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
|
|||
|
|||
DCF Vs. Parents: Unfair Tactics?: Judge's Rebuke Of Agency WorkerRenews Concerns About Child Welfare Cases
DCF Vs. Parents: Unfair Tactics?
Judge's Rebuke Of Agency Worker Renews Concerns About Child Welfare Cases By COLIN POITRAS | Courant Staff Writer July 16, 2007 http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc...912,full.story Three years after a Superior Court judge chastised the Department of Children and Families for deliberately distorting facts in a child abuse and neglect case, concerns about the agency's fairness toward parents persist. Most recently, Superior Court Judge Francis J. Foley III rebuked a state social worker for failing to mention a deaf father's strengths and successes in therapy while that social worker tried to terminate the man's parental rights to his 12-year-old son. In a decision handed down in Superior Court in Willimantic, Foley called the social worker's reports "disingenuous," "misleading" and "intellectually dishonest." The veteran judge said in his May 8 decision that the child protection agency could not attempt to protect children "through deception." Foley refused to terminate the father's rights, but also did not reunite him with his son, who has severe emotional problems and has spent most of his life hospitalized or in special foster homes. Foley said the son's refusal to learn sign language and the father's inability to deal with the boy's disruptive behavior concerned him. Foley also criticized DCF for placing unreasonable demands on the father, a Massachusetts resident who commuted two hours each way to attend DCF meetings and required the services of a sign language interpreter. Agency critics say Foley's rebuke illustrates how parents continue to be treated unfairly by DCF. They say better-trained lawyers and more openness in the state's closed juvenile courts is needed to ensure accountability. A bill that would have opened more of the juvenile court proceedings to the public died in the legislature this year. The agency critics also say the structure of child welfare proceedings gives DCF an unfair advantage. In the Willimantic case, most of the worker's misleading statements were contained in a so-called "social study" that summarized the facts in the case and the parent's good and bad traits. Judges often rely on those summaries in weighing the merits of a case. In criminal courts, such studies are conducted by independent court officials. That DCF - effectively the prosecutor in the proceeding - is allowed to summarize the facts opens the door to possible bias, critics charge. "DCF's failure to be fully candid in its court filings continues to be a serious problem," said Paul Chill, associate dean of academic affairs at the University of Connecticut School of Law. "I've always believed these social studies were an invitation for DCF to load up the trial record with lots of bad stuff," said Chill, who ran the law school's legal clinic for child welfare cases for more than a decade. When Judge Carmen Lopez chastised DCF for distorting case facts and ordered agency workers to be fairer to parents in a landmark decision in 2004, Chill called the ruling "the tip of the iceberg." Gary Kleeblatt, a spokesman for DCF, denied social workers have problems with fairness. He said the Willimantic case and the one in Lopez's court reflected the casework of two employees among more than a thousand. After Lopez's order, social workers received mandatory training in the preparation of court affidavits. Kleeblatt said the worker reprimanded in Foley's decision was not punished, although the case was "discussed" at the agency's Willimantic office. He suggested Foley's concerns may have been a misunderstanding. "While we regard seriously this requirement to offer balanced and truthful information, it may be the case in some instances that information that a judge may find to be relevant may not be perceived that way by DCF staff," Kleeblatt said. In the Willimantic case, Foley took issue with the social worker's characterization that the father was "ignorant of his son's needs" and not compliant with new orders for counseling. Foley said the worker failed to mention that the father, 30, had completed anger management classes and had just finished a year of counseling, during which the therapist described him as "highly motivated" and "intelligent" and that his "improved self-esteem bodes well for his potential." "The failure of social workers to give the respondent credit for his successes, even if they are limited or not complete, amounts to intellectual dishonesty," Foley wrote. "It does not represent a balanced presentation of the facts," Foley said. "While the court understands that the department is advocating for a termination of the parent's rights ... the department cannot protect or advocate for the child through deception." Foley also chastised the worker for misleading the court into believing she made a reasonable effort to find the father when he moved to another address and could not be located for more than six months in 2006. The father's absence was a mark against him in the report. Foley said the worker's sworn statement that she checked Connecticut motor vehicle and social service records in her effort to locate the father was irrelevant because he was living in Massachusetts. Also, there was no effort to contact the father's mother in Massachusetts. Though the mother made repeated calls to DCF the past year, Foley said, those calls were never returned. There was also no effort made to reach the father's employer. Michael H. Agranoff, an Ellington attorney specializing in DCF matters, said he has been involved in numerous cases where DCF presented misleading information to a judge. Agranoff cited a case in which DCF asked a judge to allow the agency to continue to supervise an Enfield couple because their child remained disturbed and maladjusted. The agency's report cited the child's psychologist, psychiatrist and teacher. Agranoff said he checked with the professionals mentioned in the report and was told that the child was fine, that the parents were doing well and DCF involvement should end. Agranoff said the teacher "quoted" by DCF in the report claimed a social worker had never spoken to her. In another case, Agranoff said DCF charged a rural couple with multiple counts of neglect, claiming their three children had amblyopia (lazy eye) that was untreated and could lead to blindness; that a 6-year-old was anemic, and that all of the children had dental disease. Agranoff said he was able to prove that the social worker's descriptions of the children were based on one overzealous doctor's impressions and that the family's regular pediatrician and optometrist were never interviewed. Agranoff said the family's doctors minimized the health threat and said the children were generally doing well. Agranoff said such incidents underline the importance of families obtaining qualified attorneys when DCF opens an investigation. The state's juvenile courts, where most DCF cases are heard, rely on overworked, underpaid and often poorly trained public defenders who often don't have the time or resources to double-check DCF's facts. Thomas M. Dutkiewicz, president of Connecticut DCF Watch, a parent advocacy group, said he hears parents complain about DCF being unfair all the time. "They never put exculpatory evidence into their records," Dutkiewicz said. "They're trying to build cases. This goes on all the time. That's why so many parents are so angry." Florida lawmakers, frustrated by social workers who lied in child protection records, made falsifying child welfare reports a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Since the law passed in 2002, there have been three convictions, 19 firings and 24 resignations of workers. Lawyers for the parent or child in a child welfare case are free to challenge any questionable facts or omissions in court, Kleeblatt said. At the same time, he said, DCF will always aggressively pursue a case it feels is justified. "It is to be expected that a party in a legal proceeding is going to present its case in such a fashion as to most effectively achieve the desired outcome - and that is precisely the responsibility of the department as it seeks to take all actions that are in the best interest of the child," Kleeblatt said. Contact Colin Poitras at . CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAM.... CPS Does not protect children... It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even killed at the hands of Child Protective Services. every parent should read this .pdf from connecticut dcf watch... http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN) Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS *Perpetrators of Maltreatment* Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59 Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13 Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241 Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12 Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5 Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per 100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a bunch of social workers. BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
DCF Vs. Parents: Unfair Tactics?: Judge's Rebuke Of Agency WorkerRenews Concerns About Child Welfare Cases
fx wrote:
DCF Vs. Parents: Unfair Tactics? Judge's Rebuke Of Agency Worker Renews Concerns About Child Welfare Cases By COLIN POITRAS | Courant Staff Writer July 16, 2007 http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc...912,full.story Three years after a Superior Court judge chastised the Department of Children and Families for deliberately distorting facts in a child abuse and neglect case, concerns about the agency's fairness toward parents persist. Hmmm - 'deliberately distorting facts' = lying. Most recently, Superior Court Judge Francis J. Foley III rebuked a state social worker for failing to mention a deaf father's strengths and successes in therapy while that social worker tried to terminate the man's parental rights to his 12-year-old son. As Don would say 'lying by omission'. In a decision handed down in Superior Court in Willimantic, Foley called the social worker's reports "disingenuous," "misleading" and "intellectually dishonest." The veteran judge said in his May 8 decision that the child protection agency could not attempt to protect children "through deception." IOW, CPS is a pack of liars. Foley refused to terminate the father's rights, but also did not reunite him with his son, who has severe emotional problems and has spent most of his life hospitalized or in special foster homes. Foley said the son's refusal to learn sign language and the father's inability to deal with the boy's disruptive behavior concerned him. Foley also criticized DCF for placing unreasonable demands on the father, a Massachusetts resident who commuted two hours each way to attend DCF meetings and required the services of a sign language interpreter. Hmmm. A pack of liars making 'unreasonable demands' Agency critics say Foley's rebuke illustrates how parents continue to be treated unfairly by DCF. They say better-trained lawyers and more openness in the state's closed juvenile courts is needed to ensure accountability. Martha Stewart went to prison for lying to investigators about a friggin stock trade. Caseworkers should go to prison when they lie to get their way. A bill that would have opened more of the juvenile court proceedings to the public died in the legislature this year. The agency critics also say the structure of child welfare proceedings gives DCF an unfair advantage. In the Willimantic case, most of the worker's misleading statements were contained in a so-called "social study" that summarized the facts in the case and the parent's good and bad traits. Judges often rely on those summaries in weighing the merits of a case. Yup - the Judge relies on CPS 'summaries' - at least this Judge was concerned enough to pay attention and catch the lies. Most just rubber stamp the CPS 'summaries'. In criminal courts, such studies are conducted by independent court officials. That DCF - effectively the prosecutor in the proceeding - is allowed to summarize the facts opens the door to possible bias, critics charge. "DCF's failure to be fully candid in its court filings continues to be a serious problem," said Paul Chill, associate dean of academic affairs at the University of Connecticut School of Law. Yup, lying, making unreasonable demands, rubber stamp Judges, - I'd say CPS has a 'serious problem' -- innocent parents have a ****in nightmare. "I've always believed these social studies were an invitation for DCF to load up the trial record with lots of bad stuff," said Chill, who ran the law school's legal clinic for child welfare cases for more than a decade. When Judge Carmen Lopez chastised DCF for distorting case facts and ordered agency workers to be fairer to parents in a landmark decision in 2004, Chill called the ruling "the tip of the iceberg." Gary Kleeblatt, a spokesman for DCF, denied social workers have problems with fairness. He said the Willimantic case and the one in Lopez's court reflected the casework of two employees among more than a thousand. Ohhhhh...the 'bad apple' defense. lol. - Sorry, folks from across the nation have been reporting the same SYSTEMIC problems for decades. Yup, and if someone with an ounce of integrity would investigate the other 998, they'd find 996 of them were lying sacks of **** too. After Lopez's order, social workers received mandatory training in the preparation of court affidavits. Kleeblatt said the worker reprimanded in Foley's decision was not punished, although the case was "discussed" at the agency's Willimantic office. He suggested Foley's concerns may have been a misunderstanding. Ahh..how sweet - the caseworker was not 'punished' for committing purjury to deprive a deaf man of his parental rights - Why wasn't she put on trial, and if convicted, given 5 years in prison?? "While we regard seriously this requirement to offer balanced and truthful information, it may be the case in some instances that information that a judge may find to be relevant may not be perceived that way by DCF staff," Kleeblatt said. IOW, we'll continue to omit exculputory facts from the casefile and 'summaries'. In the Willimantic case, Foley took issue with the social worker's characterization that the father was "ignorant of his son's needs" and not compliant with new orders for counseling. Foley said the worker failed to mention that the father, 30, had completed anger management classes and had just finished a year of counseling, during which the therapist described him as "highly motivated" and "intelligent" and that his "improved self-esteem bodes well for his potential." IOW, the caseworker told bold faced lies to get her way with this innocent deaf father. "The failure of social workers to give the respondent credit for his successes, even if they are limited or not complete, amounts to intellectual dishonesty," Foley wrote. IOW - CPS lies. "It does not represent a balanced presentation of the facts," Foley said. "While the court understands that the department is advocating for a termination of the parent's rights ... the department cannot protect or advocate for the child through deception." Ohhhh - they were lying to 'protect' the child. Foley also chastised the worker for misleading the court into believing she made a reasonable effort to find the father when he moved to another address and could not be located for more than six months in 2006. The father's absence was a mark against him in the report. Seems this CPS scum was incapable of telling the truth. Foley said the worker's sworn statement that she checked Connecticut motor vehicle and social service records in her effort to locate the father was irrelevant because he was living in Massachusetts. Also, there was no effort to contact the father's mother in Massachusetts. Though the mother made repeated calls to DCF the past year, Foley said, those calls were never returned. There was also no effort made to reach the father's employer. Michael H. Agranoff, an Ellington attorney specializing in DCF matters, said he has been involved in numerous cases where DCF presented misleading information to a judge. Oh-oh not more 'bad apples'. lol. Agranoff cited a case in which DCF asked a judge to allow the agency to continue to supervise an Enfield couple because their child remained disturbed and maladjusted. The agency's report cited the child's psychologist, psychiatrist and teacher. Agranoff said he checked with the professionals mentioned in the report and was told that the child was fine, that the parents were doing well and DCF involvement should end. Agranoff said the teacher "quoted" by DCF in the report claimed a social worker had never spoken to her. Oh no - not more lies. In another case, Agranoff said DCF charged a rural couple with multiple counts of neglect, claiming their three children had amblyopia (lazy eye) that was untreated and could lead to blindness; that a 6-year-old was anemic, and that all of the children had dental disease. Agranoff said he was able to prove that the social worker's descriptions of the children were based on one overzealous doctor's impressions and that the family's regular pediatrician and optometrist were never interviewed. Agranoff said the family's doctors minimized the health threat and said the children were generally doing well. Yup - can we see how these scumsuckers turn an innocent familys life into a nightmare - just 'cause they can. Don, any comment? Agranoff said such incidents underline the importance of families obtaining qualified attorneys when DCF opens an investigation. The state's juvenile courts, where most DCF cases are heard, rely on overworked, underpaid and often poorly trained public defenders who often don't have the time or resources to double-check DCF's facts. Poor folk can't afford attorneys. And parents don't get PD's until CPS files a petition. Poor parents are at the mercy of CPS. Thomas M. Dutkiewicz, president of Connecticut DCF Watch, a parent advocacy group, said he hears parents complain about DCF being unfair all the time. "They never put exculpatory evidence into their records," Dutkiewicz said. "They're trying to build cases. This goes on all the time. That's why so many parents are so angry." Florida lawmakers, frustrated by social workers who lied in child protection records, made falsifying child welfare reports a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Since the law passed in 2002, there have been three convictions, 19 firings and 24 resignations of workers. It's a start. Lawyers for the parent or child in a child welfare case are free to challenge any questionable facts or omissions in court, Kleeblatt said. At the same time, he said, DCF will always aggressively pursue a case it feels is justified. "It is to be expected that a party in a legal proceeding is going to present its case in such a fashion as to most effectively achieve the desired outcome - and that is precisely the responsibility of the department as it seeks to take all actions that are in the best interest of the child," Kleeblatt said. Except they aren't lying to protect children - they don't give a **** about the children - once they get their bounty, the kids rot in foster hell while the caseworkers falsify visit records and go shopping, or hold another job, or whatever -- they hide behind these children for their own sick ends - mo power/mo money. Don, any comment. Contact Colin Poitras at . CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAM.... CPS Does not protect children... It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even killed at the hands of Child Protective Services. every parent should read this .pdf from connecticut dcf watch... http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN) Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS *Perpetrators of Maltreatment* Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59 Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13 Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241 Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12 Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5 Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per 100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a bunch of social workers. BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION... -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
DCF Vs. Parents: Unfair Tactics?: Judge's Rebuke Of Agency Worker Renews Concerns About Child Welfare Cases
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:49:13 -0400, American Greed
wrote: fx wrote: DCF Vs. Parents: Unfair Tactics? Judge's Rebuke Of Agency Worker Renews Concerns About Child Welfare Cases By COLIN POITRAS | Courant Staff Writer July 16, 2007 http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc...912,full.story Three years after a Superior Court judge chastised the Department of Children and Families for deliberately distorting facts in a child abuse and neglect case, concerns about the agency's fairness toward parents persist. Hmmm - 'deliberately distorting facts' = lying. Most recently, Superior Court Judge Francis J. Foley III rebuked a state social worker for failing to mention a deaf father's strengths and successes in therapy while that social worker tried to terminate the man's parental rights to his 12-year-old son. As Don would say 'lying by omission'. In a decision handed down in Superior Court in Willimantic, Foley called the social worker's reports "disingenuous," "misleading" and "intellectually dishonest." The veteran judge said in his May 8 decision that the child protection agency could not attempt to protect children "through deception." IOW, CPS is a pack of liars. Foley refused to terminate the father's rights, but also did not reunite him with his son, who has severe emotional problems and has spent most of his life hospitalized or in special foster homes. Foley said the son's refusal to learn sign language and the father's inability to deal with the boy's disruptive behavior concerned him. Foley also criticized DCF for placing unreasonable demands on the father, a Massachusetts resident who commuted two hours each way to attend DCF meetings and required the services of a sign language interpreter. Hmmm. A pack of liars making 'unreasonable demands' Agency critics say Foley's rebuke illustrates how parents continue to be treated unfairly by DCF. They say better-trained lawyers and more openness in the state's closed juvenile courts is needed to ensure accountability. Martha Stewart went to prison for lying to investigators about a friggin stock trade. Caseworkers should go to prison when they lie to get their way. A bill that would have opened more of the juvenile court proceedings to the public died in the legislature this year. The agency critics also say the structure of child welfare proceedings gives DCF an unfair advantage. In the Willimantic case, most of the worker's misleading statements were contained in a so-called "social study" that summarized the facts in the case and the parent's good and bad traits. Judges often rely on those summaries in weighing the merits of a case. Yup - the Judge relies on CPS 'summaries' - at least this Judge was concerned enough to pay attention and catch the lies. Most just rubber stamp the CPS 'summaries'. In criminal courts, such studies are conducted by independent court officials. That DCF - effectively the prosecutor in the proceeding - is allowed to summarize the facts opens the door to possible bias, critics charge. "DCF's failure to be fully candid in its court filings continues to be a serious problem," said Paul Chill, associate dean of academic affairs at the University of Connecticut School of Law. Yup, lying, making unreasonable demands, rubber stamp Judges, - I'd say CPS has a 'serious problem' -- innocent parents have a ****in nightmare. "I've always believed these social studies were an invitation for DCF to load up the trial record with lots of bad stuff," said Chill, who ran the law school's legal clinic for child welfare cases for more than a decade. When Judge Carmen Lopez chastised DCF for distorting case facts and ordered agency workers to be fairer to parents in a landmark decision in 2004, Chill called the ruling "the tip of the iceberg." Gary Kleeblatt, a spokesman for DCF, denied social workers have problems with fairness. He said the Willimantic case and the one in Lopez's court reflected the casework of two employees among more than a thousand. Ohhhhh...the 'bad apple' defense. lol. - Sorry, folks from across the nation have been reporting the same SYSTEMIC problems for decades. Yup, and if someone with an ounce of integrity would investigate the other 998, they'd find 996 of them were lying sacks of **** too. After Lopez's order, social workers received mandatory training in the preparation of court affidavits. Kleeblatt said the worker reprimanded in Foley's decision was not punished, although the case was "discussed" at the agency's Willimantic office. He suggested Foley's concerns may have been a misunderstanding. Ahh..how sweet - the caseworker was not 'punished' for committing purjury to deprive a deaf man of his parental rights - Why wasn't she put on trial, and if convicted, given 5 years in prison?? "While we regard seriously this requirement to offer balanced and truthful information, it may be the case in some instances that information that a judge may find to be relevant may not be perceived that way by DCF staff," Kleeblatt said. IOW, we'll continue to omit exculputory facts from the casefile and 'summaries'. In the Willimantic case, Foley took issue with the social worker's characterization that the father was "ignorant of his son's needs" and not compliant with new orders for counseling. Foley said the worker failed to mention that the father, 30, had completed anger management classes and had just finished a year of counseling, during which the therapist described him as "highly motivated" and "intelligent" and that his "improved self-esteem bodes well for his potential." IOW, the caseworker told bold faced lies to get her way with this innocent deaf father. "The failure of social workers to give the respondent credit for his successes, even if they are limited or not complete, amounts to intellectual dishonesty," Foley wrote. IOW - CPS lies. "It does not represent a balanced presentation of the facts," Foley said. "While the court understands that the department is advocating for a termination of the parent's rights ... the department cannot protect or advocate for the child through deception." Ohhhh - they were lying to 'protect' the child. Foley also chastised the worker for misleading the court into believing she made a reasonable effort to find the father when he moved to another address and could not be located for more than six months in 2006. The father's absence was a mark against him in the report. Seems this CPS scum was incapable of telling the truth. Foley said the worker's sworn statement that she checked Connecticut motor vehicle and social service records in her effort to locate the father was irrelevant because he was living in Massachusetts. Also, there was no effort to contact the father's mother in Massachusetts. Though the mother made repeated calls to DCF the past year, Foley said, those calls were never returned. There was also no effort made to reach the father's employer. Michael H. Agranoff, an Ellington attorney specializing in DCF matters, said he has been involved in numerous cases where DCF presented misleading information to a judge. Oh-oh not more 'bad apples'. lol. Agranoff cited a case in which DCF asked a judge to allow the agency to continue to supervise an Enfield couple because their child remained disturbed and maladjusted. The agency's report cited the child's psychologist, psychiatrist and teacher. Agranoff said he checked with the professionals mentioned in the report and was told that the child was fine, that the parents were doing well and DCF involvement should end. Agranoff said the teacher "quoted" by DCF in the report claimed a social worker had never spoken to her. Oh no - not more lies. In another case, Agranoff said DCF charged a rural couple with multiple counts of neglect, claiming their three children had amblyopia (lazy eye) that was untreated and could lead to blindness; that a 6-year-old was anemic, and that all of the children had dental disease. Agranoff said he was able to prove that the social worker's descriptions of the children were based on one overzealous doctor's impressions and that the family's regular pediatrician and optometrist were never interviewed. Agranoff said the family's doctors minimized the health threat and said the children were generally doing well. Yup - can we see how these scumsuckers turn an innocent familys life into a nightmare - just 'cause they can. Don, any comment? I doubt he reads this newsgroup all the time. Why not ask me? I certainly have an opinion, and more facts for you, or are you afraid, Dennis? Agranoff said such incidents underline the importance of families obtaining qualified attorneys when DCF opens an investigation. The state's juvenile courts, where most DCF cases are heard, rely on overworked, underpaid and often poorly trained public defenders who often don't have the time or resources to double-check DCF's facts. Poor folk can't afford attorneys. And parents don't get PD's until CPS files a petition. Poor parents are at the mercy of CPS. Thomas M. Dutkiewicz, president of Connecticut DCF Watch, a parent advocacy group, said he hears parents complain about DCF being unfair all the time. "They never put exculpatory evidence into their records," Dutkiewicz said. "They're trying to build cases. This goes on all the time. That's why so many parents are so angry." Florida lawmakers, frustrated by social workers who lied in child protection records, made falsifying child welfare reports a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Since the law passed in 2002, there have been three convictions, 19 firings and 24 resignations of workers. It's a start. Lawyers for the parent or child in a child welfare case are free to challenge any questionable facts or omissions in court, Kleeblatt said. At the same time, he said, DCF will always aggressively pursue a case it feels is justified. "It is to be expected that a party in a legal proceeding is going to present its case in such a fashion as to most effectively achieve the desired outcome - and that is precisely the responsibility of the department as it seeks to take all actions that are in the best interest of the child," Kleeblatt said. Except they aren't lying to protect children - they don't give a **** about the children - once they get their bounty, the kids rot in foster hell while the caseworkers falsify visit records and go shopping, or hold another job, or whatever -- they hide behind these children for their own sick ends - mo power/mo money. Don, any comment. If you don't get a response from Don, feel free to ask me. Or are you too cowardly, Dennis? Contact Colin Poitras at . CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAM.... CPS Does not protect children... It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even killed at the hands of Child Protective Services. every parent should read this .pdf from connecticut dcf watch... http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN) Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS *Perpetrators of Maltreatment* Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59 Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13 Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241 Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12 Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5 Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per 100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a bunch of social workers. BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
DCF Vs. Parents: Unfair Tactics?: Judge's Rebuke Of Agency Worker Renews Concerns About Child Welfare Cases
On Jul 20, 9:49 am, American Greed wrote:
Lawyers for the parent or child in a child welfare case are free to challenge any questionable facts or omissions in court, Kleeblatt said. At the same time, he said, DCF will always aggressively pursue a case it feels is justified. Agressively which includes making fools of themselves. At my last Fair Hearing the Judge stopped the individual acting as CPS' lawyer in mid sentence because the BS was so thick. "You don't think I'm going to believe that, do you?" "It is to be expected that a party in a legal proceeding is going to present its case in such a fashion as to most effectively achieve the desired outcome - and that is precisely the responsibility of the department as it seeks to take all actions that are in the best interest of the child," Kleeblatt said. In my experience whether it was a lawyer, police officer, detective, psychologist or former Assistant DA... when they hear that I help people fight CPS they ALL started telling me how NUTS the people at CPS are, based on what they've seen the CPS people do. In 1993 when I was accused of molesting my daughter she was interviewed by the detectives from the sex crime unit of tye DA's office along with the CPS CW. The CW documented that my daughter said there was sexual abuse. While the detectives report said my daughter said nothing bad happened... and they closed the criminal case. Both the CW and the detectives interviewed my daughter at the same time. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Dan demonstrates he's a system suck, again. ... DCF Vs. Parents: Unfair Tactics?: Judge's Rebuke Of Agency Worker Renews Concerns About Child Welfare Cases
....0;]
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:21:03 -0700, Dan Sullivan wrote: On Jul 20, 9:49 am, American Greed wrote: Lawyers for the parent or child in a child welfare case are free to challenge any questionable facts or omissions in court, Kleeblatt said. At the same time, he said, DCF will always aggressively pursue a case it feels is justified. Agressively which includes making fools of themselves. At my last Fair Hearing the Judge stopped the individual acting as CPS' lawyer in mid sentence because the BS was so thick. "You don't think I'm going to believe that, do you?" "It is to be expected that a party in a legal proceeding is going to present its case in such a fashion as to most effectively achieve the desired outcome - and that is precisely the responsibility of the department as it seeks to take all actions that are in the best interest of the child," Kleeblatt said. In my experience whether it was a lawyer, police officer, detective, psychologist or former Assistant DA... when they hear that I help people fight CPS they ALL started telling me how NUTS the people at CPS are, based on what they've seen the CPS people do. In 1993 when I was accused of molesting my daughter she was interviewed by the detectives from the sex crime unit of tye DA's office along with the CPS CW. The CW documented that my daughter said there was sexual abuse. While the detectives report said my daughter said nothing bad happened... and they closed the criminal case. Both the CW and the detectives interviewed my daughter at the same time. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
DCF Vs. Parents: Unfair Tactics?: Judge's Rebuke Of Agency Worker Renews Concerns About Child Welfare Cases
Some day, Dan, ask me for the archive of all your similar "system
suck" responses about CPS. I've collected them for the fun of it. And every time Greg or Dennis has claimed you support CPS, I just go find another of your commentary like this below, that proves what a "system suck" you actually are R R R R R R RR R R R R . It's quite an impressive body of work, that archive. Kane On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:21:03 -0700, Dan Sullivan wrote: On Jul 20, 9:49 am, American Greed wrote: Lawyers for the parent or child in a child welfare case are free to challenge any questionable facts or omissions in court, Kleeblatt said. At the same time, he said, DCF will always aggressively pursue a case it feels is justified. Agressively which includes making fools of themselves. At my last Fair Hearing the Judge stopped the individual acting as CPS' lawyer in mid sentence because the BS was so thick. "You don't think I'm going to believe that, do you?" "It is to be expected that a party in a legal proceeding is going to present its case in such a fashion as to most effectively achieve the desired outcome - and that is precisely the responsibility of the department as it seeks to take all actions that are in the best interest of the child," Kleeblatt said. In my experience whether it was a lawyer, police officer, detective, psychologist or former Assistant DA... when they hear that I help people fight CPS they ALL started telling me how NUTS the people at CPS are, based on what they've seen the CPS people do. In 1993 when I was accused of molesting my daughter she was interviewed by the detectives from the sex crime unit of tye DA's office along with the CPS CW. The CW documented that my daughter said there was sexual abuse. While the detectives report said my daughter said nothing bad happened... and they closed the criminal case. Both the CW and the detectives interviewed my daughter at the same time. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
DCF Vs. Parents: Unfair Tactics?: Judge's Rebuke Of Agency WorkerRenews Concerns About Child Welfare Cases
Dan Sullivan wrote:
On Jul 20, 9:49 am, American Greed wrote: Lawyers for the parent or child in a child welfare case are free to challenge any questionable facts or omissions in court, Kleeblatt said. At the same time, he said, DCF will always aggressively pursue a case it feels is justified. Agressively which includes making fools of themselves. At my last Fair Hearing the Judge stopped the individual acting as CPS' lawyer in mid sentence because the BS was so thick. "You don't think I'm going to believe that, do you?" They'reputty in your hands - right Danno? "It is to be expected that a party in a legal proceeding is going to present its case in such a fashion as to most effectively achieve the desired outcome - and that is precisely the responsibility of the department as it seeks to take all actions that are in the best interest of the child," Kleeblatt said. In my experience whether it was a lawyer, police officer, detective, psychologist or former Assistant DA... when they hear that I help people fight CPS they ALL started telling me how NUTS the people at CPS are, based on what they've seen the CPS people do. hehehe. We know. Everything turns into bizzarro world when Danno shows on the scenes. Not to mention his neverending love of himself. Sucking himself off here on ASCPS is his favorite past time. I recommend a twit filter. In 1993 when I was accused of molesting my daughter she was interviewed by the detectives from the sex crime unit of tye DA's office along with the CPS CW. The CW documented that my daughter said there was sexual abuse. While the detectives report said my daughter said nothing bad happened... and they closed the criminal case. Both the CW and the detectives interviewed my daughter at the same time. Has your daughter recovered? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
DCF Vs. Parents: Unfair Tactics?: Judge's Rebuke Of Agency WorkerRenews Concerns About Child Welfare Cases
0:-] wrote:
Some day, Dan, ask me for the archive of all your similar "system suck" responses about CPS. I've collected them for the fun of it. And every time Greg or Dennis has claimed you support CPS, I just go find another of your commentary like this below, that proves what a "system suck" you actually are R R R R R R RR R R R R . It's quite an impressive body of work, that archive. Kane Don/Kane/d'geezer - can you explain to folks why our hero Danno was collecting information on ASCPS posters ? What is Dan's 'job' to engage and study posts on ASCPS - with the help of a government agent? Why does our hero Danno threaten to have ASCPS posters put in prison. Don't you disgusting scu8m have any conscious? ---------------------------- BTW, while your at it, figure out who d'geezer is and why he was "doing my job" as he engaged and studied the posts on this NG, (hint) take note of the posts he quoted and the commonality of those posts. He may be gone?, but he should NOT be forgotten, unless someone doesn't care about a government sponsored LENGTHY vacation because d'geezer can reappear at the drop of a bluster and threat. Or maybe he's just too busy filling out the paperwork for the next step. Didn't someone discover d'geezer was posting from a government computer? Please note the following quotes, 1) "Isn't it odd that you didn't spend any time in police custody.......hmmmmmmmmm?" 2) "Your posts were full of other justification and rationale for murder and your last comment above would be a "Tom Metzger" for sure in a court of law." 3) "The state has very large men with guns, handcuffs, clubs, pepperspray, and iron bars, to take care of those that bluster and threaten when they are wrong." Someone should keep his underwear clean and a new toothbrush handy. Maybe pick up some stationery and stamps. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
DCF Vs. Parents: Unfair Tactics?: Judge's Rebuke Of Agency Worker Renews Concerns About Child Welfare Cases
On Jul 20, 2:10 pm, American Greed wrote:
Dan Sullivan wrote: On Jul 20, 9:49 am, American Greed wrote: Lawyers for the parent or child in a child welfare case are free to challenge any questionable facts or omissions in court, Kleeblatt said. At the same time, he said, DCF will always aggressively pursue a case it feels is justified. Agressively which includes making fools of themselves. At my last Fair Hearing the Judge stopped the individual acting as CPS' lawyer in mid sentence because the BS was so thick. "You don't think I'm going to believe that, do you?" The Judge said that, Dennis. I didn't. "It is to be expected that a party in a legal proceeding is going to present its case in such a fashion as to most effectively achieve the desired outcome - and that is precisely the responsibility of the department as it seeks to take all actions that are in the best interest of the child," Kleeblatt said. In my experience whether it was a lawyer, police officer, detective, psychologist or former Assistant DA... when they hear that I help people fight CPS they ALL started telling me how NUTS the people at CPS are, based on what they've seen the CPS people do. hehehe. We know. Everything turns into bizzarro world when Danno shows on the scenes. These have been people I've met unconnected to a CPS case I was working on. People who've told me what they do or did for a living... and I mention CPS. Not to mention his neverending love of himself. Sucking himself off here on ASCPS is his favorite past time. I recommend a twit filter. Then no one would ever read what you had to say. In 1993 when I was accused of molesting my daughter she was interviewed by the detectives from the sex crime unit of tye DA's office along with the CPS CW. The CW documented that my daughter said there was sexual abuse. While the detectives report said my daughter said nothing bad happened... and they closed the criminal case. Both the CW and the detectives interviewed my daughter at the same time. Has your daughter recovered? This daughter is a wonderful, beautiful young woman. And she'll have to recover from her mother... not me! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
DCF Vs. Parents: Unfair Tactics?: Judge's Rebuke Of Agency WorkerRenews Concerns About Child Welfare Cases
Dan Sullivan wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:10 pm, American Greed wrote: Dan Sullivan wrote: On Jul 20, 9:49 am, American Greed wrote: Lawyers for the parent or child in a child welfare case are free to challenge any questionable facts or omissions in court, Kleeblatt said. At the same time, he said, DCF will always aggressively pursue a case it feels is justified. Agressively which includes making fools of themselves. At my last Fair Hearing the Judge stopped the individual acting as CPS' lawyer in mid sentence because the BS was so thick. "You don't think I'm going to believe that, do you?" The Judge said that, Dennis. I didn't. "It is to be expected that a party in a legal proceeding is going to present its case in such a fashion as to most effectively achieve the desired outcome - and that is precisely the responsibility of the department as it seeks to take all actions that are in the best interest of the child," Kleeblatt said. In my experience whether it was a lawyer, police officer, detective, psychologist or former Assistant DA... when they hear that I help people fight CPS they ALL started telling me how NUTS the people at CPS are, based on what they've seen the CPS people do. hehehe. We know. Everything turns into bizzarro world when Danno shows on the scenes. These have been people I've met unconnected to a CPS case I was working on. People who've told me what they do or did for a living... and I mention CPS. Not to mention his neverending love of himself. Sucking himself off here on ASCPS is his favorite past time. I recommend a twit filter. Then no one would ever read what you had to say. In 1993 when I was accused of molesting my daughter she was interviewed by the detectives from the sex crime unit of tye DA's office along with the CPS CW. The CW documented that my daughter said there was sexual abuse. While the detectives report said my daughter said nothing bad happened... and they closed the criminal case. Both the CW and the detectives interviewed my daughter at the same time. Has your daughter recovered? This daughter is a wonderful, beautiful young woman. And she'll have to recover from her mother... not me! Her mother molested her too? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
a arizona state Child Protective Services supervisor who had a romanticrelationship with a Tucson man who was abusing his three children, is nolonger employed by the child welfare agency. | fx | Spanking | 0 | July 4th 07 01:57 AM |
a arizona state Child Protective Services supervisor who had a romanticrelationship with a Tucson man who was abusing his three children, is nolonger employed by the child welfare agency. | fx | Foster Parents | 0 | July 4th 07 01:57 AM |
Child-welfare agency disputes DCF criticisms | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | February 11th 05 04:05 PM |
Agency Owes Thousands For Child Welfare | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | August 4th 04 02:36 PM |
Child welfare agency can't get FBI data | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 7 | June 28th 04 05:25 PM |