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
|
|||
|
|||
Insisting on Warrant is UNIVERSAL advice
As hinted at in the HSLDA story I posted awhile back, when a Child
Protection caseworker is at your door trying to CON their way into a home and the FAMILY insists on a signed search warrant, usually the agency does not have enough to get a WARRANT and they KNOW it. Apparently the HSLDA attorney supports asking for a warrant up front. Ask Dan and Kane what they think of the professional advise that comes out of HSLDA. The simple fact is that insisting on a warrant WORKS. An anonymous report is NOT enough to obtain a Search Warrant. Beware the unsigned Search Warrant. Yes, caseworkers have tried that! If they DO get a Search Warrant, even if they cloak it in some other terms like a "Court Order for Home Inspection" it has to comply fully with the 4th Amendment in the US Constitution. That means it has to be very specific about exactly what they are looking for. Iowa, for example is terrified that any STANDARDS would be promulgated for a Home Inspection because they actually INTEND that such searches be an open ended "fishing expedition". If a warrant doesn't specify exactly what they are looking for, the warrant itself is actually illegal for lack of specifics. If the agency uses the least little thing that was not specified on the search warrant, EVERYTHING they found must be thrown out of court. Anybody can look up the 4th Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. Anybody can look up the principle that a search warrant lacking specifics is unreasonable and therefore illegal. Any search warrant that is a "fishing expedition" as the Judges refer to them is a big no-no. If they GET a search warrant, it is usually so limiting that the agency does not even want to do it. But all of this backup information is almost never needed since as I said earlier, the report the agency got almost never rises to the level that justifies a search warrant. I am not a lawyer and this is all general information that should be taught to every high school civics student. I am telling you that Family Rights groups have had considerable success with the advice to insist on a warrant. Family Rights groups have the Child Protection INDUSTRY terrified. It won't take long now. http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Oct/10182003/utah/103158.asp SATURDAY October 18, 2003 Utah is a showdown state in an activist movement to restore control of children's welfare to the family By Brooke Adams The Salt Lake Tribune From Oregon to Michigan, new parents' rights groups are rising with single-minded purpose: to undo laws and policies they believe unfairly allow child protection agencies to break up families. Utah is one of the showdown states -- and the activism began long before Parker Jensen became a household name. Parents' rights activists have, among other things, successfully pushed for court-ordered warrants before children can be removed from homes, prohibited parental rights from being terminated when a parent fails to complete a treatment plan and opened court proceedings in a pilot project. Their success has not gone unnoticed. Last year, Utah Children, a nonprofit advocacy group, identified attempts by parents' rights groups to "weaken child protection programs" as one of its three top concerns. It also sought help from a national organization, Voices for America's Children, for advice on how to counter parents' rights groups. "Utah is the only state I've heard of where they are getting significant attention and leverage," said Deborah Stein, policy director for the organization, which represents groups like Utah Children across the nation. "These groups might be active elsewhere, but [they aren't] having that level of impact." That is likely to change. One example: Two Michigan groups, formed in the past year, Citizens for Parental Rights and the state chapter of the National Alliance for Parents and Families, met with congressional representatives last week. They are seeking national reforms that include disclosing the identities of those making child abuse allegations and using more funds on fixing families than foster care. Nancy Luckhurst of Sheridan, Mich., and secretary for the National Alliance, is busy starting branches across the country via the Internet. "We are becoming quite well received," Luckhurst said in a telephone interview. Groups unite: In Utah, Daren and Barbara Jensen and their son Parker became the poster family for the parents' rights movement this summer as they battled the state over the boy's cancer diagnosis and treatment. "The Jensen case is a flashpoint in bringing it back to the surface in a very visible way," said Karen Crompton, executive director of Utah Children. Grass-roots efforts to limit state involvement in family affairs have always been well-received here. The Utah Eagle Forum, a conservative interest group led by Gayle Ruzicka, has been at it for more than a decade. "We work hard at it and when you tell the truth, people will listen," said Ruzicka. "We've hung in there over and over and continually come back." Other Utah groups feed into the parents' rights movement. They include home schooling proponents to Accountability Utah, a government watchdog group, JEDI For Women (Justice, Economic Dignity and Independence), which advocates for low-income women, and Citizens Commission on Human Rights, a Scientology group opposed to use of psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin. In the 1980s, fathers who believed they were getting a raw deal in divorce settlements began flexing political clout through Utah Parents for Children's Rights and Utah Fathers and Children Together. FOCUS, the successor of those groups, had eight bills before the Legislature this year alone. All failed. But the newest cause celebre in Utah and nationwide is the belief that an overzealous child welfare system is destroying families -- often, critics say, by confusing poverty with neglect. "Certainly we need to do something in this country to protect abused children," said Doug Quirmbach, public relations director of CPS Watch, a Missouri-based national group founded in 1995 as a policy and data clearinghouse for child welfare issues. But, "If a child is removed unnecessarily, the state is abusing that child." That belief has given rise to new groups in Utah: Citizens for Child Protection Reform, Family Rights of Utah, Utah Families Association and, in the wake of the Jensen case, My Child, My Choice. Almost all were founded by people who had a personal run-in with the Utah Division of Child and Family Services. Several groups have little more than a name behind them; others got a jump-start with help of conservative-values champions like Ruzicka. National organizations also have aided Utah groups such as Oregon-based American Family Rights Association, which provided content used in fliers at pro-Jensen family rallies. Key issues: Roz McGee, former director of Utah Children and a current state legislator, says the parents' rights movement is in part an ironic result of raising public awareness of what constitutes abuse. "Once all professionals became aware of the need to report suspected child abuse, there became more reports and more consistent investigations," McGee said. "In response to this, some people who believed they were wrongly investigated began to get vocal." Other observers say new laws and policies adopted in the past decade set the stage for the movement. They include federal welfare reform, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 and, in Utah, the 1994 overhaul of Utah's child welfare system as part of class-action lawsuit settlement, and a 1997 state law that made witnessing domestic violence a form of child abuse. "What we're seeing is more children being removed who've not been neglected or abused at all, but [who caseworkers say] meet a profile where a parent may be likely in the future to be a danger to the child," said Quirmbach. Take what happened to Lisa Bierly of Salt Lake City. In 2000, DCFS removed her then-7-year-old son after alleging his diabetes was not being properly managed. Caseworkers also decided her then-2-year-old daughter was a "sibling at-risk" and took her from Bierly's custody. She subsequently lost custody of both children despite completing several treatment plans. Bierly is appealing that decision, but odds are slim that her children will be returned to her. Meanwhile, two attempts to place her son Jordan with adoptive parents have failed. Her daughter has lived in eight foster homes and was rejected by two adoptive families; she recently was diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder, a failure to bond with a caregiver. Quirmbach and Bonnie Macri, director of Utah's JEDI Women, also see poverty as a common denominator in many removal cases. "JEDI started in 1999 getting bombarded with low-income women who'd lost their children," Macri said. "Low-income women were being sent back to work and they didn't have enough money to pay child care and their children were being taken out of their homes." Rallying cry: The parental rights cause resonates in Utah where there is widespread support for limited government and an "abiding reverence" for family. "When you put those organizations on top of that deeply held, cherished belief, it becomes a very powerful force in state politics," said Kelly Patterson, an associate professor of political science at Brigham Young University. "Across other states you would see pockets of strength, but in few states [are they] as powerful on a statewide basis." Richard Wexler, director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, disputes that Utah groups have had any measurable success. His yardstick: fewer children being removed from their homes, and that hasn't happened. DCFS removed nearly 1,900 children from their parents for substantiated allegations of abuse, neglect, maltreatment or juvenile delinquency for the 12-month period that ended July 1, according to state figures. "If there is supposedly some all-powerful parental rights movement tying the hands of caseworkers, the rate of removal in Utah doesn't show that," said Wexler. Showdown looms: Making it more difficult for DCFS to intercede will be a prime objective of parents' rights groups in the 2004 legislative session. Already, Richard Anderson, DCFS director, said he has seen drafts of several bills and talked with legislators about others. Among the early ideas being floated by the pols: restrict the state from intervening in medical treatment decisions if parents are judged competent; change mandatory reporting requirements for physicians; redefine what constitutes abuse and neglect; and require jury trials any time the state wants to terminate parental custody. "Before the Jensen case happened, we were already looking at multiple bills," Ruzicka said. Now, "every legislator wants to carry something." Anderson adopts a conciliatory pose when talking about the factions vying to direct his agency's operations. "There is a healthy tension that needs to exist in child welfare," Anderson said. "We need to make sure there is a group protecting parents' rights and a group protecting children's welfare. I wish they would come together." The dilemma for Crompton is how to provide balance to the parents' rights groups that so easily capture media attention with their crowds and catchy phrases. "They've got the rallying cry 'My Child, My Choice.' Those kind of sound bites are always easy, like 'No More Taxes.' They resonant. But to look at the issues comprehensively is more than a sound bite." Confidentiality requirements often work in favor of the parent's rights activists, according to Crompton. "You don't know the whole story on either side because it is protected information. But children aren't just snatched from their homes," she said. "The bottom line has to be the safety of a child and the state does have an obligation to provide that safety net if a family can't or won't." ----- Brooke Adams was awarded a 2003 Journalism Fellowship in Child and Family Policy, which supported research for this report. The program is based at the University of Maryland. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Insisting on Warrant is UNIVERSAL advice
Greegor wrote:
As hinted at in the HSLDA story I posted awhile back, when a Child Protection caseworker is at your door trying to CON their way into a home and the FAMILY insists on a signed search warrant, usually the agency does not have enough to get a WARRANT and they KNOW it. Apparently the HSLDA attorney supports asking for a warrant up front. Ask Dan and Kane what they think of the professional advise that comes out of HSLDA. The simple fact is that insisting on a warrant WORKS. An anonymous report is NOT enough to obtain a Search Warrant. Beware the unsigned Search Warrant. Yes, caseworkers have tried that! If they DO get a Search Warrant, even if they cloak it in some other terms like a "Court Order for Home Inspection" it has to comply fully with the 4th Amendment in the US Constitution. That means it has to be very specific about exactly what they are looking for. Iowa, for example is terrified that any STANDARDS would be promulgated for a Home Inspection because they actually INTEND that such searches be an open ended "fishing expedition". If a warrant doesn't specify exactly what they are looking for, the warrant itself is actually illegal for lack of specifics. If the agency uses the least little thing that was not specified on the search warrant, EVERYTHING they found must be thrown out of court. CPS's warrant said they were to check to see if I had enough food - then she wrote us up for 'clutter'. I'd like to have EVERYTHING they found thrown out. Please advise. Anybody can look up the 4th Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. Anybody can look up the principle that a search warrant lacking specifics is unreasonable and therefore illegal. Any search warrant that is a "fishing expedition" as the Judges refer to them is a big no-no. If they GET a search warrant, it is usually so limiting that the agency does not even want to do it. But all of this backup information is almost never needed since as I said earlier, the report the agency got almost never rises to the level that justifies a search warrant. I am not a lawyer and this is all general information that should be taught to every high school civics student. I am telling you that Family Rights groups have had considerable success with the advice to insist on a warrant. Family Rights groups have the Child Protection INDUSTRY terrified. It won't take long now. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Insisting on Warrant is UNIVERSAL advice
Greegor wrote: "As hinted at... " |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Do you take seriously the ... | 0:-> | Spanking | 47 | November 29th 06 05:51 PM |
Advice on Paracetamol is Unscientific and Unsafe | john | Kids Health | 3 | September 23rd 04 06:52 PM |
What if CPS caseworker brings police along? | Kane | Foster Parents | 12 | July 20th 04 06:45 AM |
What if CPS caseworker brings police along? | Kane | Spanking | 11 | July 19th 04 06:19 AM |
CPS wrkrs may NOT enter home w/o search warrant | Fern5827 | General | 0 | July 8th 04 06:12 PM |