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...

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

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...

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.

....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.

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.

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

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

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!

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