)(c)(1) of the state's child welfare code is unconstitutional to the extent it authorizes government officials to conduct an investigation of child abuse on private property without a warrant, probable cause, consent, or exigent circumstances. To which, you respond: Ah, there it is. The usual stupidity by you. I love when you come racing forward to "refute" my claims. Why do you think I make the outlandish ones I do, and I even warn you about them and my reasons for them, but here you come, tip pot hat and all. r r r r Why, again, do you make the outlandish claims that you do? You are saying that you make them just to retrieve a reply informing you that they are wrong? Because you are a lieing underhanded asshole that deserves little better. "Consent" is pretty damn easy to get even when ones constitutional rights are read to one. Any hangup in time or access is going to be nicely taken care of, as it already is now, by the other two items you listed though: exigent circumstance, and probable cause. Yes, almost all parents grant "consent" to CPS to enter their home and conduct fishing expeditions. Yep. But I don't think they are after fish. They are required by law to investigate. If a call is made that has the content requiring such an investigation, they must. It isn't "fishing"...it's the law. Sometimes, this consent is granted under duress -- I cannot imagine a child abuse/neglect investigation NOT creating a sense of anxiety, hence duress, in the recipient. No one should ever suggest that such an investigation must, to be allowable, be a happy affair for all parties. But I've seen lots of complaints in these ngs that started off with claims the worker frightened the family. Well, I guess. the caseworker has threatened the parent with removing her children if she does not grant access (a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, by the way.) Liar. That would be an extremely rare occurance. No worker is trained to "threaten." They are trained to tell the parent of probable or possible outcomes for the express intent of gaining consent to enter. In most cases, consent is granted immediately because the parent does not know they have a choice or because the parent misperceives the role of CPS. Bull****. Consent is most often granted because the parent believes themselves to be innocent, or if they are guilty, that they can bull**** their way out of it having trained the kids very carefully in what to say in just such a situation, or they are drugged out of their gourds and can't sort out what is going on, and in the "vast" r r r majority of the cases the very last circumstance is the most common. You keep pretending that the exception is the rule. The fact is that most families that CPS speaks to that fit in your category are left completely alone....the complaint or allegation doesn't rise to the level of investigation, or, as has been related recently in this ng, the worker is invited in, they question, look, and leave with no finding whatsoever except that the call was unfounded by the evidence they have gathered in the investigation. I will give you a typical example. No you won't. You'll cut and paste a few wild fantasies from your head and from instances in related in this ng or wherever you hang out and sock back a few, and pretend it's all the truth, when it isn't. CPS receives a report from an anonymous caller that mom was outside in the front yard yesterday beating her 4 year old daughter over the head with a 2 x 4. CPS shows up at the door a few hours later with a cop. Bull**** from the getgo. They know damn well that such a scenario would result in an IMMEDIATE call while the attack was underway or within seconds. You show your capacity to prevaricate right from the start. I think I mentioned in a recent post that you are one of the saddest propagandists for child abusers I've every run across. Mom perceives that she is a good mother and has nothing to worry about. She knows damn well that she did not hit her child. She is likely to be highly upset that someone would have the audicity to call in such an allegation. She will ask who made the report. The caseworker will reply that, by law, she can't tell her that. Mom will guess at the name. She will usually be right, although the caseworker cannot confirm the quess. Then she will say, "come on in." Afterall, what does mom have to worry about? Not a thing. You are lying. The cop leaves and the caseworker talks to the daugther, who is really 8 years old and more than a little ****ed herself. Caseworker notices no marks or bruises. The child says she doesn't like going outside on the front lawn because the "weirdo" next door yells at her. She plays in the backyard. And she plays a lot inside. And, no, mom does not hit her with anything, let alone boards like the caseworker describes. The caseworker then sits down with mom and does an "assessment." She asks lots of questions about extended family, income, mom's family history, partridges, pear trees and the birds that perch in them. Caseworkers are paid to investigate all this? Interesting. Maybe you could be one after all. r r r r But not in this lifetime or reality. If the parent is even capable of waking in the morning they know they don't have to answer such questions. It isn't hard to figure out that if someone is asking about an alledged attack on the child that that is all one need answer (and not even that if they don't wish to) are questions related to the allegation. Please, Doug. You are embarrassing yourself again. The fridge is examined and cupboards gone through to check on food supplies. The little girl's room is examined. Bathrooms are checked. Well, a druggie might be too out of it to tell the worker to leave, but anyone that is breathing normally knows damn well they can stop that worker immediately. No one is going to allow someone to walk about their house, and you know. The worker is all smiles. Mom has calmed down a bit by the time the caseworker prances off three hours later. I didn't know caseworkers pranced? The caseworker goes back to the office to call relatives and the "weirdo" next door. Then she substantiates the single mom for neglect. How? The house was cluttered with toys shewn about by the child who prefers to play inside. Crock of **** and you know it. The eight year old is a terrible housekeeper -- she doesn't follow her mom's daily request to clean her room. There wasn't enough food in the fridge (mom gets paid tomorrow, when she does the shopping). Worse, mom told the smiling caseworker during the assessment that her parents argued a lot when she was growing up. Her dad drank a lot. Larger crock, same ****. The completed "assessment" has a lot of "indicators" of "risk." (You know some of these indicators, Kane. I do as well. I will happily list some of them). Do so then. Mom is likely to be of some danger to her eight year old sometime, maybe, in the future. The caseworker substantiates. Even bigger crock, same ****. Thirty days later, the caseworker mails a notice to mom stating that she has been substantiated for neglect and that the agency has determined she is "in need of services." The truth is more often it comes down like this: Caseworker examines child and finds typical marks she was trained to recognise as cigarette or hotplate burns on the child, and some wrap around marks on legs and arms that are typical of being whipped with an electric cord. Child is either inarticulate for his or her age, or has a highly questionable sophisticated beyond his or her years excuse for the marks and or burns. The worker sees drug paraphenalia peaking out from under the babies mattress where the drugged out mom thought no one would ever look, and a back room with some meth precursor chemical containers in carboys. The oddity in this tragic, In the rare instance it happens, you bet. Tragic as hell and gets workers fired. I know. I've had them fired. although common, situation is that mom granted consent to the caseworker to varify whether she had hit her child with a two by four, That's correct. And in the vast majority of cases, one even related here recently, the worker asked the questions related to the allegation, did the child examine, and left with no further actions of any kind....until another call was made. The problem isn't the worker, or the practice, it's the malicious caller. not to do a life history on her family or to look for "risk indicators" that exist in every home across the country. As I said, crock, ****. Mom now deeply regrets that she granted her "consent." She didn't grant any general consent to a flock of questions. If they are asked all she has to do is either order the worker out of the house...and that is a constitutional right, or refuse to engage in a question and answer session on any subject but the allegation. But it is too late. Well, maybe too late for you to con the reader. Mom now knows the real role of the caseworker, but it is too late. Ho hum. Have you a kleenex? Cops know how to use these very well indeed, to gain access. And many caseworkers do as well. My guess is that even now, or in very short order cw's will be going to trainings on how to ensure they have all three, or any of the above. consent, probable cause, exigent circumstances. Hell, they already know a great deal about these things. They run into judges all the time that require it or they kick the worker out of the placement hearing. They do not need all three. I didn't say they needed all three in any single instance. I said get trained to get them. You really don't have an ounce of ethics, do you? Consent eliminates the need for a showing of exigent circumstances or probable cause. Thanks for proving my case. We all know that however. This isn't anything but patronizing the reader when you go on this way. A showing of probable cause eliminates the need for consent or exigent circumstances. But you don't think the worker and LE won't, if there is no exigence, simply ask for consent to enter? The judge would have their butts if they ran up a very high number of WARRANTS without first trying for consent to enter and question. I would hope that someday agencies would get around to teaching their employees what probable cause and exigent circumstances are. Why don't you speak to your supervisor or local admin and management about it? I've interviewed a large number of CPS employees that do investigations. I haven't found one that didn't teach ME things about exigence and probably cause. They are highly sophisticated about both, but they don't go running around spouting off about it as they conduct investigations to prove to the alleged perp how smart they are. More importantly, they need to be trained that they cannot threaten parents gain "consent." You still live in Lower Slobbovia don't you? My experience is that CPS investigators take one semester of a college course to learn how to do their job. They get updates periodically from the DA and sometimes even the states AG's office on how to do their job within the law. You are a crock of ****, you don't just shovel it out. If you position is that the Doe v Heck will lead to more training of CPS workers, this would be a good outcome. Hmmmm.. Well I think I've made my position clear on "efficient" government. I prefer slop. Even if there are some abuses. The abuses of efficient government are far far greater. Or don't you learn from history? Why would training CPS workers on exigent circumstances, probable cause and consent be a bad thing for families? Tightening of the screw. One thing about the young, the child bearing age young....they **** up a lot. I know, I was one once. They can be recovered. The often are. More efficient government will cut a broad swath through them, as it did with the inception of ASFA. I've watched the rate of terminations skyrocket, and finally start to level off recently (they can't make'em faster than CPS can take 'em) as a result of more efficient government. In most instances where parents do battle to get their kids back and win it isn't because the allegations didn't have SOME basis, but because CPS slipped and screwed up in their PRACTICE. I rather like it that young folks, screwing up as they do, still get to keep their kids. The public sometimes disagrees with my values. ****'em. You'd be surprized to learn that I've talked with many workers that have the same attitude I do.... Many, for instance, think there is nothing at all wrong with spanking a child. Or having them go without a meal, or being overweight. and they laugh their heads off at states where this is claimed to be a reason a child was removed. They know perfectly well it was more likely an accompanying condition along with much much more egregious harm being done the child. That Maine case we got to watch on TV was case in point. "Clutter" turned out to be a dangerous pigsty with flammables stored next to wood stoves, broken plate glass at toddler level...etc. The appeals court ruling found in the set of facts that there was no consent, no warrant, no exigent cirumstances and no probable cause in the caseworker's intervention. Yep...this case. And it will be true for any other case,and it's been true for ever, as constitutional issues are ruled on by the SCOTUS. Are you so blind that you can't see that my claim of a coming police state...that is more power to the executive and enforcement...is happening? What profit do you derive from this, Doug. You must given how hard you campaign for it. The Doe v Heck decision, and similar ones that preceded it, are a check against the police state mentality that currently exists in child welfare procedure. You are dreaming, Doug. As usual. There is no "police state mentality" in CPS. That's bull**** statement of high order coming from you. It is a "follow the law" mentality and always has been. If you are living where the former occurs, you should move. If you see them defy the caselaw you cite, then you can claim police state. Until understand it's you that I accuse of a police state mentality. And you are a very unpolished propagandist. You'd never make a living at it. r r r r r Kane |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional
Just the INSET from the article Fern linked to:
What the court held Case: Doe v. Heck, No. 01-3648 Issue: Is sec. 48.981(3)(c)1 unconstitutional to the extent it authorizes social workers to interview children on private property without their parents' consent? If so, are social workers who committed an unconstitutional investigation entitled to qualified immunity? Holding: Yes. Such an investigation violates the Fourth Amendment rights of the child, and the rights to familial relations of the parents and the child. Yes. The caseworkers should not be held liable for acting pursuant to a presumptively valid statute. Counsel: Sheila M. Smith, Michael D. Dean, for plaintiffs; John J. Glinski, for defendants. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional
Yes. The caseworkers should not be held liable for
acting pursuant to a presumptively valid statute. But as Fern said, NOW they are on notice! Next time around they would NOT be immune. But I still don't understand how enforcers of the law can hide behind ignorance of the law to exempt them from law suits. If they don't know the laws about what they DO FOR A LIVING, why should they be exempt? Or (another way) If they don't know the laws about what they are doing for a living, maybe they should consider a different vocation. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional
"Greg Hanson" wrote in message om... Yes. The caseworkers should not be held liable for acting pursuant to a presumptively valid statute. But as Fern said, NOW they are on notice! Next time around they would NOT be immune. But I still don't understand how enforcers of the law can hide behind ignorance of the law to exempt them from law suits. If they don't know the laws about what they DO FOR A LIVING, why should they be exempt? Sorry Greg, but no one, not even attornies, are fully conversant with the laws under which they work or for the job in which they find themselves in. None. There are just to many laws out there. To much regulation. If you had a job you would know this. We know and understand the basics (hopefully), and we trust the experts to tell us about the rest. But even the experts cannot know for certain how a judge is going to rule on a particular law, and this is why so many cases end up in appellate courts. Ron Or (another way) If they don't know the laws about what they are doing for a living, maybe they should consider a different vocation. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
'Horrible' Home | Kane | General | 1 | July 16th 03 02:29 AM |
| Database should audit high $$ in Foster Care system | Kane | General | 3 | July 15th 03 06:43 AM |
(New Mexico) PARENTS SUE EX-SOCIAL WOKER | [email protected] | General | 0 | July 4th 03 06:25 AM |