A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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

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

Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 22nd 03, 04:09 PM
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional

Kane writes:

http://wislawjournal.com/archive/200...buse-0423.html
Doe v Heck

r r r r r, you really think it will stick? It's as full of holes as a
termite riddled dead Tree, Sappy.


Hi, Kane!

What are some of the holes you see this Constitutional case "riddled" with,
Kane?

You do understand the Constitutional question involved in this case, do you
not? And you do understand how appeals courts examine statutes to determine
issues at law and the Constitutional questions involved?

The issue in the present case is that Section 48.981(3)(c)(1) of the state's
child welfare code is unconstitutional to the extent it authorizes
government officials to conduct an investigation of child abuse on private
property without a warrant, probable cause, consent, or exigent
circumstances.

The appeals court ruling found in the set of facts that there was no
consent, no warrant, no exigent cirumstances and no probable cause in the
caseworker's intervention. The issue at law was whether the statute relied
upon by the caseworker and police was Consitutitional. the judge ruled it
was not for the reasons cited above.

Where are the holes?

And even if it did, can you say, "here come the cops?"


Can you say, "the decision is binding on cops as well as caseworkers," as
the judge did?

Actually, the reason 4th Amendment issues regarding child welfare are so
prevelent right now is that there has been an assumption in some
jurisdictions that CPS caseworkers have more authority than police to
override or ignore Constitutional protections against illegal search and
seizure. Police have always been so restricted, but caseworkers sometimes
wrongfully assume they are not.

In this case, the appeals court in the Seventh Circuit in Wisconcin, set
them straight by ruling the statute relied upon by the caseworker as
unconstitutional.

The mother who complained had ample grounds to do so on the complaint
of her daughter for the discipline without permission.


Who says? If the mother who complained did not do so anonymously and the
complaint was crediable, it MAY have been grounds for the judge finding
probable cause. It MAY have been. Close call for the judge to make.
Probable cause, if found, would have led to a warrant issued by the judge.

But the agency didn't seek a warrant (common practice), which is the point
of it all.

That will get a warrant everytime if one is required.


Nope. It would be a close call for the judge.

Brilliant. r r r r r


Well, it is another step in the right direction. The decision piles upon
many recently across the states requiring caseworkers to honor the
Constitution of the United States. Silly, no?



  #2  
Old July 23rd 03, 06:33 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:09:51 GMT, "Doug"
wrote:

Kane writes:

http://wislawjournal.com/archive/200...buse-0423.html
Doe v Heck

r r r r r, you really think it will stick? It's as full of holes as

a
termite riddled dead Tree, Sappy.


Hi, Kane!

What are some of the holes you see this Constitutional case "riddled"

with,
Kane?


The wholes are in the decision and the outcomes it will foster. Read
on.

You do understand the Constitutional question involved in this case,

do you
not?


Extremely well, and I don't make the assumptions you do. Your
assumption is that this is going to result in better casework and
fewer families involved.

My assumption is that it's going to result in a shift over to more of
what already is a system fact....warrants are issued now. Incoming
calls are screened NOW. And one of the questions is, "is this abuse
underway at the moment."

Want to guess how many callers say yes, expecially the malicious false
allegation types? And have you any idea how hard it is to prove they
were making a false accusation for malicious reasons?

And you do understand how appeals courts examine statutes to

determine
issues at law and the Constitutional questions involved?


Oh, yes, very well indeedy. Better than you do, I'll guarantee it.

The issue in the present case is that Section 48.981(3)(c)(1) of the

state's
child welfare code is unconstitutional to the extent it authorizes
government officials to conduct an investigation of child abuse on

private
property without a warrant, probable cause, consent, or exigent
circumstances.


Ah, there it is. The usual stupidity by you. I love when you come
racing forward to "refute" my claims. Why do you think I make the
outlandish ones I do, and I even warn you about them and my reasons
for them, but here you come, tip pot hat and all. r r r r

"Consent" is pretty damn easy to get even when ones constitutional
rights are read to one. Any hangup in time or access is going to be
nicely taken care of, as it already is now, by the other two items you
listed though: exigent circumstance, and probable cause.

Cops know how to use these very well indeed, to gain access. And many
caseworkers do as well. My guess is that even now, or in very short
order cw's will be going to trainings on how to ensure they have all
three, or any of the above. consent, probable cause, exigent
circumstances. Hell, they already know a great deal about these
things. They run into judges all the time that require it or they kick
the worker out of the placement hearing.

The appeals court ruling found in the set of facts that there was no
consent, no warrant, no exigent cirumstances and no probable cause in

the
caseworker's intervention.


Yep...this case. And it will be true for any other case,and it's been
true for ever, as constitutional issues are ruled on by the SCOTUS.

Are you so blind that you can't see that my claim of a coming police
state...that is more power to the executive and enforcement...is
happening? What profit do you derive from this, Doug. You must given
how hard you campaign for it.

The issue at law was whether the statute relied
upon by the caseworker and police was Consitutitional. the judge

ruled it
was not for the reasons cited above.


And all that it says is that what is was. There's nothing new here but
a response from CPS and the cops that will simply apply the law much
more stringently at the front end.

And there is no shortage of abusive parents, and the feds aren't going
to get to decide what is and isn't abusive...that is a state's right
matter, and they will NOT let go of it.

Where are the holes?


Right were I've pointed out. If you knew your history, if you
understood what actually works to keep CPS tamed and available for
reform you wouldn't be pushing this as the be all end all of system
reform. It will just harden the system up. The mechanism are in place
and in use and have been for years...about 40 of them.


And even if it did, can you say, "here come the cops?"


Can you say, "the decision is binding on cops as well as

caseworkers," as
the judge did?


Yep! Can you say "the cops and workers will simply rely on the very
terminology in the decision to make sure parents go to jail more"?

Actually, the reason 4th Amendment issues regarding child welfare are

so
prevelent right now is that there has been an assumption in some
jurisdictions that CPS caseworkers have more authority than police to
override or ignore Constitutional protections against illegal search

and
seizure.


Crock of ****. Workers are trained to get permission, everywhere. Just
as cops are, if their is no probable cause a crime is in progress, and
if there IS probable cause, which worker and cop will strain hard to
find, they can go through that door like it's warm butter, and you
know it.

Police have always been so restricted, but caseworkers sometimes
wrongfully assume they are not.


What a totally dumb ass you are. Some cops make the same mistake. Hell
anyone that reads the paper knows that. And Some cs's do that. It's an
individual thing...stupidity is everywhere, Doug..you are a perfect
model.

The rest of the cops and the rest of the cw's, the vast majority, know
all about the three legs of access to the alledged perps: exigence,
probable cause, consent. And they are well trained, dispite your lies
to the contrary.

Usually the first cw job assigned to a new employee is Protective
Services and the first training they get is in approaching an alledged
abuser/neglecter.

In this case, the appeals court in the Seventh Circuit in Wisconcin,

set
them straight by ruling the statute relied upon by the caseworker as
unconstitutional.


It doesn't ****ing matter you idiot.

The mother who complained had ample grounds to do so on the

complaint
of her daughter for the discipline without permission.


Who says? If the mother who complained did not do so anonymously and

the
complaint was crediable, it MAY have been grounds for the judge

finding
probable cause. It MAY have been. Close call for the judge to make.
Probable cause, if found, would have led to a warrant issued by the

judge.

Have you any idea about what takes place in the real world? On just
how flimsy a claim judges can and do issue warrants, with no more than
a "tut tut" from the president of the court they serve in?

You have a lot to learn, and I presume you'll sit their on your dead
but smart ass, watching families take it in the neck as you get
educated.

But the agency didn't seek a warrant (common practice), which is the

point
of it all.


That is because they are trained to proceed in the order of, consent,
probable cause, exigent circumstances. They reverse it only if they
think they are going to have, or do have, problems getting access to
investigate. The easy cheaper road first. Saving the tax payers money.

That will get a warrant everytime if one is required.


Nope. It would be a close call for the judge.


And if he or she is in error? Tell us, what do you think the
"punishment" will be? r r r r

How may bad warrants do you think get issued and still result in a
charge being brought and carried through to conviction? All the cop
has to do is find something else in the home to go back and get
another warrant for, and the error in the first warrant is nullified,
and the second warrant carries the weight the worker and the cop want.

My family is full of cops, state (5, two generations), local(1), and
federal(2), and I watch and ask questions. You should try it.


Brilliant. r r r r r


Well, it is another step in the right direction. The decision piles

upon
many recently across the states requiring caseworkers to honor the
Constitution of the United States. Silly, no?


Nope. I've always supported the constitution, even when it hurts. I
don't think you do. I think you are just grandstanding for whatever
your cause is.

That decision you so proudly tout here has the neck of families in it,
and a much tighter noose. It promotes MORE stringent efforts. Many a
caseworker, and the stories are told here by the few honest habitue's,
just quietly fade away when confronted with a weak allegation and a
assertive parent at the door.

What do you really think will happen now?

Hell, at worst the workers will just wait for more serious events, and
then drop like a ton of bricks on the family. All they have to do is
keep asking, as the do for every incoming abuse complaint (I know,
I've made a couple), "will you be available for testemony if this
results in charges and a trial?"

And children in real danger will die as this takes time to become the
NEXT wave of standard child welfare practices.

Facists like you never quite get it: the very best government for a
free and independent people is an ineffectual government. Keeping it
crippled is built right into our governing system.

You self serving little pricks think you can make the trains run on
time and that that is a good thing no matter how many bodies it takes
to grease the wheels.

Kane
  #3  
Old July 23rd 03, 09:06 PM
madeupagin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional


"Kane" wrote in message
om...
Want to guess how many callers say yes, expecially the malicious false
allegation types? And have you any idea how hard it is to prove they
were making a false accusation for malicious reasons?

And you do understand how appeals courts examine statutes to

determine
issues at law and the Constitutional questions involved?


Even when a person admits, in court, on a transcript, they called in a
malicious report -- NOT A BLOODY THING IS DONE ABOUT IT. Yes, this happened
to us.

Why? Because the bloody states have the feeling that CPS is the victim of a
false report, NOT the families. HOGWASH and other sayings.

There is NO way for a family to have a person who makes a malicious report
criminally charged. Only CPS can do that. They never do.

Tere


  #4  
Old July 24th 03, 01:10 PM
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional

Concerning Doe v Heck, I asked:

What are some of the holes you see this Constitutional case "riddled"

with,
Kane?


To which, Kane replied:

The wholes are in the decision and the outcomes it will foster. Read
on.

... and I don't make the assumptions you do. Your
assumption is that this is going to result in better casework and
fewer families involved.


My assumption is that it's going to result in a shift over to more of
what already is a system fact....warrants are issued now. Incoming
calls are screened NOW. And one of the questions is, "is this abuse
underway at the moment."

Want to guess how many callers say yes, expecially the malicious false
allegation types? And have you any idea how hard it is to prove they
were making a false accusation for malicious reasons?


Hi, Kane!

Thanks for answering my question.

My assumption is not that Doe v Heck will result in better casework, just
less of it.

You mention that in current practice hotline calls are rightfully screened.
And it may be true that on rare occassions CPS now proceeds lawfully and
obtains a warrant.

Hotline workers should ask reporters if the abuse is occurring at the time,
since the answer to that question suggests response time, among other
things. Since the vast majority of calls involve neglect or third-party
incidents that have allegedly occurred in the past, the current practice
does not result in CPS obtaining warrants.

I wrote:

The issue in the present case is that Section 48.981(3)(c)(1) of the

state's
child welfare code is unconstitutional to the extent it authorizes
government officials to conduct an investigation of child abuse on

private
property without a warrant, probable cause, consent, or exigent
circumstances.


To which, you respond:

Ah, there it is. The usual stupidity by you. I love when you come
racing forward to "refute" my claims. Why do you think I make the
outlandish ones I do, and I even warn you about them and my reasons
for them, but here you come, tip pot hat and all. r r r r


Why, again, do you make the outlandish claims that you do? You are saying
that you make them just to retrieve a reply informing you that they are
wrong?

"Consent" is pretty damn easy to get even when ones constitutional
rights are read to one. Any hangup in time or access is going to be
nicely taken care of, as it already is now, by the other two items you
listed though: exigent circumstance, and probable cause.


Yes, almost all parents grant "consent" to CPS to enter their home and
conduct fishing expeditions. Sometimes, this consent is granted under
duress -- the caseworker has threatened the parent with removing her
children if she does not grant access (a violation of the Fourth Amendment
to the Constitution, by the way.) In most cases, consent is granted
immediately because the parent does not know they have a choice or because
the parent misperceives the role of CPS.

I will give you a typical example. CPS receives a report from an anonymous
caller that mom was outside in the front yard yesterday beating her 4 year
old daughter over the head with a 2 x 4. CPS shows up at the door a few
hours later with a cop.

Mom perceives that she is a good mother and has nothing to worry about. She
knows damn well that she did not hit her child. She is likely to be highly
upset that someone would have the audicity to call in such an allegation.
She will ask who made the report. The caseworker will reply that, by law,
she can't tell her that. Mom will guess at the name. She will usually be
right, although the caseworker cannot confirm the quess. Then she will say,
"come on in." Afterall, what does mom have to worry about?

The cop leaves and the caseworker talks to the daugther, who is really 8
years old and more than a little ****ed herself. Caseworker notices no
marks or bruises. The child says she doesn't like going outside on the
front lawn because the "weirdo" next door yells at her. She plays in the
backyard. And she plays a lot inside. And, no, mom does not hit her with
anything, let alone boards like the caseworker describes.

The caseworker then sits down with mom and does an "assessment." She asks
lots of questions about extended family, income, mom's family history,
partridges, pear trees and the birds that perch in them. The fridge is
examined and cupboards gone through to check on food supplies. The little
girl's room is examined. Bathrooms are checked.

The worker is all smiles. Mom has calmed down a bit by the time the
caseworker prances off three hours later.

The caseworker goes back to the office to call relatives and the "weirdo"
next door.

Then she substantiates the single mom for neglect.

The house was cluttered with toys shewn about by the child who prefers to
play inside. The eight year old is a terrible housekeeper -- she doesn't
follow her mom's daily request to clean her room. There wasn't enough food
in the fridge (mom gets paid tomorrow, when she does the shopping). Worse,
mom told the smiling caseworker during the assessment that her parents
argued a lot when she was growing up. Her dad drank a lot.

The completed "assessment" has a lot of "indicators" of "risk." (You know
some of these indicators, Kane. I do as well. I will happily list some of
them). Mom is likely to be of some danger to her eight year old sometime,
maybe, in the future. The caseworker substantiates.

Thirty days later, the caseworker mails a notice to mom stating that she has
been substantiated for neglect and that the agency has determined she is "in
need of services."

The oddity in this tragic, although common, situation is that mom granted
consent to the caseworker to varify whether she had hit her child with a two
by four, not to do a life history on her family or to look for "risk
indicators" that exist in every home across the country.

Mom now deeply regrets that she granted her "consent." But it is too late.
Mom now knows the real role of the caseworker, but it is too late.

Cops know how to use these very well indeed, to gain access. And many
caseworkers do as well. My guess is that even now, or in very short
order cw's will be going to trainings on how to ensure they have all
three, or any of the above. consent, probable cause, exigent
circumstances. Hell, they already know a great deal about these
things. They run into judges all the time that require it or they kick
the worker out of the placement hearing.


They do not need all three. Consent eliminates the need for a showing of
exigent circumstances or probable cause. A showing of probable cause
eliminates the need for consent or exigent circumstances.

I would hope that someday agencies would get around to teaching their
employees what probable cause and exigent circumstances are. More
importantly, they need to be trained that they cannot threaten parents gain
"consent." If you position is that the Doe v Heck will lead to more
training of CPS workers, this would be a good outcome. Why would training
CPS workers on exigent circumstances, probable cause and consent be a bad
thing for families?

The appeals court ruling found in the set of facts that there was no
consent, no warrant, no exigent cirumstances and no probable cause in

the
caseworker's intervention.


Yep...this case. And it will be true for any other case,and it's been
true for ever, as constitutional issues are ruled on by the SCOTUS.

Are you so blind that you can't see that my claim of a coming police
state...that is more power to the executive and enforcement...is
happening? What profit do you derive from this, Doug. You must given
how hard you campaign for it.


The Doe v Heck decision, and similar ones that preceded it, are a check
against the police state mentality that currently exists in child welfare
procedure.


  #5  
Old July 24th 03, 07:57 PM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:10:03 GMT, "Doug"
wrote:

Concerning Doe v Heck, I asked:

What are some of the holes you see this Constitutional case

"riddled"
with,
Kane?


To which, Kane replied:

The wholes are in the decision and the outcomes it will foster.

Read
on.

... and I don't make the assumptions you do. Your
assumption is that this is going to result in better casework and
fewer families involved.


My assumption is that it's going to result in a shift over to more

of
what already is a system fact....warrants are issued now. Incoming
calls are screened NOW. And one of the questions is, "is this abuse
underway at the moment."

Want to guess how many callers say yes, expecially the malicious

false
allegation types? And have you any idea how hard it is to prove

they
were making a false accusation for malicious reasons?


Hi, Kane!

Thanks for answering my question.

My assumption is not that Doe v Heck will result in better casework,

just
less of it.


Dreamer.

The "better casework" won't mean less. It will mean more, with yet
another perfect reason to ask for more tax payer dollars..

How hard do you think it is to get "better" as in collect more
information that will provide a much tighter reason to send an
investigator out?

You mention that in current practice hotline calls are rightfully

screened.
And it may be true that on rare occassions CPS now proceeds lawfully

and
obtains a warrant.


Ah, the propagandist kant. No, Doug. CPS doesn't have just rare
occasions when they proceed lawfully. They proceed perfectly within
the limits of the law the vast majority of the time. Those few times
they don't is what you count on for your propaganda rant.

And it only bothers, because of the much greater expense in time and
court costs...yes, CPS has to pay for the services of the court if it
requires an attorney, and most motions or requests of the court are
vetted by a lawyers before presentations, or specially trained CPS
staff...more expense, of course, vet them, to get a warrant when it
must.

Hotline workers should ask reporters if the abuse is occurring at the

time,

You aren't really a worker at all are you. Never have been. That is
usually question number one. And it's question number one on a 911
police emergency call, which a very high proportion of child abuse
calls are.

since the answer to that question suggests response time, among other
things.


Well, I guess.

Since the vast majority of calls involve neglect or third-party
incidents that have allegedly occurred in the past,


Define vast please.

the current practice
does not result in CPS obtaining warrants.


Why would it need to at the point of the call being made? It still
won't result in more of it except for a few weeks while CPS sorts out
the results of the case you sited in that state. They'll get a routine
in place with the courts soon enough, and workers will be trained in
yet more subtle ways of obtaining consent to enter and question.

I wrote:

The issue in the present case is that Section 48.981(3)(c)(1) of

the
state's
child welfare code is unconstitutional to the extent it authorizes
government officials to conduct an investigation of child abuse on

private
property without a warrant, probable cause, consent, or exigent
circumstances.


To which, you respond:

Ah, there it is. The usual stupidity by you. I love when you come
racing forward to "refute" my claims. Why do you think I make the
outlandish ones I do, and I even warn you about them and my reasons
for them, but here you come, tip pot hat and all. r r r r


Why, again, do you make the outlandish claims that you do? You are

saying
that you make them just to retrieve a reply informing you that they

are
wrong?


Because you are a lieing underhanded asshole that deserves little
better.

"Consent" is pretty damn easy to get even when ones constitutional
rights are read to one. Any hangup in time or access is going to be
nicely taken care of, as it already is now, by the other two items

you
listed though: exigent circumstance, and probable cause.


Yes, almost all parents grant "consent" to CPS to enter their home

and
conduct fishing expeditions.


Yep. But I don't think they are after fish. They are required by law
to investigate. If a call is made that has the content requiring such
an investigation, they must. It isn't "fishing"...it's the law.

Sometimes, this consent is granted under
duress --


I cannot imagine a child abuse/neglect investigation NOT creating a
sense of anxiety, hence duress, in the recipient. No one should ever
suggest that such an investigation must, to be allowable, be a happy
affair for all parties. But I've seen lots of complaints in these ngs
that started off with claims the worker frightened the family. Well, I
guess.

the caseworker has threatened the parent with removing her
children if she does not grant access (a violation of the Fourth

Amendment
to the Constitution, by the way.)


Liar. That would be an extremely rare occurance. No worker is trained
to "threaten." They are trained to tell the parent of probable or
possible outcomes for the express intent of gaining consent to enter.

In most cases, consent is granted
immediately because the parent does not know they have a choice or

because
the parent misperceives the role of CPS.


Bull****. Consent is most often granted because the parent believes
themselves to be innocent, or if they are guilty, that they can
bull**** their way out of it having trained the kids very carefully in
what to say in just such a situation, or they are drugged out of their
gourds and can't sort out what is going on, and in the "vast" r r r
majority of the cases the very last circumstance is the most common.

You keep pretending that the exception is the rule. The fact is that
most families that CPS speaks to that fit in your category are left
completely alone....the complaint or allegation doesn't rise to the
level of investigation, or, as has been related recently in this ng,
the worker is invited in, they question, look, and leave with no
finding whatsoever except that the call was unfounded by the evidence
they have gathered in the investigation.

I will give you a typical example.


No you won't. You'll cut and paste a few wild fantasies from your head
and from instances in related in this ng or wherever you hang out and
sock back a few, and pretend it's all the truth, when it isn't.

CPS receives a report from an anonymous
caller that mom was outside in the front yard yesterday beating her 4

year
old daughter over the head with a 2 x 4. CPS shows up at the door a

few
hours later with a cop.


Bull**** from the getgo. They know damn well that such a scenario
would result in an IMMEDIATE call while the attack was underway or
within seconds.

You show your capacity to prevaricate right from the start. I think I
mentioned in a recent post that you are one of the saddest
propagandists for child abusers I've every run across.

Mom perceives that she is a good mother and has nothing to worry

about. She
knows damn well that she did not hit her child. She is likely to be

highly
upset that someone would have the audicity to call in such an

allegation.
She will ask who made the report. The caseworker will reply that, by

law,
she can't tell her that. Mom will guess at the name. She will

usually be
right, although the caseworker cannot confirm the quess. Then she

will say,
"come on in." Afterall, what does mom have to worry about?


Not a thing. You are lying.

The cop leaves and the caseworker talks to the daugther, who is

really 8
years old and more than a little ****ed herself. Caseworker notices

no
marks or bruises. The child says she doesn't like going outside on

the
front lawn because the "weirdo" next door yells at her. She plays in

the
backyard. And she plays a lot inside. And, no, mom does not hit her

with
anything, let alone boards like the caseworker describes.

The caseworker then sits down with mom and does an "assessment." She

asks
lots of questions about extended family, income, mom's family

history,
partridges, pear trees and the birds that perch in them.


Caseworkers are paid to investigate all this? Interesting. Maybe you
could be one after all. r r r r But not in this lifetime or reality.

If the parent is even capable of waking in the morning they know they
don't have to answer such questions. It isn't hard to figure out that
if someone is asking about an alledged attack on the child that that
is all one need answer (and not even that if they don't wish to) are
questions related to the allegation. Please, Doug. You are
embarrassing yourself again.

The fridge is
examined and cupboards gone through to check on food supplies. The

little
girl's room is examined. Bathrooms are checked.


Well, a druggie might be too out of it to tell the worker to leave,
but anyone that is breathing normally knows damn well they can stop
that worker immediately. No one is going to allow someone to walk
about their house, and you know.

The worker is all smiles. Mom has calmed down a bit by the time the
caseworker prances off three hours later.


I didn't know caseworkers pranced?


The caseworker goes back to the office to call relatives and the

"weirdo"
next door.

Then she substantiates the single mom for neglect.


How?

The house was cluttered with toys shewn about by the child who

prefers to
play inside.


Crock of **** and you know it.

The eight year old is a terrible housekeeper -- she doesn't
follow her mom's daily request to clean her room. There wasn't

enough food
in the fridge (mom gets paid tomorrow, when she does the shopping).

Worse,
mom told the smiling caseworker during the assessment that her

parents
argued a lot when she was growing up. Her dad drank a lot.


Larger crock, same ****.

The completed "assessment" has a lot of "indicators" of "risk." (You

know
some of these indicators, Kane. I do as well. I will happily list

some of
them).


Do so then.

Mom is likely to be of some danger to her eight year old sometime,
maybe, in the future. The caseworker substantiates.


Even bigger crock, same ****.

Thirty days later, the caseworker mails a notice to mom stating that

she has
been substantiated for neglect and that the agency has determined she

is "in
need of services."


The truth is more often it comes down like this:

Caseworker examines child and finds typical marks she was trained to
recognise as cigarette or hotplate burns on the child, and some wrap
around marks on legs and arms that are typical of being whipped with
an electric cord. Child is either inarticulate for his or her age, or
has a highly questionable sophisticated beyond his or her years excuse
for the marks and or burns.

The worker sees drug paraphenalia peaking out from under the babies
mattress where the drugged out mom thought no one would ever look, and
a back room with some meth precursor chemical containers in carboys.

The oddity in this tragic,


In the rare instance it happens, you bet. Tragic as hell and gets
workers fired. I know. I've had them fired.

although common, situation is that mom granted
consent to the caseworker to varify whether she had hit her child

with a two
by four,


That's correct. And in the vast majority of cases, one even related
here recently, the worker asked the questions related to the
allegation, did the child examine, and left with no further actions of
any kind....until another call was made. The problem isn't the worker,
or the practice, it's the malicious caller.

not to do a life history on her family or to look for "risk
indicators" that exist in every home across the country.


As I said, crock, ****.

Mom now deeply regrets that she granted her "consent."


She didn't grant any general consent to a flock of questions. If they
are asked all she has to do is either order the worker out of the
house...and that is a constitutional right, or refuse to engage in a
question and answer session on any subject but the allegation.

But it is too late.


Well, maybe too late for you to con the reader.

Mom now knows the real role of the caseworker, but it is too late.


Ho hum. Have you a kleenex?

Cops know how to use these very well indeed, to gain access. And

many
caseworkers do as well. My guess is that even now, or in very short
order cw's will be going to trainings on how to ensure they have

all
three, or any of the above. consent, probable cause, exigent
circumstances. Hell, they already know a great deal about these
things. They run into judges all the time that require it or they

kick
the worker out of the placement hearing.


They do not need all three.


I didn't say they needed all three in any single instance. I said get
trained to get them. You really don't have an ounce of ethics, do you?

Consent eliminates the need for a showing of
exigent circumstances or probable cause.


Thanks for proving my case. We all know that however. This isn't
anything but patronizing the reader when you go on this way.

A showing of probable cause
eliminates the need for consent or exigent circumstances.


But you don't think the worker and LE won't, if there is no exigence,
simply ask for consent to enter? The judge would have their butts if
they ran up a very high number of WARRANTS without first trying for
consent to enter and question.

I would hope that someday agencies would get around to teaching their
employees what probable cause and exigent circumstances are.


Why don't you speak to your supervisor or local admin and management
about it?

I've interviewed a large number of CPS employees that do
investigations. I haven't found one that didn't teach ME things about
exigence and probably cause. They are highly sophisticated about both,
but they don't go running around spouting off about it as they conduct
investigations to prove to the alleged perp how smart they are.

More
importantly, they need to be trained that they cannot threaten

parents gain
"consent."


You still live in Lower Slobbovia don't you? My experience is that CPS
investigators take one semester of a college course to learn how to do
their job. They get updates periodically from the DA and sometimes
even the states AG's office on how to do their job within the law.

You are a crock of ****, you don't just shovel it out.

If you position is that the Doe v Heck will lead to more
training of CPS workers, this would be a good outcome.


Hmmmm.. Well I think I've made my position clear on "efficient"
government. I prefer slop. Even if there are some abuses. The abuses
of efficient government are far far greater. Or don't you learn from
history?

Why would training
CPS workers on exigent circumstances, probable cause and consent be a

bad
thing for families?


Tightening of the screw. One thing about the young, the child bearing
age young....they **** up a lot. I know, I was one once.

They can be recovered. The often are. More efficient government will
cut a broad swath through them, as it did with the inception of ASFA.
I've watched the rate of terminations skyrocket, and finally start to
level off recently (they can't make'em faster than CPS can take 'em)
as a result of more efficient government.

In most instances where parents do battle to get their kids back and
win it isn't because the allegations didn't have SOME basis, but
because CPS slipped and screwed up in their PRACTICE.

I rather like it that young folks, screwing up as they do, still get
to keep their kids. The public sometimes disagrees with my values.
****'em.

You'd be surprized to learn that I've talked with many workers that
have the same attitude I do.... Many, for instance, think there is
nothing at all wrong with spanking a child. Or having them go without
a meal, or being overweight. and they laugh their heads off at states
where this is claimed to be a reason a child was removed.

They know perfectly well it was more likely an accompanying condition
along with much much more egregious harm being done the child. That
Maine case we got to watch on TV was case in point. "Clutter" turned
out to be a dangerous pigsty with flammables stored next to wood
stoves, broken plate glass at toddler level...etc.

The appeals court ruling found in the set of facts that there was

no
consent, no warrant, no exigent cirumstances and no probable cause

in
the
caseworker's intervention.


Yep...this case. And it will be true for any other case,and it's

been
true for ever, as constitutional issues are ruled on by the SCOTUS.

Are you so blind that you can't see that my claim of a coming

police
state...that is more power to the executive and enforcement...is
happening? What profit do you derive from this, Doug. You must

given
how hard you campaign for it.


The Doe v Heck decision, and similar ones that preceded it, are a

check
against the police state mentality that currently exists in child

welfare
procedure.


You are dreaming, Doug. As usual.

There is no "police state mentality" in CPS. That's bull**** statement
of high order coming from you. It is a "follow the law" mentality and
always has been. If you are living where the former occurs, you should
move.

If you see them defy the caselaw you cite, then you can claim police
state. Until understand it's you that I accuse of a police state
mentality.

And you are a very unpolished propagandist. You'd never make a living
at it.

r r r r r

Kane
  #6  
Old July 30th 03, 10:03 AM
Greg Hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional

Just the INSET from the article Fern linked to:

What the court held
Case: Doe v. Heck, No. 01-3648

Issue: Is sec. 48.981(3)(c)1 unconstitutional to the extent it
authorizes social workers to interview children on private property
without their parents' consent?

If so, are social workers who committed an unconstitutional
investigation entitled to qualified immunity?

Holding: Yes. Such an investigation violates the Fourth Amendment
rights of the child, and the rights to familial relations of the
parents and the child.

Yes. The caseworkers should not be held liable for acting pursuant to
a presumptively valid statute.

Counsel: Sheila M. Smith, Michael D. Dean, for plaintiffs; John J.
Glinski, for defendants.
  #7  
Old August 15th 03, 08:33 AM
Greg Hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional

Yes. The caseworkers should not be held liable for
acting pursuant to a presumptively valid statute.


But as Fern said, NOW they are on notice!
Next time around they would NOT be immune.

But I still don't understand how enforcers of the law
can hide behind ignorance of the law to exempt them
from law suits. If they don't know the laws about
what they DO FOR A LIVING, why should they be exempt?

Or (another way) If they don't know the laws about
what they are doing for a living, maybe they should
consider a different vocation.
  #8  
Old August 15th 03, 03:04 PM
Ron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional


"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
om...
Yes. The caseworkers should not be held liable for
acting pursuant to a presumptively valid statute.


But as Fern said, NOW they are on notice!
Next time around they would NOT be immune.

But I still don't understand how enforcers of the law
can hide behind ignorance of the law to exempt them
from law suits. If they don't know the laws about
what they DO FOR A LIVING, why should they be exempt?


Sorry Greg, but no one, not even attornies, are fully conversant with the
laws under which they work or for the job in which they find themselves in.
None. There are just to many laws out there. To much regulation. If you
had a job you would know this.

We know and understand the basics (hopefully), and we trust the experts to
tell us about the rest. But even the experts cannot know for certain how a
judge is going to rule on a particular law, and this is why so many cases
end up in appellate courts.

Ron

Or (another way) If they don't know the laws about
what they are doing for a living, maybe they should
consider a different vocation.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is this really child abuse? Sidney Mooar General 56 July 23rd 04 10:12 PM
How Children REALLY React To Control Chris General 444 July 20th 04 07:14 PM
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 December 15th 03 10:42 AM
Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional Doug General 8 August 15th 03 03:04 PM
'Horrible' Home Kane General 1 July 16th 03 02:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:16 AM.


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