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
|
|||
|
|||
Disinformation feed responded, now let's get to the truth.....Info please ...
Doug wrote:
127.0.0.1" wrote in message ... You ARE correct in that it's a political problem. But at the same time it's also a legal issue. And I do have grounds to sue the State of course. Hi, 127! It is a very HOT political problem that will be debated on the legislative floors in Jefferson City in February. Currently, in effect, a DJO's signature has the authority of a court order . . . they SIGN court orders in leiu of a judge's decision. This is a common problem, as this group should know. In Missouri DFS can't remove a child. A juvenile officer does. And those are two different branches of government. Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop. ....SNIP.,.. The extent to which you will go to lie is nearly unbelievable, Doug. http://www.iarstl.org/papers/JCIPSLC.pdf You are lying through your teeth when you attempt this artifice of DJOs in MO operating, in the majority of cases, without court involvement. That is a flat out lie. You have lied about the state making services a barrier to parents: " ... Family Support Team (FST) Meetings. Initial FST meetings typically were less than one-half hour in duration because of the press of other cases. Most felt that even with these limitations FST meetings were valuable, and while scheduling them at other times might make longer meetings possible, it would also decrease attendance by parents. ... " As you have lied about the judicial process: " ... Protective Custody Hearings (PCH). Interview respondents agreed that PCHs were being held in nearly all cases and within the 72-hour time frame. Most felt the requirement was beneficial. Over half of those interviewed saw improvements in motivating parents to attend later hearings (59.6 percent), promoting protective custody (57.1 percent), leading to an earlier return of children to parents when custody is not needed (59.3 percent), and leading to identification of absent parents (57.1 percent). Only a minority felt that PCHs promoted the involvement of both parents in the family court process. The majority of respondents felt that holding protective custody hearings in all cases improved the process in the areas considered. ... " And you have lied about just what the role of the DJO is in relation to those hearings, pretending they do not even happen in the majority of cases: " ... The Missouri Division of Family Services (DFS), the public child welfare agency, directs such cases to the court, usually following child abuse and neglect reports and emergency removals of children from their homes. ... " That tends to make the DJOs have a hard time concealing their actions from the courts, if DFS is directing those cases with removals "to the court" wouldn't you say? 0:- " ... Child Removal in Missouri For those not familiar with the child protection system in Missouri, an explanation of a certain unique characteristic is necessary. In Missouri the responsibilities associated with removal of children in child abuse and neglect reports are divided between agencies. DFS county workers respond to reports of child abuse and neglect received via the statewide telephone hotline. An investigator or a family assessment worker conducts necessary home visits and interviews to determine the safety status of the child. Either type of worker may determine that removal of the child from the home is necessary for the child’s protection. However, the DFS worker cannot physically remove the child. A law enforcement representative, a physician, or a juvenile officer must carry out physical removal. Furthermore, the jurisdictional basis to remove a child from his/her home ultimately lies with the juvenile officer, as does the decision to file a child abuse and neglect petition. DFS workers will call law enforcement to assist in the child 3 abuse/neglect investigation, which may result in the officer removing the child from the home. This is particularly true if the child is in imminent danger. Upon removal, the juvenile officer is to be immediately notified and jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court immediately attaches to the child. By contrast, in most other states the investigative function and the decision to remove a child or file a petition are both made by the public child welfare (child protection) agency. In the City of St. Louis, DJOs traditionally continued to work directly with families alongside DFS workers, making appearances at hearings held in family court as long as children were in active cases. As the JCIP continued into the third year, the role of DJO’s changed. typically within 90 days of the date of the protective custody hearing. After this and for subsequent court hearings, DFS workers have responsibility for cases and for attending court hearings. However, while DJOs were not present at later hearings, their representative, the full time attorney for the Juvenile Officer, was present at every hearing. ... " I draw your and the other readers attention to: "DJOs began to play an active part in cases only during the initial phases and through the disposition hearing, ... " In other words they are not informing they court, (contrary to your claim the court is kept out of the loop) they are required to APPEAR in court themselves for the dispositional hearing of any child removed by them, or by the police, who must keep them informed. They are part of the mix, the child protection team, made up of DFS workers, GAL, and CASA. They are required to work alongside them WITH THE COURT. You are lying again. You do it so smoothly though, and with lots of butter for your unsuspecting reader, I notice. Liar. " ... The JCIP timeframes for hearings were designed to bring together the child welfare and judicial processes in the following fashion. Within twenty-four hours of the child’s placement, a DFS case manager is assigned to the case and is to contact the child and parents. The first family support team meeting is held within 72 hours of removal, in order to begin assessing the needs of the child and family, including the need for continued out-of-home placement. ... " Your attention is directed to the phrase: "...designed to bring together the child welfare and judicial processes..." Court's kept out of the loop by the design and artifice of the authority of the DJO? I don't think so, liar! Consider Doug, our posts are dated in November 2005. This cited and quoted report is dated June 2003. That is why I KNOW you are lying. You could not be that far behind in your own home state. Or could you? Do you mislead out of ignorance, or out of malicious intent? Even your claims of parents being left out of the proceedings is bogus. " ... Under the DFS Family-Centered Out-of-Home project (FCOH), a joint meeting of the initial members of the family support team (FST)—a DFS worker, the parents and relatives, a deputy juvenile officer, and other individuals involved with the family—is required within 72 hours of protective custody, where the purpose and possible consequences of protective custody are explained to parents. (As noted in Chapter 3, the current practice in the City of St. Louis is to hold such meetings immediately after the protective custody hearing.) ... " For over two years now, Doug, even the semi true claim you make against MO has NOT been the case. I believe you know that already, and counted on others not knowing how to find the correct information. But that's old news for you in this ng. It's your nearly constant modus operandi. By the way, you know perfectly well you are lying in another post when you claim that I have an investment in the current Foster Care system. I have posted before concerning the changes I wished to see. You are lying again. Remember any readers that have swallowed Doug's nonsense, that all cited information is now nearly 2.5 years old, and obviously much of it could not have been reported unless it was in fact in place PRIOR to the date of the report...so it is actually older. Referring to the post judicial hearings meetings that immediately follow the court hearing on disposition of the removed child and their family: " ... These comments must be seen in the context of the initial FST meetings that followed the PCH in which the outcomes of the hearing could be discussed and clarified. The parents learn that removal and placement is a legal process, not the whim of DFS, that a review of matters that led to the removal of their children is underway, and that they have a voice in the proceedings. Most importantly from the parents’ standpoint, they learn about the strict 12-month timeframe for permanency decisions. On the other side, the individuals who will be dealing with the family on an ongoing basis are present and have the opportunity to learn the strengths, deficiencies, and needs of the parents and children in cases. ... " If you read the report at, http://www.iarstl.org/papers/JCIPSLC.pdf, and are objective and logical you will note that DJOs are not described as arriving to remove a child UNLESS DFS informs them of their investigation and THEIR decision that removal is warranted. Even a cop much notify the DJO. And the DJO knows that there WILL be a dispositional hearing in court. Hardly consistent with the claim that the court is deliberately kept out of the loop by the use of a DJO for effecting the physical act of removal. He's lying, AGAIN. The reforms he likes to threaten with his ****-assed "it won't be long now," have already been instituted. Long ago. That is the only "investment" I have in the foster care system....that he NOT lie about it continually. Such things as he refers other to like the strengths needs based casework were instituted in the early 90s, for **** sake. What a sly ugly little propagandist to pretend it's a threat to the current system and just around the corner when such things are over a decade old. Even MO family meeting following the dispositional hearing has been around in many other states for years. They have different names in different states, but have gone of for a long time. I first heard of some of them in 1992. They had been in place then. By 2002 in MO the following was already well in place: " ... Protective custody hearings occurred significantly sooner (p.0001) for pilot children. This shows that the time from removal and initial placement of the children until a formal hearing to determine whether protective custody was appropriate was reduced from four to five days to less than two days per child on average. ... " The reader can fall for the big lie, or they can think for themselves based on available information. One of the most vicious of Doug's claims is how DFS abuses parents by forcing services on them. Let's look, finally, at what the workers official say in response, from this report: " ... Preparation of Parents. DFS workers and DJOs interviewed at the end of the first year of the project provided more specific information on some of these issues. They generally thought that parents understood the timeframes of hearings, especially the one-year deadline for permanency planning. They generally did not believe or were unsure that parents comprehended the process or what the court was requiring of them. The following comments regarding disposition and review hearings illustrate this. “It’s hard for parents to process all that information; their kids are in care; they are dealing with that and with other issues.” As we mentioned above, some DFS and DJO respondents also cited poor attitudes of parents as a reason for their lack of understanding. For example: “What they know and what they say they know are different; they sometimes say I did not tell them something when I know that I did; they use this as an excuse not to work.” The following comments reflect more direct statements of poor parental attitudes and lack of compliance: “Some don't have the mindset of wanting to visit their children, to do what they have to do to get kids back. [Some] parents get content with situation of having kids in foster care and they are fine with that.” // “We offer all our families the services to prepare them, but whether they utilize them is another story.” // “Not many parents do what they are supposed to do; the judge explains clearly, but one year later, they still do not understand because [they do not use] the resources [provided by] DJOs and DFS.” // “Additional services are given, but parents must utilize [them and this] shows their true colors by the review hearing…” Get the real picture yet? I know that you can recognize that you were being offered only part of the picture. Keep digging if you care. Don't let the Doug's of the world have their sick way. I am a CPS reform advocate, but I refuse to operate on half truths and outright lies to advocate "reforms" that do not address reality. The reality is that we have an horrendous child abuse and neglect problem in this country and it's getting worse under the kindly attention of ****s that want to excuse abusive and neglectful parents, and provide them handy escape hatches. 0:- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Disinformation feed responded, now let's get to the truth..... Info please ...
This is a common problem, as this group should know. In Missouri DFS can't remove a child. A juvenile officer does. And those are two different branches of government. Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop. ...SNIP.,.. The extent to which you will go to lie is nearly unbelievable, Doug. Hi, Kane, There were no "lies" in the remainder of the post that you snipped or in the statement above, that you left intact. Before a child is removed in Missouri, a court order must be issued -- called by caseworkers a "pick up order". This court order, in the majority of cases, is signed not by a judge but by the Deputy Juvenile Officer (DJO). That is a fact. And it remains a fact. It was a fact in 1990. It was a fact in 2003. And it is a fact today. You are lying through your teeth when you attempt this artifice of DJOs in MO operating, in the majority of cases, without court involvement. That is a flat out lie. Here is my statement again. "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." Prior to the removal of the child by DFS, a court order must be secured. This "court order" is usually signed by the DJO on the line reserved for the judge. The judge does not, as was intended by the legislature, hear ex parte arguments showing probable cause for the removal and then make the decision. Instead, the DJO makes this determination and signs the order. Usually, the DJO will make the comment below his/her signature, "judge not available." This is the practice. And, as 127 points out, the practice in this state seems to fly in the face of the statutory requirements, legislative intent of the laws, and published policy. Nothing you have posted contradicts in the slightest my statement above, that prior to removal, a "court order" for removal is usually signed by the DJO in leiu of the judge and without involvement of the court at this stage. You have lied about the state making services a barrier to parents: I have joined other members of this newsgroup in saying that "services" and the time they require are often a barrier to parents, yes. That is not a lie. It is the truth. " ... Family Support Team (FST) Meetings. Initial FST meetings typically were less than one-half hour in duration because of the press of other cases. Most felt that even with these limitations FST meetings were valuable, and while scheduling them at other times might make longer meetings possible, it would also decrease attendance by parents. ... " This statement of policy, excerpted from the St. Louis Juvenile Court Improvement Project does not in any way challenge or counter our statement that services and the times they are offered are a barrier to parents. As you have lied about the judicial process: " ... Protective Custody Hearings (PCH). Interview respondents agreed that PCHs were being held in nearly all cases and within the 72-hour time frame. Most felt the requirement was beneficial. Over half of those interviewed saw improvements in motivating parents to attend later hearings (59.6 percent), promoting protective custody (57.1 percent), leading to an earlier return of children to parents when custody is not needed (59.3 percent), and leading to identification of absent parents (57.1 percent). Only a minority felt that PCHs promoted the involvement of both parents in the family court process. The majority of respondents felt that holding protective custody hearings in all cases improved the process in the areas considered. ... " Your pasted statement from the Juvenile Court Improvement Project and its pilot population in the City of St. Louis does not in any way address the procedures followed in securing a pick up order prior to removing children, who signs that "court order," or anything else that 127 and I addressed. And you have lied about just what the role of the DJO is in relation to those hearings, pretending they do not even happen in the majority of cases: " ... The Missouri Division of Family Services (DFS), the public child welfare agency, directs such cases to the court, usually following child abuse and neglect reports and emergency removals of children from their homes. ... " These hearings follow removal and should occur within 72 hours of that removal. This does not address in the slightest way the statement I made concerning the procedure used to secure a "court order" for the removal of the child in the first place or who signs that order. Here is the statement to which you reply again. It is the truth. It is not a lie. "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." " ... Child Removal in Missouri For those not familiar with the child protection system in Missouri, an explanation of a certain unique characteristic is necessary. In Missouri the responsibilities associated with removal of children in child abuse and neglect reports are divided between agencies. DFS county workers respond to reports of child abuse and neglect received via the statewide telephone hotline. An investigator or a family assessment worker conducts necessary home visits and interviews to determine the safety status of the child. Either type of worker may determine that removal of the child from the home is necessary for the child’s protection. However, the DFS worker cannot physically remove the child. A law enforcement representative, a physician, or a juvenile officer must carry out physical removal. Furthermore, the jurisdictional basis to remove a child from his/her home ultimately lies with the juvenile officer, as does the decision to file a child abuse and neglect petition. DFS workers will call law enforcement to assist in the child Actually, as anyone who lives in Missouri can tell you, DFS does physically remove the children. However, they do not have the legal authority to issue the order to remove. That requires a court order, which in reality is usually an order signed by the DJO and not a judge. The common practice is this: 1) CD worker (as the result of an CAN investigation or assessment) makes a request for removal to the DJO 2) The DJO finds "probable cause" and signs a "court order" for removal; 3) The CD workers, usually with courtesy assist from law enforcement, enforces the order and physically removes the child from the home. The removal is done under authority of the order signed by the DJO, not the unilateral authority of the police officer. Yet again, however, your posted exerpt does not in any way challenge my statement that the DJO, without involvement of the court, commonly signs the pick up order prior to removal of the child. 3 abuse/neglect investigation, which may result in the officer removing the child from the home. This is particularly true if the child is in imminent danger. Upon removal, the juvenile officer is to be immediately notified and jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court immediately attaches to the child. By contrast, in most other states the investigative function and the decision to remove a child or file a petition are both made by the public child welfare (child protection) agency. This is incorrect. In most states, a court order is required before CPS can remove a child. Most states do not give CPS authority to remove children on their own. In almost all states, however, police officers have the unilateral authority to remove children, as do physicians. The latter is true in Missouri, although police or doctors rarely do so. In the City of St. Louis, DJOs traditionally continued to work directly with families alongside DFS workers, making appearances at hearings held in family court as long as children were in active cases. As the JCIP continued into the third year, the role of DJO’s changed. typically within 90 days of the date of the protective custody hearing. After this and for subsequent court hearings, DFS workers have responsibility for cases and for attending court hearings. However, while DJOs were not present at later hearings, their representative, the full time attorney for the Juvenile Officer, was present at every hearing. ... " I draw your and the other readers attention to: "DJOs began to play an active part in cases only during the initial phases and through the disposition hearing, ... " DJO's began playing a role in the case prior to removal, by signing the order, and throughout the duration of the case. After removal, when the case goes to the court for hearing, the DJO attends the hearing. In rural counties, the DJO actually represents the state and takes on the role of a county attorney during the initial hearings. Astounding, since they are not members of the bar. Once again, however, your pasted comments from the St Louis Juvenile Court Improvement Project do not in the slightest dispute my statement that DJO's many times sign the "court orders" for removal of children. In other words they are not informing they court, (contrary to your claim the court is kept out of the loop) they are required to APPEAR in court themselves for the dispositional hearing of any child removed by them, or by the police, who must keep them informed. Yes, after removal, the DJO plays an active role in the case throughout. They appear in court -- often, as I have explained, taking on the role of an attorney representing the state in rural counties. They are part of the mix, the child protection team, made up of DFS workers, GAL, and CASA. They are required to work alongside them WITH THE COURT. You are lying again. Only a few counties in Missouri have CASA. In those counties that do, a CASA volunteer may participate in the case throughout. DJO's are involved in the case throughout its duration. While GAL's are not always appointed, they also are involved in the team when they are appointed. Again, this statement does not in any way dispute, challenge, or make my statement that DJO's sign court orders for removal a lie. You do it so smoothly though, and with lots of butter for your unsuspecting reader, I notice. Liar. LOL! Show me. So far, nothing you have posted challenges the statement I made and you left intact. You continue to respond without contradicting what I have said. This is what I said again. It is the truth. It is not a lie. It was the truth in 1990 and it is the truth today. "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." " ... The JCIP timeframes for hearings were designed to bring together the child welfare and judicial processes in the following fashion. Within twenty-four hours of the child’s placement, a DFS case manager is assigned to the case and is to contact the child and parents. The first family support team meeting is held within 72 hours of removal, in order to begin assessing the needs of the child and family, including the need for continued out-of-home placement. ... " The Juvenile Court Improvement Project (JCIP) in the City of St. Louis has a number of time frames unique to that project I am sure. The citizens of that city certainly needed a court improvement project. However, the JCIP timeframes in St. Louis do not in the slightest address the statement I made that you call a lie. That statement stands unchallenged as the truth. Your attention is directed to the phrase: "...designed to bring together the child welfare and judicial processes..." Yes, in the JCIP in St. Louis, within 72 hours after removal. Consider my attention duly drawn to that statement and my notice to you that it does not address in the slightest way my statement to which you claim to respond. Court's kept out of the loop by the design and artifice of the authority of the DJO? I don't think so, liar! Here is my statement again: "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." Is the court kept out of the loop when the decision is made to remove and the pickup order signed by the DJO. Yep. That is the truth. Your statement refers to the court's involvement after removal. Consider Doug, our posts are dated in November 2005. This cited and quoted report is dated June 2003. Yes, that's when the Juvenile Court Improvement Project in St. Louis was reported on. However, I was talking about the practice in Missouri in securing a pick up order for the removal of children by CD workers. That practice was in place in 1990, 1991, 1992,1993,1994,1195,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001, 2002,2003,2004 and 2005. That is why I KNOW you are lying. You could not be that far behind in your own home state. Or could you? LOL! You clearly don't know what you think you know. You are quoting a report about a court improvement project in one city of Missouri that does not address my statement in the slightest and claiming it makes my statement a lie. LOL! Do you mislead out of ignorance, or out of malicious intent? Are you still beating your wife? Even your claims of parents being left out of the proceedings is bogus. " ... Under the DFS Family-Centered Out-of-Home project (FCOH), a joint meeting of the initial members of the family support team (FST)—a DFS worker, the parents and relatives, a deputy juvenile officer, and other individuals involved with the family—is required within 72 hours of protective custody, where the purpose and possible consequences of protective custody are explained to parents. (As noted in Chapter 3, the current practice in the City of St. Louis is to hold such meetings immediately after the protective custody hearing.) ... " Here is my statement to which you reply in this post once again: "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." For over two years now, Doug, even the semi true claim you make against MO has NOT been the case. I believe you know that already, and counted on others not knowing how to find the correct information. But that's old news for you in this ng. It's your nearly constant modus operandi. What makes you think that the snips from the Court Improvement Project in St. Louis are anything new in Missouri? Your snippets certainly don't address the ongoing practice of DJO's signing pick up orders prior to removal that I was talking about. And the procedures followed by the various parties after removal as described in the snippets are pretty much the practices followed for the last decade. By the way, you know perfectly well you are lying in another post when you claim that I have an investment in the current Foster Care system. I have posted before concerning the changes I wished to see. You are lying again. I said that you were invested in defending the present foster care system, yes. That is my opinion of your responses to the research criticizing its practice. What changes would you like to see to the current foster care system? Remember any readers that have swallowed Doug's nonsense, that all cited information is now nearly 2.5 years old, and obviously much of it could not have been reported unless it was in fact in place PRIOR to the date of the report...so it is actually older. The cited information, which reports on situations other than what my statement concerned, illustrates procedures in place long before 2003. Nonetheless, they do not address the real reform efforts made in Missouri. Those were initiated by child advocates, families and concerned citizens and implimented during the past few years by the Missouri legislature. The legislature attempted to deal with the problem of DJO's signing court orders prior to removal, but this particular clause was taken out of the last reform measure by a joint House/Senate committee. It will be reintroduced this year. Referring to the post judicial hearings meetings that immediately follow the court hearing on disposition of the removed child and their family: " ... These comments must be seen in the context of the initial FST meetings that followed the PCH in which the outcomes of the hearing could be discussed and clarified. The parents learn that removal and placement is a legal process, not the whim of DFS, that a review of matters that led to the removal of their children is underway, and that they have a voice in the proceedings. Most importantly from the parents’ standpoint, they learn about the strict 12-month timeframe for permanency decisions. On the other side, the individuals who will be dealing with the family on an ongoing basis are present and have the opportunity to learn the strengths, deficiencies, and needs of the parents and children in cases. ... " Again, this does not address my statement, to which you claim to be replying. If you read the report at, http://www.iarstl.org/papers/JCIPSLC.pdf, and are objective and logical you will note that DJOs are not described as arriving to remove a child UNLESS DFS informs them of their investigation and THEIR decision that removal is warranted. Even a cop much notify the DJO. The DJO does not usually arrive to remove the child. The CD (DFS) workers usually physically remove the child on legal authority of the "court order" signed by the DJO. Secondly, the "decision" by CD to remove is not a binding decision at all, but CD's reccomendation. The DJO decides whether the CD has probable cause for the removal and makes the decision by signing the court order. And the DJO knows that there WILL be a dispositional hearing in court. Hardly consistent with the claim that the court is deliberately kept out of the loop by the use of a DJO for effecting the physical act of removal. Yes, the DJO does not that there will be a hearing in court after the child is removed. At that hearing, the judge many times decides that the removal was wrongful and returns the child. However, the judge often does not have a hand in the court order effecting the removal, which, of course, is what I was talking about in my statement. He's lying, AGAIN. No lie. It is the truth. Here is the statement again. "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." The reforms he likes to threaten with his ****-assed "it won't be long now," have already been instituted. Long ago. Yes, a great deal of CPS reform has been made in the Missouri legislature during the past few years and the movement continues. None of those legislative reforms are reflected in the report from the Juvenile Court Improvement Project in one of its cities. The reform effort continues and new legislation will be introduced in Jefferson City this February. It won't be long, now. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Disinformation feed responded, now let's get to the truth.....Info please ...
Doug wrote: This is a common problem, as this group should know. In Missouri DFS can't remove a child. A juvenile officer does. And those are two different branches of government. Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop. ...SNIP.,.. The extent to which you will go to lie is nearly unbelievable, Doug. Hi, Kane, There were no "lies" in the remainder of the post that you snipped or in the statement above, that you left intact. Sure there are. A veritable pack of them. And colorfully diverse. Flat out misinformation type, evasions out the ying yang, misleading, weasel wording, oversimplifying, equivocating by claiming I make arguments I did not make. Your a talented phenomena. I've met few that could lie with the equinamity you manage. You lied about the majority of cases, and about the use to circumvent or leave the court out of the loop. Before a child is removed in Missouri, a court order must be issued -- called by caseworkers a "pick up order". This court order, in the majority of cases, is signed not by a judge but by the Deputy Juvenile Officer (DJO). I did not argue this point. Why are you pretending I did? Because you got caught again in a misleading lie? You are simply, among other things, building up a wave of boring diversions, in the repetitive extreme, to drive off the few that might be interested, so that you can hope to carry out your lies unexposed. I hope they are not so bored that they won't stick around and watch me spank your lying ass soundly. With facts, and with uncovering your trickery. That is a fact. And it remains a fact. It was a fact in 1990. It was a fact in 2003. And it is a fact today. See above. Not argued. You are right. Never said you weren't. You are lying through your teeth when you attempt this artifice of DJOs in MO operating, in the majority of cases, without court involvement. That is a flat out lie. Here is my statement again. "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." The lie begins, since I did not argue concerning the other things you mention, at "in the majority of cases." First of all, if you are referring to the presiding judge for the juvenile court system, that is disingenuous pap. They regularly are concerned with the administration of the system, not the case by case content unless some irregularity or are asked for help brings it to their attention. They sit in authority over the judges that make up their particular bailiwick. What you wanted people to assume and miss the reality of, is that there IS a judge that will be involved with every single case where removal is done and the DJO is responsible to him or her and must appear in front of him or her in the course of the dependency or dispositional hearing. The fact you are a lying word spinning cheat does not diminish in any way that you are a liar. Prior to the removal of the child by DFS, a court order must be secured. This "court order" is usually signed by the DJO on the line reserved for the judge. The judge does not, as was intended by the legislature, hear ex parte arguments showing probable cause for the removal and then make the decision. Instead, the DJO makes this determination and signs the order. Usually, the DJO will make the comment below his/her signature, "judge not available." What nonsense. That is what police do as well. Then the case appears before the judge. Not just in juvenile court, but in any system of enforcement. This is the practice. And, as 127 points out, the practice in this state seems to fly in the face of the statutory requirements, legislative intent of the laws, and published policy. It does no such thing. The actions of the DJO are by policy, which should be by both law and legislative intent. Show the law and legislative INTENT if you wish to make such claims, Doug the Liar. You say it's not, but you fail to PROVE it's not. You'll see in this document that the current function of the DJO is not only accepted but they are key element of the team, and they operate under policy guidelines. And this even goes to TPR waaay beyond the removal stage. http://www.iarstl.org/papers/JCIPReport.pdf So give us your proof the legislative intent proscribed the use of DJO as currently utilized was something different. Try to find statute. Show us the policy items you appear to be saying are violated, as in "fly in the face of." Where's the beef, Doug? 0:- Nothing you have posted contradicts in the slightest my statement above, that prior to removal, a "court order" for removal is usually signed by the DJO in leiu of the judge and without involvement of the court at this stage. You are lying yet again. You said very plainly this is used to keep the judge out of the loop. As in, " It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." That is difficult to reconcile with the posted material I provided that shows the court indeed is involved in the removals by making a judgment about them within 2 days of said action by the DJO ASSIGNED TO THEIR COURT. You have lied about the state making services a barrier to parents: I have joined other members of this newsgroup in saying that "services" and the time they require are often a barrier to parents, yes. That is not a lie. It is the truth. It is a lie. The services are rarely factually more than the family can handle and indeed accommodations for many of them are to fit the family's schedule. Contracts with providers often include wording that they will accommodate by holding their meetings on weekends, evenings, and even holidays. You are lying. I've read those contracts, I've attended such events with kin and their client relatives on Saturdays, Sundays, and evenings as late running as late as 10 and 11 o'clock if need be to accommodate the client. I have listened to the arguments for overtime by workers who had to set up meetings to allow clients to meet at the client's convenience at all hours. I've never been to a 4 am meeting but I've heard of one. So the client could make it to work later and not have to come in in the late afternoon tired. Yer a sick ****. What I have also heard is even more of what workers said in my quotation, directly from the mouths of clients myself, talking with their kin who had the children in care, defiantly refusing to accept services including drug rehab, psychological counseling, job search assistance. They just don't wanna, and they were already unemployed. It's common to CPS cases, there and everywhere I've been. And obviously to the workers quoted. It's more often the professionals that are hard pressed to make the meetings given their workload, as below. While the family is just interested in being late for the dart game at the tavern. Yer a liar. " ... Family Support Team (FST) Meetings. Initial FST meetings typically were less than one-half hour in duration because of the press of other cases. Most felt that even with these limitations FST meetings were valuable, and while scheduling them at other times might make longer meetings possible, it would also decrease attendance by parents. ... " This statement of policy, excerpted from the St. Louis Juvenile Court Improvement Project does not in any way challenge or counter our statement that services and the times they are offered are a barrier to parents. "and while scheduling them at other times might make longer meetings possible, it would also decrease attendance by parents. ... " That, Doug the Liar, is an accommodation. You claim they do not accommodate. It Does counter your bull****, because YOUR reports come from sources that are clients self reporting. Do you think the are going to gush over having to/. go to any meeting or service delivery at any time when they discuss it with anyone not in the loop that could check their claims? As you have lied about the judicial process: " ... Protective Custody Hearings (PCH). Interview respondents agreed that PCHs were being held in nearly all cases and within the 72-hour time frame. Most felt the requirement was beneficial. Over half of those interviewed saw improvements in motivating parents to attend later hearings (59.6 percent), promoting protective custody (57.1 percent), leading to an earlier return of children to parents when custody is not needed (59.3 percent), and leading to identification of absent parents (57.1 percent). Only a minority felt that PCHs promoted the involvement of both parents in the family court process. The majority of respondents felt that holding protective custody hearings in all cases improved the process in the areas considered. ... " Your pasted statement from the Juvenile Court Improvement Project and its pilot population in the City of St. Louis does not in any way address the procedures followed in securing a pick up order prior to removing children, who signs that "court order," or anything else that 127 and I addressed. I said you lied about the judicial process, and you did. You claimed that the DJO action was used deliberately to keep the judge out of the loop. You cannot defend that and I can refute it by citing the quote above. There is a court process precisely for addressing the things you claim are avoided, and that is proved by the citation above. Among other things. And you have lied about just what the role of the DJO is in relation to those hearings, pretending they do not even happen in the majority of cases: " ... The Missouri Division of Family Services (DFS), the public child welfare agency, directs such cases to the court, usually following child abuse and neglect reports and emergency removals of children from their homes. ... " These hearings follow removal and should occur within 72 hours of that removal. They do. You claimed the court is not part of the process, by design. And that is against the law, the legislative intent, and policy. You've proved none of those. This does not address in the slightest way the statement I made concerning the procedure used to secure a "court order" for the removal of the child in the first place or who signs that order. Here is the statement to which you reply again. It is the truth. It is not a lie. "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." It is a lie. The DJO pickup process cannot conceal from or hold the judge out of the loop as other processes, and the authority go to and derive from the court. You are a liar. " ... Child Removal in Missouri For those not familiar with the child protection system in Missouri, an explanation of a certain unique characteristic is necessary. In Missouri the responsibilities associated with removal of children in child abuse and neglect reports are divided between agencies. DFS county workers respond to reports of child abuse and neglect received via the statewide telephone hotline. An investigator or a family assessment worker conducts necessary home visits and interviews to determine the safety status of the child. Either type of worker may determine that removal of the child from the home is necessary for the child’s protection. However, the DFS worker cannot physically remove the child. A law enforcement representative, a physician, or a juvenile officer must carry out physical removal. Furthermore, the jurisdictional basis to remove a child from his/her home ultimately lies with the juvenile officer, as does the decision to file a child abuse and neglect petition. DFS workers will call law enforcement to assist in the child Actually, as anyone who lives in Missouri can tell you, DFS does physically remove the children. Of course they do. They cannot until they have that sign off, by a COURT ASSIGNED DJO. It would be hard to keep the court out of considering he or she IS part of the judicial system, no? However, they do not have the legal authority to issue the order to remove. That's not been argued by me. Why are you addressing me with it. You said it before. I did not challenge. You are repeating simply to create and atmosphere of contention on this issue to avoid the others that I do call you, most accurately at that, a liar about. That requires a court order, which in reality is usually an order signed by the DJO and not a judge. The common practice is this: Did you see me argue this one way or another? Is it relevant to my claim that you are lying and to the material I cited from MO sources in rebuttal? The answer, of course, is "no" and "no," and I see it is nothing more than yet another of your weasel tactics to slip away from the actual issue....the claim by you that the process of using the DJO as currently done is to avoid having the judge in the loop. Your OWN WORDS today show that to be wrong. You cannot weasel out of your lie or mistake, which ever it was, and your continued denial it was a mistake, makes it a lie. 1) CD worker (as the result of an CAN investigation or assessment) makes a request for removal to the DJO I've read more of this than you. 2) The DJO finds "probable cause" and signs a "court order" for removal; That's right. Just like a police officer would do, or if the DCF where charged with this duty as they are in some other states, the worker. They must, ALL OF THEM, however, appear, as in all such cases, criminal or civil, appear before a judge if they remove the child, and prove their probable cause. MO is no different. So tell us how the court or judge is kept out of the loop please? Statute requires they be IN the loop and current practice is within two days. 3) The CD workers, usually with courtesy assist from law enforcement, enforces the order and physically removes the child from the home. The removal is done under authority of the order signed by the DJO, not the unilateral authority of the police officer. That's nice. It does NOT however do a thing to further your argument and claim that the action is in violation "flies in the face of" as you put it, the law, the legislative intent, or DCF "policy." You provided a lot of characters to print to my screen, but you have provided NO proofs or even logical argument for your claim, as yet. Yet again, however, your posted exerpt does not in any way challenge my statement that the DJO, without involvement of the court, commonly signs the pick up order prior to removal of the child. I did not claim that the DJO didn't sign without involvement of the court. A police officer can arrest without the involvement of the court on probable cause. That is the DJO authority. Like an LEO, however, he or she must present to the court. What you are asking is that all cases have MORE than probable cause to remove, apparently. Yer scum. 3 abuse/neglect investigation, which may result in the officer removing the child from the home. This is particularly true if the child is in imminent danger. Upon removal, the juvenile officer is to be immediately notified and jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court immediately attaches to the child. By contrast, in most other states the investigative function and the decision to remove a child or file a petition are both made by the public child welfare (child protection) agency. This is incorrect. Speak to the document cited. That is not me writing. It is, to my knowledge, true in some areas, but with the same requirement to appear in a dispositional hearing within 24 to 72 hours after removal. There's nothing to argue here, but you need to to avoid facing that you once again lied about CPS, in this case, MO, and you were caught at it. In most states, a court order is required before CPS can remove a child. That is not true. Name all those states. Most would have to be a majority. In fact the use of most insinuates that all but a few, a super majority, would be so required. In MOST states if there is any resistance to a worker removing a police officer assists, just as you said earlier in this post about MO. You are truly ignorant and stupid. Most states do not give CPS authority to remove children on their own. That is correct. They are empowered by the court, and must justify their actions to the court post haste. In almost all states, however, police officers have the unilateral authority to remove children, as do physicians. The latter is true in Missouri, although police or doctors rarely do so. Well, it's true in every state I know of, so it blows your bs out of the water, and in many states LEO and doctors do in fact remove rather a lot of them and turn them over to...yes, you guessed it...CPS, who then must appear, often with the officer, and or with the doctor's affidavit in front of who? WHO DOUG? Santa Claus? In the City of St. Louis, DJOs traditionally continued to work directly with families alongside DFS workers, making appearances at hearings held in family court as long as children were in active cases. As the JCIP continued into the third year, the role of DJO’s changed. typically within 90 days of the date of the protective custody hearing. After this and for subsequent court hearings, DFS workers have responsibility for cases and for attending court hearings. However, while DJOs were not present at later hearings, their representative, the full time attorney for the Juvenile Officer, was present at every hearing. ... " I draw your and the other readers attention to: "DJOs began to play an active part in cases only during the initial phases and through the disposition hearing, ... " DJO's began playing a role in the case prior to removal, by signing the order, and throughout the duration of the case. You claimed that the major function of using the DJO removal sign off was to keep the judge out of the loop. As I said, and you have NOT so far responded to, that would be hard to do considering they are assigned their duties BY the court, and they must appear IN the court at the disposition hearing. WHO holds a dispositional hearing, Doug? WHO? How is the court out of the loop, and how is this in violation of the intent of the legislature, law, and the policy of CPS, as YOU claimed and is the ONLY issue I am arguing with you, and refuting you soundly as you dodge, weasel dodge, the bullet? After removal, when the case goes to the court for hearing, the DJO attends the hearing. Yep. Are you not the one that claimed the DJO was an agent used to keep the court out of the loop? Then why are you posting the the DJO actually attends a hearing? In fact how can the court be out of the loop if HEARINGS ARE PART OF THE PROCESS? In rural counties, the DJO actually represents the state and takes on the role of a county attorney during the initial hearings. Astounding, since they are not members of the bar. One has to be a member of the bar to be an officer of the court? You are dancing, Doug. Just dancing. I can recall when some civil magistrates, with powers up to and including findings of guilt and imposing fines, even public service fines, were not required to be members of the bar either. In fact some years ago I spent many hours with a retired magistrate teaching him basic computer skills, at his home, and was surprised at his answer when I asked where he had gone to law school. And if he had had bar membership (my obvious next question) in the state where he served. No, he had not. It had become only a recent requirement. That was about 1997 or 98. And I have heard rumors that one can be an "non-judicial" officer of the court as well. How about finding transcripts of such cases and posting them here. I'll bet you are bluffing and that it would be rare anomaly. Once again, however, your pasted comments from the St Louis Juvenile Court Improvement Project do not in the slightest dispute my statement that DJO's many times sign the "court orders" for removal of children. Where did I dispute they did. I dispute that is intended to circumvent court involvement, as YOU claimed. And that is is counter to the intent of the legislature, and in violation of law and policy. All issues you have carefully avoided responding to. Repeatedly. Just as in other of our debates. Though I'd hardly call what you do a debate or ethical argument. In other words they are not informing they court, (contrary to your claim the court is kept out of the loop) they are required to APPEAR in court themselves for the dispositional hearing of any child removed by them, or by the police, who must keep them informed. Yes, after removal, the DJO plays an active role in the case throughout. Yep. So how's he or she keeping the court out of the loop, and how does his action signing for the removal "fly in the face" of legislative intent, the law, and policy? I'm waaaiting. They appear in court -- often, as I have explained, taking on the role of an attorney representing the state in rural counties. How often? Is that illegal? Please explain and show statute related. Must the representative of the state by an attorney, or even an officer of the court? Where does the law say that? They are part of the mix, the child protection team, made up of DFS workers, GAL, and CASA. They are required to work alongside them WITH THE COURT. You are lying again. Only a few counties in Missouri have CASA. In those counties that do, a CASA volunteer may participate in the case throughout. DJO's are involved in the case throughout its duration. While GAL's are not always appointed, they also are involved in the team when they are appointed. As you know Doug, that was included to show that the situation does NOT amount to keeping the court out of the loop, or in anyway a violation of law, or legislative intent, or policy. They, the DJO, are required if those people are present, to work with them, under the court's control, which of course shows the COURT IS NOT KEPT OUT OF THE LOOP. Your claims are bogus, and you are a liar to continue to pursue them by avoidance of discussing them while nitpicking any other thing you find on the page. Again, this statement does not in any way dispute, challenge, or make my statement that DJO's sign court orders for removal a lie. And where did I claim the DJO didn't sign the court order for removal? I did claim, however, that your claim, your accusation actually, that they are used to circumvent the court, and violate the intent of the legislature, the law, and CPS policy in MO is a mistake. It has now become an elaborate LIE on your part by avoidance of the rebuttal I offered. You are arguing nothing in that context. Show us where the use of the DJO violates law, policy, or legislative intent. Stop running and dodging. You do it so smoothly though, and with lots of butter for your unsuspecting reader, I notice. Liar. LOL! Show me. Okay. From the top of this post, from your attributed remarks: " Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." I challenged that statement, nothing else. I never said that DJOs don't sign, a point you keep babbling about as though I had. How unethical you are. Show us how it is "quasi-extralegal" and please define the term first. Show us how the judges are kept out of the loop. And do NOT try to claim they don't get in until afterward. Police officers, CPS workers in some states, and obviously this functionary, the DJO, is a duly appointed person acting under the control of the court, on the court's behalf. And this is a legal, NOT a "quasi" at all. procedure in yours and other states. Stop pretending you don't live in MO. So far, nothing you have posted challenges the statement I made and you left intact. No, you have NOT even addressed what I did. You keep answering or responding to claims you make up and assign to me while avoiding the ones I actually did make. I want to see the proof for your opening statement end of paragraph claims concerning "and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." You may begin in topic any time you like. The rest is window dressing you are adding that do NOT address my question and demand that you prove what you say. You continue to respond without contradicting what I have said. No, you keep posting commentary that YOU claim or insinuate I have said that I have not. Show me where I claimed DJOs don't sign for removals. I have not done that. I have asked you to justify your lying claim about their INTENT in doing so. And their process being for the purpose of keeping the judge out of the loop, the law violated, and policy ignored. Where's the beef? This is what I said again. It is the truth. It is not a lie. It was the truth in 1990 and it is the truth today. "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." I made argument, not one about anything before this statement: "and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountability and keep judges out of the loop." That is not the truth, and I want proofs from you that it is, or you are attempting to foist a factually wrong claim on the reader and me. And since you continue to ignore it, you are then lying by design and fancy footwork. " ... The JCIP timeframes for hearings were designed to bring together the child welfare and judicial processes in the following fashion. Within twenty-four hours of the child’s placement, a DFS case manager is assigned to the case and is to contact the child and parents. The first family support team meeting is held within 72 hours of removal, in order to begin assessing the needs of the child and family, including the need for continued out-of-home placement. ... " The Juvenile Court Improvement Project (JCIP) in the City of St. Louis has a number of time frames unique to that project I am sure. The citizens of that city certainly needed a court improvement project. However, the JCIP timeframes in St. Louis do not in the slightest address the statement I made that you call a lie. That statement stands unchallenged as the truth. Within the report there are references to people's roles, and the timelines and procedure that MUST be followed statewide because they are law, both federal and state. I presume practice and policy must needs follow there for. If they do NOT and the DJOs are being used to deliberately, as you claim, circumvent the judge, and the law, and policy, then I want some proof that is so. Since the judge holds the hearing within 72 hours, and that is now the law in MO, and presumably the DJO is a legally constituted job in MO and is legally assigned to the court (the other, higher profile job of DJOs is in juvenile offender and justice proceedings) then you have one hell of a job to do to find proof of this claim of law breaking, quasi legal, violations etc. But I wish to see it and charge you with being either mistaken or lying. Given that you have gone to great trouble to avoid answering my challenge and have invented challenges I did not make, I count you as a liar, sir. That IS how liars operate in argument and discussion. You are a weasel. Your attention is directed to the phrase: "...designed to bring together the child welfare and judicial processes..." Yes, in the JCIP in St. Louis, within 72 hours after removal. Consider my attention duly drawn to that statement and my notice to you that it does not address in the slightest way my statement to which you claim to respond. How would the court be out of loop if the DJO is assigned to his or her job with the court, by the DJO agency, and there must be an appearance within 72 hours for a dispositional hearing WITH THE COURT, PRESUMABLY WITH A JUDGE SITTING? That's NOT out of the loop, Doug. It is most decidedly within the loop, and I presume within the law, and within policy, and within legislative intent. YOU claimed a violation of the latter three, and the intent of the first, and you have provided NO proof, and avoided responding to my point by pretending and even making up OTHER points out of other commentary here that was no more than corroboration of conditions that refute your claim above. Court's kept out of the loop by the design and artifice of the authority of the DJO? I don't think so, liar! Here is my statement again: "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." Is the court kept out of the loop when the decision is made to remove and the pickup order signed by the DJO. Yep. That is the truth. Your statement refers to the court's involvement after removal. Doug. You are hairsplitting. You did NOT say before the hearing. You said, with NO time line, and anyone can look up a few inches and see it plain, that there as NO hearing. "without hearing." What court of any kind holds a hearing BEFORE the "perp" is engaged by enforcement agents? You described a normal procedure and went on to claim it was a "quasi-extralegal process." That is flew in the face of law, policy, and legislative intent. I'm simply NOT going to take your word on that. Show us the law, show us the policy, find some record of legislative intent you can share with us that we can verify without having to fly to MO and put up in a hotel for ten days running down whoever in the legislature expressed intent that is NOT consistent with the use of the DJO as you described it. I'd like a bit of proof beyond your insinuation. I tire of them. You are good at them. Practiced at them. But they are not true because they are 'pretty' and cleverly formed to split hairs and avoid the facts and the truth. You must show concrete proof, or we can recognize that you are bluffing and insinuating, not providing good sound useful and accurate information. Consider Doug, our posts are dated in November 2005. This cited and quoted report is dated June 2003. Yes, that's when the Juvenile Court Improvement Project in St. Louis was reported on. However, I was talking about the practice in Missouri in securing a pick up order for the removal of children by CD workers. That practice was in place in 1990, 1991, 1992,1993,1994,1195,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001, 2002,2003,2004 and 2005. And I said otherwise? Where? You are arguing on a bias that carries you, and I'd guess you are hopeful the reader as well, away from what I actually put to you as a challenge. It was only one or two phrases, not all this handy chaff you throw up to avoid exposure. That is why I KNOW you are lying. You could not be that far behind in your own home state. Or could you? LOL! You clearly don't know what you think you know. You are quoting a report about a court improvement project in one city of Missouri that does not address my statement in the slightest and claiming it makes my statement a lie. LOL! I do that. And it shows clearly you do not know what your are talking about or you are lying about it. The content of that document shows standard procedures, law, policy reflected in actions described concerning the DJO, and the courts. It is not offered to defend the current or past practice of MO DCF, but to show that those few points YOU made are simply not true. You are requested to show proof of your claims of deliberate use of DJOs to put judges out of the loop, circumvent law, and policy, and avoid the legislative intent of those in the MO statehouse. I'm waiting for something other than you bogus but cleverly worded insinuations. Do I think I get proof from you? No, but it would be a refreshing change. Do you mislead out of ignorance, or out of malicious intent? Are you still beating your wife? No, as I never beat her. I did throw my second wife into a snow drift once during an argument. Went with here, we both got over it, and made out like crazy. Your avoidance bull**** is duly noted. Do you mislead out of what looks to me like ignorance or malicious intent, or is there some other agenda you are concealing? I could easily and honestly answer your question and even elaborate transparently about myself. What am I going to get from you, another dodge? Even your claims of parents being left out of the proceedings is bogus. " ... Under the DFS Family-Centered Out-of-Home project (FCOH), a joint meeting of the initial members of the family support team (FST)—a DFS worker, the parents and relatives, a deputy juvenile officer, and other individuals involved with the family—is required within 72 hours of protective custody, where the purpose and possible consequences of protective custody are explained to parents. (As noted in Chapter 3, the current practice in the City of St. Louis is to hold such meetings immediately after the protective custody hearing.) ... " Here is my statement to which you reply in this post once again: "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." You have in prior postings for over a very long time quoted others, and made claims yourself that clients are deliberately left out of proceedings. Stop dodging. For over two years now, Doug, even the semi true claim you make against MO has NOT been the case. I believe you know that already, and counted on others not knowing how to find the correct information. But that's old news for you in this ng. It's your nearly constant modus operandi. What makes you think that the snips from the Court Improvement Project in St. Louis are anything new in Missouri? I don't. I think much of what they did around 2002 was in fact old hat in many states. Already in pilot in many places, and instituted fully in others. I watched it take place, so it's real hard to lie to me, Doug, even if others who didn't watch can be more easily fooled. I wouldn't' bet on it though. A little bit of you goes a long way to someone that is objective and critical in their thinking. Your snippets certainly don't address the ongoing practice of DJO's signing pick up orders prior to removal that I was talking about. I'm sorry for you. You have to lie to yourself to do this, don't you? That's so neurotic I can hardly believe someone in your profession would allow themselves that little fit of nonsense. I did not argue they don't, but that your claim for why is insinuation and no proof that it's true. And the procedures followed by the various parties after removal as described in the snippets are pretty much the practices followed for the last decade. Yep. I said that myself, and that is why, those very practices, I want proof that some of them, specifically the use of the DJO for signing for removal, is done without judicial knowledge, to keep the judge out of the loop, to "fly in the face" of the law, policy, and legislative intent, as YOU claim and I challenge. By the way, you know perfectly well you are lying in another post when you claim that I have an investment in the current Foster Care system. I have posted before concerning the changes I wished to see. You are lying again. I said that you were invested in defending the present foster care system, yes. I am not. That is my opinion of your responses to the research criticizing its practice. What changes would you like to see to the current foster care system? I would like to see more training and support (costly at that) for foster parents. Respite, vacations, more clothing allowance for the children, more money from the citizens to provide more transition support to those leaving the system by their majority, (it's not CPS withholding from that activity), better educated foster parents overall, about half again the stipend for supporting the foster child so that their very expensive activities are met (foster children tend to be highly destructive of the home and of their own possessions), and something done to whip ass on you you liar when you claim that they kill and or injure at a higher rate than abusive parents, who you lump in with the larger general population to cook the numbers. Give me a couple of days, I might come up with more. I have, you of poor memory, or a propensity to lie by misleading and insinuation, posted such reforms before. It is consistent with the Pew report, and federal findings. Nothing really new here, except the reference to you. Though I believe I may have mentioned your ugly vicious destructive tactics in other contexts in the past. 0:- Remember any readers that have swallowed Doug's nonsense, that all cited information is now nearly 2.5 years old, and obviously much of it could not have been reported unless it was in fact in place PRIOR to the date of the report...so it is actually older. The cited information, which reports on situations other than what my statement concerned, illustrates procedures in place long before 2003. Yep. Nonetheless, they do not address the real reform efforts made in Missouri. We were discussing, for now, a very small subset...the reforming of the part of the system that uses DJOs, as YOU claim, and I want proof of, to keep judges out of the loop, "fly in the face of" policy, law, and legislative intent. And I going to get that proof from you, or am I going to get an admission that you are guessing and insinuating, or that you were simply carried away by your passion for CPS and foster bashing and let out a little excessive bull****? Those were initiated by child advocates, families and concerned citizens and implimented during the past few years by the Missouri legislature. That's nice. Where in my argument did I bring that up, or attempt to argue against it? You have made a kind of hobby out of creating intent on my part that does not in fact exist. You pretend that I have not, from my first days debating you, come down strongly against some shortcomings of CPS. Shortcomings experts agree with ME on. I don't bring them up to often because YOUR habit of endlessly droning the same crappola isn't something I'd want the reader to associate me with. The legislature attempted to deal with the problem of DJO's signing court orders prior to removal, PROOF required. That is a claim. Claims are not proof. Where do you get off? Considering your history here, it's an obligation for you to provide proof of such outlandish claims. It may BE the problem you claim and it may be something entirely different for the legislature. Did they say it went against their intent? I want to see transcripts. Did in fact such actions leave the judge out of the loop? Not according to what I have cited here. The judge is part of the same court process the DJO is, as assigned to the court, and sees everything within 72 hours. That's NOT out of the loop, and it's standard procedure in judicial and enforcement proceedings in any such matters, or any other similar matters. but this particular clause was taken out of the last reform measure by a joint House/Senate committee. It will be reintroduced this year. Provide us with the clause. I want to see the wording and see if it addresses, violation of law, as you claimed, and of policy, and of legislative intent. Referring to the post judicial hearings meetings that immediately follow the court hearing on disposition of the removed child and their family: " ... These comments must be seen in the context of the initial FST meetings that followed the PCH in which the outcomes of the hearing could be discussed and clarified. The parents learn that removal and placement is a legal process, not the whim of DFS, that a review of matters that led to the removal of their children is underway, and that they have a voice in the proceedings. Most importantly from the parents’ standpoint, they learn about the strict 12-month timeframe for permanency decisions. On the other side, the individuals who will be dealing with the family on an ongoing basis are present and have the opportunity to learn the strengths, deficiencies, and needs of the parents and children in cases. ... " Again, this does not address my statement, to which you claim to be replying. No, it does not address what YOU made up and claimed was what I was replying to. I was replying only to your claim the DJOs are used to leaven judges out of the loop, and to violate the law, and policy, and the intent of the legislature. It DOES address that. The cited paragraph makes plain that some of the duties of the DJO include this court involved activity and adherence to points of law, such as the 12 month permanency decision. In other words, the DJO is on board with the court and DCF from the get go. There is a point that comes when they are not, but the evidence goes to the lack of credibility in your claim: "flies in the face." If you read the report at, http://www.iarstl.org/papers/JCIPSLC.pdf, and are objective and logical you will note that DJOs are not described as arriving to remove a child UNLESS DFS informs them of their investigation and THEIR decision that removal is warranted. Even a cop much notify the DJO. The DJO does not usually arrive to remove the child. I just said that. The point made by me is in the part where the court is involved and you deny it. By playing with splitting hairs. The CD (DFS) workers usually physically remove the child on legal authority of the "court order" signed by the DJO. Yep. You see me argue that doesn't happen, or did you see me, and run like a dog, claim that you haven't provided proof the judge is out of the loop, the law is being violated, policy is being circumvented, and the intent of the legislature is being ignored.? Anything but the actual points being discussed, Doug. That IS how you argue endlessly to tire and distract the reader from what a scumbag you actually are. Secondly, the "decision" by CD to remove is not a binding decision at all, but CD's reccomendation. Please point out where I argued that it was a binding decision, or argued in any context about CD actions. The DJO decides whether the CD has probable cause for the removal and makes the decision by signing the court order. Endless repetition of what has not been argued. Do you know that was one of the most common techniques of North Korean and Chinese Communist warders of POWS during brain washing? What ever was logical was always avoided. Such tactics dulls the victims thinking, bores them into submission. Eventually even very bright people simply tire. My bet is no one but I have read this far at this point...unless of course, they are catching on to you and want to see just how far you'll go. And the DJO knows that there WILL be a dispositional hearing in court. Hardly consistent with the claim that the court is deliberately kept out of the loop by the use of a DJO for effecting the physical act of removal. Yes, the DJO does not that there will be a hearing in court after the child is removed. Yep. And leaves the judge out of the loop how again? At that hearing, the judge many times decides that the removal was wrongful and returns the child. Yep. And you wish to reform this how again? However, the judge often does not have a hand in the court order effecting the removal, which, of course, is what I was talking about in my statement. You are stupid or a liar. This time I'm betting on the latter. The DJO acts on the authority of the judge. The judge knows that cases, every single one where a removal occurs, are going to show up within 72 hours in their court. He or she is NOT out of the loop on the removal. Nor more than a criminal court judge would be seeing his docket for the first time that day. A cop arrested a perp on probable cause. The perp and the cop show up in front of the judge. Ho hum. That is all that is happening here, or do you think the cop is keeping the judge out of the loop because he didn't ask for a hearing first, before the arrest? The nature of time precludes them doing so in many instances. People don't get reported for abuse during the 8 to five time frame all that often. In fact cops come across kids all hours of the night, day, weekends, and holidays. That IS why there is a process for cop, or in this instance, DJO to make the call and have it vetted, validated, or dumped by the court within that 72 hour requirement. You want more than probable cause before intervention Doug. Your same old dance, new tune. I expect it about once a week. I hope the holiday is what delayed you bit and you had a good time. He's lying, AGAIN. No lie. It is the truth. Here is the statement again. "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order ... I have made NO argument, claim, or challenge concerning anything above this point in the comment you made. Yet YOU wish to argue as though I had, making up my "challenge" to it as you meander along on your muddy little path. My challenge was, is, and will continue to be with the following: ... and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." Prove to use the judge has no knowledge the DJO performs this assignment of the court. Prove to us that there are any procedures in criminal or civil (family court) where a hearing must be held before arrest (criminal proceedings)or removal (civil family court child protection proceedings), or that this process is being used, as you claim, to keep judges out of the loop, is quasi-extralegal, is done to reduce accountability (whose?), and is for the purpose of circumventing the law, policy and legislative intent, and is all "intentional." The reforms he likes to threaten with his ****-assed "it won't be long now," have already been instituted. Long ago. Yes, a great deal of CPS reform has been made in the Missouri legislature during the past few years and the movement continues. Yep, so why end your bull**** with. "it won't be long now?" Other than for effect? An appeal to emotion, rather than to reason? None of those legislative reforms are reflected in the report from the Juvenile Court Improvement Project in one of its cities. The reform effort continues and new legislation will be introduced in Jefferson City this February. That's great. Now all you have to do is come up with the reform showing it is in the area ONLY where I challenged you, since I agree with most reforms, and disagree ONLY with where you lie. Tell us, what reforms specifically are to stop the illegal actions of DJOs, with their intentional violation of law, policy, and legislative intent? You've got to deal with that vicious claim that they are acting illegally with intent, Doug. Stop spitting hairs, and stop your dancing, and stop your avoidance. You have actually claimed they are breaking the law. You just very carefully weasel worded it in hopes no one in decision making in your state saw your post and got that you were so accusing. I see it. Anyone that can think critically can see it. You said they intentionally broke the law, intentionally violated policy, and intentionally violated legislative intent. Let's get real here. I want proof they did that. If you were to be heard in the up coming proceedings saying those things, someone there that can think beyond our callous and vicious slyness might well ask the same question. Were is your proof of the DJOs criminal intent and activities? It won't be long, now. It might be sooner than you think. I might contact the MO legislature about you and let them read your rantings and figure you out for themselves. And I might not. You get to guess. But you can be sure if I am asked for proof, I have hundreds of your posts, and my challenges and replies to provide. YOU, when asked simply to provide proof of the claim of law breaking, policy violation, and intentionally leaving the judge out of the loop. This would be very hard to explain, wouldn't it, to a DJO and the court he is assigned to, and the legislature you claim his in intentionally violating their desires? "It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." You like lively debate, don't you Doug? Well, learn to live with what you actually say. This world is not invisible to the outside world. What you make up about what I say is easily challenged. Want to play? Give us the proof of what you claim about the DJO program and by golly I'll back off. But not unless you can provide supportable proof. It won't be very long now, will it 0:-? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Disinformation feed responded, now let's get to the truth..... Info please ...
Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is
the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop. There were no "lies" in the remainder of the post that you snipped or in the statement above, that you left intact. Kane responds: Sure there are. A veritable pack of them. And colorfully diverse. Flat out misinformation type, evasions out the ying yang, misleading, weasel wording, oversimplifying, equivocating by claiming I make arguments I did not make. Your a talented phenomena. I've met few that could lie with the equinamity you manage. It is one paragraph, the one appearing above. It is the single paragraph that you quoted and replied to previously with a longwinded narrative, citation and quotation of material that never once addressed the items in the paragraph. The paragraph clearly deals with one process and one process only . . . "....Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without knowledge of the presidng judge." The paragraph refers to the involvement of the judge in the decision making leading to issuing a pick up order. This procedure happens before removal, obviously. After removal, as I have repeatedly stated in my previous posts, a judge does become involved at the time of post-removal hearing. You lied about the majority of cases, and about the use to circumvent or leave the court out of the loop. Nope. If the DJO signs the "court order" without the judge's involvement, the judge is out of the loop in issuing that order. Before a child is removed in Missouri, a court order must be issued -- called by caseworkers a "pick up order". This court order, in the majority of cases, is signed not by a judge but by the Deputy Juvenile Officer (DJO). I did not argue this point. Why are you pretending I did? Because you got caught again in a misleading lie? LOL! No, because you spent 16k worth of type in your response to that single paragraph. That paragraph clearly makes just the point you now say you are in agreement with. You are simply, among other things, building up a wave of boring diversions, in the repetitive extreme, to drive off the few that might be interested, so that you can hope to carry out your lies unexposed. I hope they are not so bored that they won't stick around and watch me spank your lying ass soundly. With facts, and with uncovering your trickery. LOL! You may want to read my paragraph again. I can understand how you could have misinterpreted it the first time, but I have cut and pasted it a number of times in my latter post. It refers to the procedures followed in obtaining a "court order" for removal, not the process that follows. That is a fact. And it remains a fact. It was a fact in 1990. It was a fact in 2003. And it is a fact today. See above. Not argued. You are right. Never said you weren't. Good. Then we have no argument. You are lying through your teeth when you attempt this artifice of DJOs in MO operating, in the majority of cases, without court involvement. That is a flat out lie. Here is my statement again. "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." The lie begins, since I did not argue concerning the other things you mention, at "in the majority of cases." Okay, lets take a look at the segment of the paragraph beginning with "in the majority of cases. "...In the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and *this* procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. *It* is a quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountability and keep judges out of the loop." 1) Nothing in this partial quote refers to the process after removal. It all refers to the procedure done to obtain a court order for removal. This procedure, ending with a signed "court order" is obviously done before removal. 2) I have placed astericks around the terms used to address the only procedure talked about in the entire quote. First of all, if you are referring to the presiding judge for the juvenile court system, that is disingenuous pap. I am not referring to the presiding judge for the juvenile court system. I don't even know if there is such a critter. I was referring to the circuit judge that hears the cases. Except in large metropolitan cities in Missouri, there really isn't a "juvenile judge." The judge for the district hears many different types of cases (except probate). When she or he hears a family court matter, he simply puts on a different hat, if you will. The procedures are different in juvenile matters, not the personnel. (except probate). They regularly are concerned with the administration of the system, not the case by case content unless some irregularity or are asked for help brings it to their attention. They sit in authority over the judges that make up their particular bailiwick. What you wanted people to assume and miss the reality of, is that there IS a judge that will be involved with every single case where removal is done and the DJO is responsible to him or her and must appear in front of him or her in the course of the dependency or dispositional hearing. As I have written myself repeatedly, a judge is involved in some aspects of the case after removal. He or she is certainly the tryer of fact in hearings. But that does not address what I was talking about in the paragraph to which you respond or in the partial quote you say is a lie. Both deal exclusively with the involvement of the judge in deciding to issue a "court order" for removal. That procedure, obviously, unfolds before removal. If the DJO signs that order, and the judge is unaware of the facts presented in support of the order, the judge is out of the loop in issuing that order. The fact you are a lying word spinning cheat does not diminish in any way that you are a liar. That you call the paragraph a lie and its construction word spinning is the very point I am hoping gets across in this thread. It gives everyone a clear idea of what you mean by lies, cheats, and word spinning. In other incidences when you make these charges, it is not as easy to detect their basis. Prior to the removal of the child by DFS, a court order must be secured. This "court order" is usually signed by the DJO on the line reserved for the judge. The judge does not, as was intended by the legislature, hear ex parte arguments showing probable cause for the removal and then make the decision. Instead, the DJO makes this determination and signs the order. Usually, the DJO will make the comment below his/her signature, "judge not available." What nonsense. That is what police do as well. Then the case appears before the judge. Not just in juvenile court, but in any system of enforcement. No. If police need a search warrant, or an arrest warrant, they do not sign the search warrant in leiu of talking to the judge. To obtain those warrants, they need to argue their case to a judge with supporting probable cause. "No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." You may be familiar with that language. This is the practice. And, as 127 points out, the practice in this state seems to fly in the face of the statutory requirements, legislative intent of the laws, and published policy. It does no such thing. The actions of the DJO are by policy, which should be by both law and legislative intent. Show the law and legislative INTENT if you wish to make such claims, Doug the Liar. You say it's not, but you fail to PROVE it's not. Well, lets not get ahead of ourselves. I am still trying to respond to your rebuttal of a single paragraph I wrote. We have both spent a great deal of text trying to clarify this. After we do, maybe we can move on to bigger and better things . . . like arguing paragraph two. g You'll see in this document that the current function of the DJO is not only accepted but they are key element of the team, and they operate under policy guidelines. And this even goes to TPR waaay beyond the removal stage. Yes, but the document does not address in any way what I said in the paragraph to which you are responding. In that paragraph, I was talking about the procedures carried out to obtain a court order for removal, not the countless other processes that follow, including TPR. http://www.iarstl.org/papers/JCIPReport.pdf So give us your proof the legislative intent proscribed the use of DJO as currently utilized was something different. Try to find statute. Show us the policy items you appear to be saying are violated, as in "fly in the face of." The intent of the legislature in requiring a "court order" for removal was that a judge would sign the order after finding there was probable cause for the removal. Where's the beef, Doug? 0:- Right in that very first paragraph you are having so many problems with. We are in the process of deboning it for you, sir. g Nothing you have posted contradicts in the slightest my statement above, that prior to removal, a "court order" for removal is usually signed by the DJO in leiu of the judge and without involvement of the court at this stage. You are lying yet again. You said very plainly this is used to keep the judge out of the loop. As in, " It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." Yes, when the DJO signs the "court order" for removal and the judge knows nothing of the facts of the case, the judge is out of the loop at that point. That is difficult to reconcile with the posted material I provided that shows the court indeed is involved in the removals by making a judgment about them within 2 days of said action by the DJO ASSIGNED TO THEIR COURT. Not hard to reconcile at all, since the material you posted explained the judges involvement in the process AFTER removal. That is why your cited material does not address what I was talking about in the paragraph, which is the procedure of obtaining a court order BEFORE removal. You have lied about the state making services a barrier to parents: I have joined other members of this newsgroup in saying that "services" and the time they require are often a barrier to parents, yes. That is not a lie. It is the truth. It is a lie. The services are rarely factually more than the family can handle and indeed accommodations for many of them are to fit the family's schedule. Contracts with providers often include wording that they will accommodate by holding their meetings on weekends, evenings, and even holidays. We disagree. Legions of child welfare experts, researchers, advocates, foster caregivers, members of this newsgroup, and parents themselves disagree with you as well. They agree with me that services and the times they are offered are often a barrier to parents -- especially low-income parents who are struggling to keep their job or multiple jobs. Many researchers and advocates have said that the way these services are scheduled and their substance sets the parents up to fail. No lies, Kane. Just differences of opinion. Spokespeople for both positions are well qualified. Neither are liars. You are lying. I've read those contracts, I've attended such events with kin and their client relatives on Saturdays, Sundays, and evenings as late running as late as 10 and 11 o'clock if need be to accommodate the client. I hope you understand that I am not interested in stories about your personal experiences. I am a bit overloaded. I have heard you speak of killing rabbits and paralizing criminals with a single shout, watching police officers vomit in bushes and restrooms, developing interragation techniques for detectives, walking through international airports with a briefcase handcuffed to your wrist, collecting consulation fees from CPS workers for advising them their young clients did not need 3 psychiatrists, breaking the jaws of kids who bullied you as a child, etc, etc. I have listened to the arguments for overtime by workers who had to set up meetings to allow clients to meet at the client's convenience at all hours. I've never been to a 4 am meeting but I've heard of one. So the client could make it to work later and not have to come in in the late afternoon tired. Yer a sick ****. Well, my response to the stories hasn't gotten that bad. Or do you mean that to disagree with you is a sickness? What I have also heard is even more of what workers said in my quotation, directly from the mouths of clients myself, talking with their kin who had the children in care, defiantly refusing to accept services including drug rehab, psychological counseling, job search assistance. They just don't wanna, and they were already unemployed. Well, what I was talking about in particular was impoverished parents who were sometimes working two jobs to support their families and may find attending therapy, and parenting classes two days a week difficult. And when they object to these services being mandated as a condition for getting their children out of state custody, they may find the anger management classes a little frustrating. I am sure CPS runs into clients who fit into either of our categories. It's common to CPS cases, there and everywhere I've been. And obviously to the workers quoted. It's more often the professionals that are hard pressed to make the meetings given their workload, as below. While the family is just interested in being late for the dart game at the tavern. Yer a liar. Hmm. I thought state workers worked 8-5. I know that's when the meetings are held. Sometimes, clients work 8-5, too. I wonder which one has to take off work and risk losing their jobs to attend the meetings? That, Doug the Liar, is an accommodation. You claim they do not accommodate. It Does counter your bull****, because YOUR reports come from sources that are clients self reporting. Do you think the are going to gush over having to/. go to any meeting or service delivery at any time when they discuss it with anyone not in the loop that could check their claims? Your opinion, which differs from many child welfare professionals and others who have drawn different conclusions from talking to many different sources, does not "counter" those differing opinions. My sources of information for my opinion are many other than parents, including the research available in the literature. I said you lied about the judicial process, and you did. You claimed that the DJO action was used deliberately to keep the judge out of the loop. In particular, ""...In the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and *this* procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. *It* is a quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountability and keep judges out of the loop." You cannot defend that and I can refute it by citing the quote above. There is a court process precisely for addressing the things you claim are avoided, and that is proved by the citation above. Among other things. The court process referred to in the cited material happens after the removal, as your source and you clearly explain. My quote above refers to the process in obtaining a "court order" for a removal, which of course, plays out before the child is removed. Neither you or the report on the Juvenile Court Improvement Project in St. Louis respond to my statement. These hearings follow removal and should occur within 72 hours of that removal. They do. You claimed the court is not part of the process, by design. And that is against the law, the legislative intent, and policy. You've proved none of those. No, I just said above that the court is involved in the process (hearings) after the removal. So, obviously I did NOT claim that the court was not part of that process. What I DID claim was that in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and for removal and that this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. Again, again, again, my claim was about the procedures for obtaining a "court order" for removal of a child and that this process is often done without the involvement of the judge. This does not address in the slightest way the statement I made concerning the procedure used to secure a "court order" for the removal of the child in the first place or who signs that order. Here is the statement to which you reply again. It is the truth. It is not a lie. "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." It is a lie. The DJO pickup process cannot conceal from or hold the judge out of the loop as other processes, and the authority go to and derive from the court. You are a liar. If the judge knows nothing of the facts of the case presented as basis for probable cause and the DJO signs the order, then the judge is out of the loop at that point. That requires a court order, which in reality is usually an order signed by the DJO and not a judge. The common practice is this: Did you see me argue this one way or another? ....Yes. You spent a whole post arguing what I said in the single paragraph, which was essentially just that. Is it relevant to my claim that you are lying and to the material I cited from MO sources in rebuttal? No, it is not relevant to your claim because I was not lying and because the material you cited did not address in any way the process I discussed in the paragraph, let alone rebute it. The answer, of course, is "no" and "no," and I see it is nothing more than yet another of your weasel tactics to slip away from the actual issue....the claim by you that the process of using the DJO as currently done is to avoid having the judge in the loop. If the judge knows nothing of the facts of the case presented as basis for probable cause and the DJO makes the decision to remove unilaterally by signing the "court order," then the judge is obviously out of the loop at that point in time. Your OWN WORDS today show that to be wrong. You cannot weasel out of your lie or mistake, which ever it was, and your continued denial it was a mistake, makes it a lie. Not at all. My own words in this post that a judge is involved in hearings AFTER the removal does not in any way show that my statement that the judge is often not involved in signing the order for removal BEFORE removal is wrong. The statement stands as correct. 1) CD worker (as the result of an CAN investigation or assessment) makes a request for removal to the DJO I've read more of this than you. 2) The DJO finds "probable cause" and signs a "court order" for removal; That's right. Just like a police officer would do, or if the DCF where charged with this duty as they are in some other states, the worker. They must, ALL OF THEM, however, appear, as in all such cases, criminal or civil, appear before a judge if they remove the child, and prove their probable cause. MO is no different. AFTER the child is removed, the judge becomes involved as I have said. (Although the burden of proof at this point is preponderance of the evidence, not probable cause). But that is not what my statement in the paragraph we have discussed for three posts now referred to. That statement referred to the process of who decides whether there is probable cause for a "court order" for removal and who usually signs that order before the removal takes place. The statement was that the DJO signs the order in many cases and that the judge is out of the loop at that time. So tell us how the court or judge is kept out of the loop please? ....By not hearing anything about the facts supporting probable cause before the child is actually removed from her home. By not making the decision about whether their is probable cause and by not being around to sign the order. That's how he is out of the loop. Statute requires they be IN the loop and current practice is within two days. Within two days of what? Within two days AFTER the child is actually removed from her home? (Actually, the requirement is 72 hours and has been for many years). If so, you do not address my statement. My statement concerned the process of obtaining a court order to remove the child, which occurs, obviously BEFORE the child is removed. Do we need to look at the statement again? "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." You provided a lot of characters to print to my screen, but you have provided NO proofs or even logical argument for your claim, as yet. Yet again, however, your posted exerpt does not in any way challenge my statement that the DJO, without involvement of the court, commonly signs the pick up order prior to removal of the child. I did not claim that the DJO didn't sign without involvement of the court. A police officer can arrest without the involvement of the court on probable cause. That is the DJO authority. The Missouri legislature, by statute, requires a court order to empower Children's Division to remove children from their homes. Like an LEO, however, he or she must present to the court. What you are asking is that all cases have MORE than probable cause to remove, apparently. Nope, just probable cause. "No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Yer scum. LOL! You are truly ignorant and stupid. LOL! You claimed that the major function of using the DJO removal sign off was to keep the judge out of the loop. As I said, and you have NOT so far responded to, that would be hard to do considering they are assigned their duties BY the court, and they must appear IN the court at the disposition hearing. WHO holds a dispositional hearing, Doug? WHO? WHEN is the dispositional hearing held, Kane? AFTER the child has been removed from her home? This does not address my statement, which concerned the process of determining probable cause and signing the "court order" for removal. That process plays out, of course, before the child is removed. How is the court out of the loop, and how is this in violation of the intent of the legislature, law, and the policy of CPS, as YOU claimed and is the ONLY issue I am arguing with you, and refuting you soundly as you dodge, weasel dodge, the bullet? If the judge did not hear the arguments supporting probable cause, does not know of the facts of the case before removal, and does not sign the court order for removal, the judge is out of the loop at that time, to summarize once again the paragraph to which you respond. If you want to "refute" the statement, address it. So far, you continue to talk about procedures after the child is removed when the statement confined itself to the process leading to the signing of the removal order, which is done before the removal. After removal, when the case goes to the court for hearing, the DJO attends the hearing. Yep. Are you not the one that claimed the DJO was an agent used to keep the court out of the loop? Then why are you posting the the DJO actually attends a hearing? In fact how can the court be out of the loop if HEARINGS ARE PART OF THE PROCESS? I am the one that claimed that the judge was out of the loop if the DJO unilaterally determined that probable cause existed for a removal and signed the "court order." That the judge becomes part of the loop AFTER the removal does not address, let alone dispute, my claim that the judge was out of the loop at the time the decision to remove was made. So, as you can see, it is understandable that I post that the judge is in the loop after the removal but not in the loop beforehand, when the DJO signs the "court order" for removal BEFORE the removal. From the top of this post, from your attributed remarks: " Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." I challenged that statement, nothing else. I never said that DJOs don't sign, a point you keep babbling about as though I had. How unethical you are. And yet, over and over again, you continue to write about processes after removal, when the selected quote deals exclusively with the process of deciding probable cause and issuing a court order for removal BEFORE actual removal. Show us how it is "quasi-extralegal" and please define the term first. ....Because it is not technically illegal. The legislature intended by requiring a court order and providing a space for a judge to sign, that a judge would hear the showing of probable cause and issue the court order. So far, nothing you have posted challenges the statement I made and you left intact. No, you have NOT even addressed what I did. You keep answering or responding to claims you make up and assign to me while avoiding the ones I actually did make. I am trying to restrict myself to the statement I made and your rebuttal of it in pages of pages of text. In your narrative, you consistantly talk about other processes that occur after the process I was talking about in the paragraph you claimed to be responding to. It is only now that you come to the realization we have been talking about apples and oranges? I want to see the proof for your opening statement end of paragraph claims concerning "and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." Well, to keep the context, lets include the words leading to the quote above, which defines the procedure the sentence is talking about. We will take the section of the quote that you pointed out in the top of your post as the "lie": "Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without knowledge of the presidng judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." See? Context makes a difference, no? You may begin in topic any time you like. The rest is window dressing you are adding that do NOT address my question and demand that you prove what you say. I will try to keep away from the window dressing and restrict myself to the part of my statement quoted above. The proof that the judge is out of the loop when the decision is made that there is probable cause for a removal order and that order signed by the DJO without the judge knowing the facts of the case or making the decision. Pretty simple. It is my opinion that this unilateral action by the DJO is a quasi-legal process because the legislature requires a court order and reasonably expected a judge to hear the argument in support of probable cause and then sign the order. You continue to respond without contradicting what I have said. No, you keep posting commentary that YOU claim or insinuate I have said that I have not. Show me where I claimed DJOs don't sign for removals. Good. We agree. I have not done that. I have asked you to justify your lying claim about their INTENT in doing so. And their process being for the purpose of keeping the judge out of the loop, the law violated, and policy ignored. Law is not violated. I did not say that it was. You did. Policy is not ignored. That is why I did not say in my statement that policy was ignored. But if the judge is not around to hear the facts of the case and does not have anything to do with producing the "court order" for removal, then the judge is clearly out of the loop for that particular process. I made argument, not one about anything before this statement: "and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountability and keep judges out of the loop." Well, I will have to include a few words before it, since they define what the procedure I am talking about is. The type of procedure and when the process occurs is the very crux of the misunderstanding. You somehow missed that the paragraph addresses only that process, which occurs before the child is removed. "Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without knowledge of the presidng judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." Context makes a difference, you see. That is not the truth, and I want proofs from you that it is, or you are attempting to foist a factually wrong claim on the reader and me. And since you continue to ignore it, you are then lying by design and fancy footwork. I have answered above, about six paragraphs ago. If they do NOT and the DJOs are being used to deliberately, as you claim, circumvent the judge, and the law, and policy, then I want some proof that is so. I did not say that the DJO's are being used to deliberately circumvent the judge. That's your claim, not mine. I said that the judge is often out of the loop when the DJO makes the decision there is probable cause and signs the removal order. Where did I ever suggest that this was done to circumvent the judge or that the judge did not know it was happening? I have already answered the subset of your question about law and policy. Since the judge holds the hearing within 72 hours, and that is now the law in MO, and presumably the DJO is a legally constituted job in MO and is legally assigned to the court (the other, higher profile job of DJOs is in juvenile offender and justice proceedings) then you have one hell of a job to do to find proof of this claim of law breaking, quasi legal, violations etc. The hearing is held within 72 hours AFTER the child is removed. As you know, I was talking about the process that occurs before the child is removed. (Why do you say, BTW, that the 72 hour requirement is NOW the law. It has been for years.) That the judge hears the case after removal does not contradict my statement about the process that happens before removal. But I wish to see it and charge you with being either mistaken or lying. Given that you have gone to great trouble to avoid answering my challenge and have invented challenges I did not make, I count you as a liar, sir. That IS how liars operate in argument and discussion. You are a weasel. our attention is directed to the phrase: "...designed to bring together the child welfare and judicial processes..." Yes, in the JCIP in St. Louis, within 72 hours after removal. Consider my attention duly drawn to that statement and my notice to you that it does not address in the slightest way my statement to which you claim to respond. How would the court be out of loop if the DJO is assigned to his or her job with the court, by the DJO agency, and there must be an appearance within 72 hours for a dispositional hearing WITH THE COURT, PRESUMABLY WITH A JUDGE SITTING? BEFORE removal, AFTER removal. My statement addressed only the process that occurs before removal. The judges involvement AFTER removal does not mean he was in the loop before the removal. That's NOT out of the loop, Doug. At the time the DJO solely made the decision probable cause existed and signed the order to remove, which is the process the paragraph addressed, the judge was out of the loop. It is most decidedly within the loop, and I presume within the law, and within policy, and within legislative intent. YOU claimed a violation of the latter three, and the intent of the first, and you have provided NO proof, and avoided responding to my point by pretending and even making up OTHER points out of other commentary here that was no more than corroboration of conditions that refute your claim above. Court's kept out of the loop by the design and artifice of the authority of the DJO? I don't think so, liar! Here is my statement again: "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." Is the court kept out of the loop when the decision is made to remove and the pickup order signed by the DJO. Yep. That is the truth. Your statement refers to the court's involvement after removal. Doug. You are hairsplitting. You did NOT say before the hearing. You said, with NO time line, and anyone can look up a few inches and see it plain, that there as NO hearing. "without hearing." You still haven't read the paragraph? You would think I have repeated it enough. I distinctly addressed in that paragraph only the process of deciding whether to issue a court order for removal and who was involved in signing that order in many cases. Here is the portion of the paragraph we are discussing one more time: "Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without knowledge of the presidng judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." Quite clearly, I am addressing only the procedures of deciding upon and executing a order to remove. Clearly, in a time line, that order to remove comes before the actual removal. 1) Order for removal 2) Removal 3) Hearings after removal. The paragraph to which you have been responding for two posts concerns only item one. You continue to talk about item 3. Apples and oranges. What court of any kind holds a hearing BEFORE the "perp" is engaged by enforcement agents? Oh, geez, let me see, those kind of courts that decide whether there is probable cause to issue a search warrant or an arrest warrant. Do you mislead out of ignorance, or out of malicious intent? Are you still beating your wife? No, as I never beat her. Oh, okay. Then my answer to your question above is, "No, because I never mislead." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Disinformation feed responded, now let's get to the truth.....Info please ...
Doug wrote: Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop. There were no "lies" in the remainder of the post that you snipped or in the statement above, that you left intact. Kane responds: Sure there are. A veritable pack of them. And colorfully diverse. Flat out misinformation type, evasions out the ying yang, misleading, weasel wording, oversimplifying, equivocating by claiming I make arguments I did not make. Your a talented phenomena. I've met few that could lie with the equinamity you manage. It is one paragraph, the one appearing above. It is the single paragraph that you quoted and replied to previously with a longwinded narrative, citation and quotation of material that never once addressed the items in the paragraph. The paragraph clearly deals with one process and one process only . . . No, I addressed the content. In fact it's YOU that tried to claim I addressed something in the paragraph that I did NOT. Because that was not factually incorrect, nor did it need addressing. "....Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without knowledge of the presidng judge." That's one of the lies. It is misleading in that the judge in all cases, criminal or otherwise, unless a warrant has been issued does not have knowledge of cases not as yet presented to the court. I made my point on that and you are avoiding responding to the point I made be reduction to the absurd. It's pointless to hold a hear until an investigation HAS has been made, and in cases where the DJO, and DCF have found reason to remove, the investigation has just started. The paragraph refers to the involvement of the judge in the decision making leading to issuing a pick up order. That's right. Please explain why and how this is done elsewhere and why it should be done here, other than to cripple the process of child protection. In fact if that clumsy requirement were made across the board all enforcement, including criminal, would be entirely crippled. One investigates, THEN presents the evidence for hearing, you smarmy jackass. This procedure happens before removal, obviously. Yes. And you did not see me argue otherwise. After removal, as I have repeatedly stated in my previous posts, a judge does become involved at the time of post-removal hearing. "A judge" is legally involved in the process exactly as they are in criminal cases using LEOs. In these cases, the DJO. Each serves the court. You know it. I know it. The legislators know it, if they aren't being lied to and manipulated by scum such as you. That makes the judge "in the loop," not out of it. Would you require everyone to be present at the phone line when the call comes in? DCF, DJO, and the judge, all to decide whether or not to go out on the call? And YOU, of course, regardless of what the DCF investigator/worker found, and brought to the attention of the DJO, would require they leave without the child, right? Until they took what they found to the judge. Right? You stupid vicious little child hating *******. You lied about the majority of cases, and about the use to circumvent or leave the court out of the loop. Nope. If the DJO signs the "court order" without the judge's involvement, the judge is out of the loop in issuing that order. If a cop removes a child, or arrests someone without first notifying the court and having a hearing or other judicial face to face exchange then he would fit the same criteria you are asking for. There is no difference in the actions of a police officer doing his job, and THEN presenting his evidence (with a perp locked up for safe keeping if the case warrants from the COPS judgement) to the court, than the DCF and DJO doing their's and THEN presenting their evidence to the court with the child in temporary out of home care. You are a child hating monster as far as I can see. Before a child is removed in Missouri, a court order must be issued -- called by caseworkers a "pick up order". This court order, in the majority of cases, is signed not by a judge but by the Deputy Juvenile Officer (DJO). I did not argue this point. Why are you pretending I did? Because you got caught again in a misleading lie? LOL! No, because you spent 16k worth of type in your response to that single paragraph. That paragraph clearly makes just the point you now say you are in agreement with. Why you lying ****er. You word twisting malicious unethical ****. I never disagreed with the statement of WHAT the DJO but with your claim as to intent and the ****ty hairsplitting over normal enforcement proceedures that must be followed or immediately clog the court docket to the point of the impossible. You are simply, among other things, building up a wave of boring diversions, in the repetitive extreme, to drive off the few that might be interested, so that you can hope to carry out your lies unexposed. I hope they are not so bored that they won't stick around and watch me spank your lying ass soundly. With facts, and with uncovering your trickery. LOL! You may want to read my paragraph again. I can understand how you could have misinterpreted it the first time, I misinterperted nothing. I asked you to prove that the purpose of the DJO was to keep the judge out of the loop (not even actually arguing whether or not he or she isn't until you came back with your bull**** on that issue), that there is intentional violation of law, policy and some fancied "intent" of the legislature. You are dancing about with the only thing you can find to argue about as though it mattered, when it doesn't, claiming I "agree" with something I never disputed. but I have cut and pasted it a number of times in my latter post. It refers to the procedures followed in obtaining a "court order" for removal, not the process that follows. And where did I argue that does not happen? I asked you to prove the intententional violations by use of DJO. You are dancing, liar. That is a fact. And it remains a fact. It was a fact in 1990. It was a fact in 2003. And it is a fact today. See above. Not argued. You are right. Never said you weren't. Good. Then we have no argument. Oh? Please point out where you provided the proof of what I have asked for repeatedly? The intent to keep judges out of the loop, the intent to "fly in the face of" law and police, and the intent of the legislature. Where IS the proof of this claim of yours? You are lying through your teeth when you attempt this artifice of DJOs in MO operating, in the majority of cases, without court involvement. That is a flat out lie. Here is my statement again. "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." The lie begins, since I did not argue concerning the other things you mention, at "in the majority of cases." Okay, lets take a look at the segment of the paragraph beginning with "in the majority of cases. "...In the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and *this* procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. *It* is a quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountability and keep judges out of the loop." 1) Nothing in this partial quote refers to the process after removal. It all refers to the procedure done to obtain a court order for removal. This procedure, ending with a signed "court order" is obviously done before removal. That does NOT mean the judge is out of the loop, nor does it mean there was, as YOU claimed, an intent to keep the judge out of the loop, or to avoid responsibilty...as you claimed... nor does it address the other three as yet unproven claims you made pertaining to law, policy and legislative intent being deliberately violated. 2) I have placed astericks around the terms used to address the only procedure talked about in the entire quote. First of all, if you are referring to the presiding judge for the juvenile court system, that is disingenuous pap. I am not referring to the presiding judge for the juvenile court system. I don't even know if there is such a critter. I was referring to the circuit judge that hears the cases. He is not out of the loop. He is, just as a criminal court judge not hearing the evidence until the evidence is IN. If no removal is possible until a judge hears the disposition of the case, then the child would be required to be left, regardless of what is found, with the alledged perp or perps. You are one sick ****. It applies in criminal cases, and it applies in the same manner in child protection cases. In many cases the child is NOT removed. In those cases were they are the DCF and DJO made the call and then have to justify it in court....SO THERE IS NO KEEPING JUDGE OUT OF THE LOOP....unless YOU wish to claim that their required appearance to testify as to the reasons for removal are OUT OF THE LOOP. Except in large metropolitan cities in Missouri, there really isn't a "juvenile judge." The judge for the district hears many different types of cases (except probate). When she or he hears a family court matter, he simply puts on a different hat, if you will. The procedures are different in juvenile matters, not the personnel. (except probate). How are the proceedures "different?" You mean to tell me that in those cases that come before the judge were he or she is not wearing their "family court matters" there is a hearing required before a police officer can effect an arrest, confiscate evidence, remove alledged victims for further investigation and safety of evidence and persons? Please explain. 0:- They regularly are concerned with the administration of the system, not the case by case content unless some irregularity or are asked for help brings it to their attention. They sit in authority over the judges that make up their particular bailiwick. What you wanted people to assume and miss the reality of, is that there IS a judge that will be involved with every single case where removal is done and the DJO is responsible to him or her and must appear in front of him or her in the course of the dependency or dispositional hearing. As I have written myself repeatedly, a judge is involved in some aspects of the case after removal. Then Liar, he or she is obviously IN THE LOOP. He or she is certainly the tryer of fact in hearings. That puts them decidedly within the loop. But that does not address what I was talking about Yes it does, liar. And in addition it shows that you wish to destroy the system by asking of it what is not even asked of criminal enforcement proceedings. Substitute "DCF," "worker," and "DJO," in the following sentence where appropriate to see what I mean. Scenario: PD gets a call that a crime may be underway, suspicious activity. LEO proceeds to identified location. LEO investigates. LEO determines there is in fact a probable cause to believe there has been a crime, or one is about to be committed. He or she does this by viewing and questioning. LEO detains suspect. LEO collects evidence by view and interview, and removal of evidence including persons that bear aspects of evidence on their person. LEO secures the evidence, including the person that is themselves part of the evidence so they may not be tampered with and they may be protected. LEO presents, within 72 hours, their evidence to the court. Court says, "yer full of **** and pullin' a Douggie on me. Get out of here, return the evidence, release the perp and don't do that again," OR " you are mistaken, release evidence and persons." OR, "yep you got a case. Proceed to take those actions I hereby deem necessary to reach a legal conclusion of the case." in the paragraph to which you respond or in the partial quote you say is a lie. You are making this up. I pointedly singled out four things...the INTENT to keep the judge out of the loop, intentionally avoiding responsibility, intentionally scoffing the law, the policy, and the legislative intention. Each of these was enumerated by YOU, Doug, and you said plainly that there was this intent to "fly in the face of" by quasi-legal means. I ask you for proof not only that these things actually occur, which some do, and some do not, but that there is INTENT TO DO WRONG BY ANY INVOLVED, DCF, DJO, the court, or any body else you'd like to slander and libel. Both deal exclusively with the involvement of the judge in deciding to issue a "court order" for removal. That procedure, obviously, unfolds before removal. If the DJO signs that order, and the judge is unaware of the facts presented in support of the order, the judge is out of the loop in issuing that order. You did not say that. You made a general statement that the "judge is out of the loop," with no caveat, no explaination. I knew that, you knew that, and my challenge at that time and now, STILL unanswered, is how that is in any way extraordinary in the enforcement of law, civil or criminal. Defend this standard practice, as I've pointed out to you repeatedly now, by showing it is NOT a standard practice, and why and how it should be changed. How does the officer, DCF, or DJO determine that a child should be removed or not and if they find cause to remove, they should LEAVE THE CHILD UNTIL AFTER A DISPOSITIONAL HEARING. You are a sneak. You have continually danced away from my questions. You have done it be diddling around with issues that secondary to those I bring up. You have even done it by claiming I argue points I do not. The fact you are a lying word spinning cheat does not diminish in any way that you are a liar. That you call the paragraph a lie and its construction word spinning is the very point I am hoping gets across in this thread. That you can dance well? Hell, we've known that for years. Others have given up on you in disgust, and probably with less free time than I have to challenge you. I as yet have not given up nor do I lack the time. It gives everyone a clear idea of what you mean by lies, cheats, and word spinning. In other incidences when you make these charges, it is not as easy to detect their basis. The very construction of your sentences above, there content and syntax make plain that you are a skilled deceiver. I asked perfectly plain questions that have not been answered, while you focus on what that is secondary to the real issues, the actual questions I asked. You avoid answering my challenge that you charged someone in the system, where DCF, DJOs, and the court are involved in child protection, with intentionally defying or violation law, policy, and the intent of legislators. And to up to this point you have NOT addressed this...the more important of our issues here. This practice of avoidance of the primary issues, while addressing secondary, or even your imaginary issues you pretend I have brought up, is old news here, Doug. You've done it for years. You are not better at it now than in the beginning. I've simply been more patient with it in the past. I no longer am. Answer the questions asked. Not ONE of them, or TWO of them, but all of them, so that the most important is NOT avoided by you. What do you believe the intent is of any or all of the persons involved in a removal of child in child protection...from DCF, to the court, to DJO. Do you in fact assert that someone or ones in that group are intentionally defying law, policy, and the legislators to avoid responsibility or in any other way law breaking? Prior to the removal of the child by DFS, a court order must be secured. This "court order" is usually signed by the DJO on the line reserved for the judge. The judge does not, as was intended by the legislature, hear ex parte arguments showing probable cause for the removal and then make the decision. Instead, the DJO makes this determination and signs the order. Usually, the DJO will make the comment below his/her signature, "judge not available." What nonsense. That is what police do as well. Then the case appears before the judge. Not just in juvenile court, but in any system of enforcement. No. If police need a search warrant, or an arrest warrant, they do not sign the search warrant in leiu of talking to the judge. Did you notice I did not use "if?" YOU did. I am well aware, and so is any awake reader that in some cases an LEO may have time to obtain a warrant, and sometimes not. In those instances a DCF investigator finds NO reason to remove, no LEO or DJO is called. No need to. In those instance where a DCF investigator DOES find cause, there is no TIME to hold a hearing or seek a warrant, and the court, the legislature, and anyone with common sense KNOWS that having someone from the court.....a DJO who is assigned this duty at the pleasure and demand of the court, can and should execute the decision to remove. You, on the other hand, seem to think that everyone should clear out and leave the child the DCF investigator deems at risk, or injured, there with the alledged perp. As usual, Doug. I said you hate children, and I certainly see evidence of it unless YOU can come up with a way to keep the child safe while continuing to investigate. It would be a constitutional violation to quarter a guard with the children, would it not? To obtain those warrants, they need to argue their case to a judge with supporting probable cause. LEOs are not required to obtain warrants for those instances where they are simply investigating. They may take a call, investigate, and even arrest, upon their own judgement, THEN present evidence to the court. Or are you going to try and argue that all arrests and collections of evidence have a warrant issued prior? "No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." You may be familiar with that language. Yes, I am, and you are dodging and going back to the old argument that a child should not be removed without warrant. That has been shot down by me, and by others, including, I believe, court cases. You know it and I know it, and most readers know it. So you are dancing away again by going back to ages old arguments rather than deal with your scandulous accusations against those you accuse of intentional violations of law, etc. You don't want to deal with that, do you? This is the practice. And, as 127 points out, the practice in this state seems to fly in the face of the statutory requirements, legislative intent of the laws, and published policy. It does no such thing. The actions of the DJO are by policy, which should be by both law and legislative intent. Show the law and legislative INTENT if you wish to make such claims, Doug the Liar. You say it's not, but you fail to PROVE it's not. Well, lets not get ahead of ourselves. I am still trying to respond to your rebuttal of a single paragraph I wrote. We have both spent a great deal of text trying to clarify this. After we do, maybe we can move on to bigger and better things . . . like arguing paragraph two. g You'll see in this document that the current function of the DJO is not only accepted but they are key element of the team, and they operate under policy guidelines. And this even goes to TPR waaay beyond the removal stage. Yes, but the document does not address in any way what I said in the paragraph to which you are responding. In that paragraph, I was talking about the procedures carried out to obtain a court order for removal, not the countless other processes that follow, including TPR. http://www.iarstl.org/papers/JCIPReport.pdf So give us your proof the legislative intent proscribed the use of DJO as currently utilized was something different. Try to find statute. Show us the policy items you appear to be saying are violated, as in "fly in the face of." The intent of the legislature in requiring a "court order" for removal was that a judge would sign the order after finding there was probable cause for the removal. Where's the beef, Doug? 0:- Right in that very first paragraph you are having so many problems with. We are in the process of deboning it for you, sir. g Nothing you have posted contradicts in the slightest my statement above, that prior to removal, a "court order" for removal is usually signed by the DJO in leiu of the judge and without involvement of the court at this stage. You are lying yet again. You said very plainly this is used to keep the judge out of the loop. As in, " It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." Yes, when the DJO signs the "court order" for removal and the judge knows nothing of the facts of the case, the judge is out of the loop at that point. That is difficult to reconcile with the posted material I provided that shows the court indeed is involved in the removals by making a judgment about them within 2 days of said action by the DJO ASSIGNED TO THEIR COURT. Not hard to reconcile at all, since the material you posted explained the judges involvement in the process AFTER removal. That is why your cited material does not address what I was talking about in the paragraph, which is the procedure of obtaining a court order BEFORE removal. You have lied about the state making services a barrier to parents: I have joined other members of this newsgroup in saying that "services" and the time they require are often a barrier to parents, yes. That is not a lie. It is the truth. It is a lie. The services are rarely factually more than the family can handle and indeed accommodations for many of them are to fit the family's schedule. Contracts with providers often include wording that they will accommodate by holding their meetings on weekends, evenings, and even holidays. We disagree. Legions of child welfare experts, researchers, advocates, foster caregivers, members of this newsgroup, and parents themselves disagree with you as well. They agree with me that services and the times they are offered are often a barrier to parents -- especially low-income parents who are struggling to keep their job or multiple jobs. Many researchers and advocates have said that the way these services are scheduled and their substance sets the parents up to fail. No lies, Kane. Just differences of opinion. Spokespeople for both positions are well qualified. Neither are liars. You are lying. I've read those contracts, I've attended such events with kin and their client relatives on Saturdays, Sundays, and evenings as late running as late as 10 and 11 o'clock if need be to accommodate the client. I hope you understand that I am not interested in stories about your personal experiences. I am a bit overloaded. I have heard you speak of killing rabbits and paralizing criminals with a single shout, watching police officers vomit in bushes and restrooms, developing interragation techniques for detectives, walking through international airports with a briefcase handcuffed to your wrist, collecting consulation fees from CPS workers for advising them their young clients did not need 3 psychiatrists, breaking the jaws of kids who bullied you as a child, etc, etc. Yep. But you are wrong, or lying about adivisin them on the psychiatrists. It was psychologists, and MSW therapists, and it was advising them to make up their own mind, one way or the other. You are a liar. As usual...and you brought this up to dance away from my question. Do they or do they not accomodate clients as to hours and days for meetings? See, Doug. You lie. You do it with misleading. You do it by finding ways to respond honestly when you are caught making serious errors, and errors accusing people, agencies, and systems of things that are patently NOT true. I have listened to the arguments for overtime by workers who had to set up meetings to allow clients to meet at the client's convenience at all hours. I've never been to a 4 am meeting but I've heard of one. So the client could make it to work later and not have to come in in the late afternoon tired. Yer a sick ****. Well, my response to the stories hasn't gotten that bad. You just dodged the point I made in two ways, dodging both, that I have seen clients routinely and as standard practice, accomodated extremely well, and workers having to do overtime they have difficulty collecting for to make those accomodations. So, you are sick to even go in this direction to avoid answering. See below in your next sick weaseling statement. Or do you mean that to disagree with you is a sickness? No, but to twist words and meaning in such a way is. To make claims that are false, and when corrected, dodge instead of admit your error or accept that all is not as YOU claim everywhere, is sick. To ignore proofs, logic, and continue on as though nothing has happened is sick. What I have also heard is even more of what workers said in my quotation, directly from the mouths of clients myself, talking with their kin who had the children in care, defiantly refusing to accept services including drug rehab, psychological counseling, job search assistance. They just don't wanna, and they were already unemployed. Well, what I was talking about in particular was impoverished parents who were sometimes working two jobs to support their families and may find attending therapy, and parenting classes two days a week difficult. And there is, as I pointed out, a great deal of accomodation, and there is a great deal of lying on their part that they couldn't. You have not responded to what I actually said. And when they object to these services being mandated as a condition for getting their children out of state custody, they may find the anger management classes a little frustrating. And I find their unwillingness and focus on their "inconvenience" to be a poor demonstration of their dedication to their children. Foster parents as well as workers see a great deal of this bitching when it is entirely unwarranted, and a great many clients that are NOT working in any case, and on public assistence. They have a great deal of time, but just hate to miss Oprah because their VCR can't record two programs at once, and there's a Shopping Network show they must catch. I've asked a number of foster parents, and a great many workers, why they do not come to this newsgroup, and to the anti CPS websites and allow themselve to be heard. They laugh at me. No one can waste their time on lies given the job they have to do already. I am telling you in this ng and have for years now what the truth is from what those inside relate to me, even after they leave, as well. And having been there in 1980-81 I KNOW it to be true. It was then, and nothing has changed. The vast majority of clients are not innocent put upon parents, rich, poor, or middle class, but in fact child abusers who are NOT willing to work to get their children back, in cases where they have lost them temporarily. They just have another, in many cases. Gonna show them CPS people a thing or two. Go to the end of this post. I have a gift for you. I am sure CPS runs into clients who fit into either of our categories. It's common to CPS cases, there and everywhere I've been. And obviously to the workers quoted. It's more often the professionals that are hard pressed to make the meetings given their workload, as below. While the family is just interested in being late for the dart game at the tavern. Yer a liar. Hmm. I thought state workers worked 8-5. I know that's when the meetings are held. Sometimes, clients work 8-5, too. I wonder which one has to take off work and risk losing their jobs to attend the meetings? That, Doug the Liar, is an accommodation. You claim they do not accommodate. It Does counter your bull****, because YOUR reports come from sources that are clients self reporting. Do you think the are going to gush over having to/. go to any meeting or service delivery at any time when they discuss it with anyone not in the loop that could check their claims? Your opinion, which differs from many child welfare professionals and others who have drawn different conclusions from talking to many different sources, does not "counter" those differing opinions. My sources of information for my opinion are many other than parents, including the research available in the literature. I said you lied about the judicial process, and you did. You claimed that the DJO action was used deliberately to keep the judge out of the loop. In particular, ""...In the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and *this* procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. *It* is a quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountability and keep judges out of the loop." You cannot defend that and I can refute it by citing the quote above. There is a court process precisely for addressing the things you claim are avoided, and that is proved by the citation above. Among other things. The court process referred to in the cited material happens after the removal, as your source and you clearly explain. My quote above refers to the process in obtaining a "court order" for a removal, which of course, plays out before the child is removed. Neither you or the report on the Juvenile Court Improvement Project in St. Louis respond to my statement. These hearings follow removal and should occur within 72 hours of that removal. They do. You claimed the court is not part of the process, by design. And that is against the law, the legislative intent, and policy. You've proved none of those. No, I just said above that the court is involved in the process (hearings) after the removal. So, obviously I did NOT claim that the court was not part of that process. What I DID claim was that in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and for removal and that this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. Again, again, again, my claim was about the procedures for obtaining a "court order" for removal of a child and that this process is often done without the involvement of the judge. This does not address in the slightest way the statement I made concerning the procedure used to secure a "court order" for the removal of the child in the first place or who signs that order. Here is the statement to which you reply again. It is the truth. It is not a lie. "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." It is a lie. The DJO pickup process cannot conceal from or hold the judge out of the loop as other processes, and the authority go to and derive from the court. You are a liar. If the judge knows nothing of the facts of the case presented as basis for probable cause and the DJO signs the order, then the judge is out of the loop at that point. That requires a court order, which in reality is usually an order signed by the DJO and not a judge. The common practice is this: Did you see me argue this one way or another? ...Yes. You spent a whole post arguing what I said in the single paragraph, which was essentially just that. Is it relevant to my claim that you are lying and to the material I cited from MO sources in rebuttal? No, it is not relevant to your claim because I was not lying and because the material you cited did not address in any way the process I discussed in the paragraph, let alone rebute it. The answer, of course, is "no" and "no," and I see it is nothing more than yet another of your weasel tactics to slip away from the actual issue....the claim by you that the process of using the DJO as currently done is to avoid having the judge in the loop. If the judge knows nothing of the facts of the case presented as basis for probable cause and the DJO makes the decision to remove unilaterally by signing the "court order," then the judge is obviously out of the loop at that point in time. Your OWN WORDS today show that to be wrong. You cannot weasel out of your lie or mistake, which ever it was, and your continued denial it was a mistake, makes it a lie. Not at all. My own words in this post that a judge is involved in hearings AFTER the removal does not in any way show that my statement that the judge is often not involved in signing the order for removal BEFORE removal is wrong. The statement stands as correct. 1) CD worker (as the result of an CAN investigation or assessment) makes a request for removal to the DJO I've read more of this than you. 2) The DJO finds "probable cause" and signs a "court order" for removal; That's right. Just like a police officer would do, or if the DCF where charged with this duty as they are in some other states, the worker. They must, ALL OF THEM, however, appear, as in all such cases, criminal or civil, appear before a judge if they remove the child, and prove their probable cause. MO is no different. AFTER the child is removed, the judge becomes involved as I have said. (Although the burden of proof at this point is preponderance of the evidence, not probable cause). But that is not what my statement in the paragraph we have discussed for three posts now referred to. That statement referred to the process of who decides whether there is probable cause for a "court order" for removal and who usually signs that order before the removal takes place. The statement was that the DJO signs the order in many cases and that the judge is out of the loop at that time. So tell us how the court or judge is kept out of the loop please? ...By not hearing anything about the facts supporting probable cause before the child is actually removed from her home. By not making the decision about whether their is probable cause and by not being around to sign the order. That's how he is out of the loop. Statute requires they be IN the loop and current practice is within two days. Within two days of what? Within two days AFTER the child is actually removed from her home? (Actually, the requirement is 72 hours and has been for many years). If so, you do not address my statement. My statement concerned the process of obtaining a court order to remove the child, which occurs, obviously BEFORE the child is removed. Do we need to look at the statement again? "Correct. In the majority of cases, the Deputy Juvenile Officer is the only one who signs FOR the court in a pick up order. In Missouri, DFS does not have the authority to remove children. Police and physicians do have the unilateral authority to do so, but rarely (almost never) do so. DFS needs a "court order" to remove children. Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." You provided a lot of characters to print to my screen, but you have provided NO proofs or even logical argument for your claim, as yet. Yet again, however, your posted exerpt does not in any way challenge my statement that the DJO, without involvement of the court, commonly signs the pick up order prior to removal of the child. I did not claim that the DJO didn't sign without involvement of the court. A police officer can arrest without the involvement of the court on probable cause. That is the DJO authority. The Missouri legislature, by statute, requires a court order to empower Children's Division to remove children from their homes. Like an LEO, however, he or she must present to the court. What you are asking is that all cases have MORE than probable cause to remove, apparently. Nope, just probable cause. "No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Yer scum. LOL! You are truly ignorant and stupid. LOL! You claimed that the major function of using the DJO removal sign off was to keep the judge out of the loop. As I said, and you have NOT so far responded to, that would be hard to do considering they are assigned their duties BY the court, and they must appear IN the court at the disposition hearing. WHO holds a dispositional hearing, Doug? WHO? WHEN is the dispositional hearing held, Kane? AFTER the child has been removed from her home? This does not address my statement, which concerned the process of determining probable cause and signing the "court order" for removal. That process plays out, of course, before the child is removed. How is the court out of the loop, and how is this in violation of the intent of the legislature, law, and the policy of CPS, as YOU claimed and is the ONLY issue I am arguing with you, and refuting you soundly as you dodge, weasel dodge, the bullet? If the judge did not hear the arguments supporting probable cause, does not know of the facts of the case before removal, and does not sign the court order for removal, the judge is out of the loop at that time, to summarize once again the paragraph to which you respond. If you want to "refute" the statement, address it. So far, you continue to talk about procedures after the child is removed when the statement confined itself to the process leading to the signing of the removal order, which is done before the removal. After removal, when the case goes to the court for hearing, the DJO attends the hearing. Yep. Are you not the one that claimed the DJO was an agent used to keep the court out of the loop? Then why are you posting the the DJO actually attends a hearing? In fact how can the court be out of the loop if HEARINGS ARE PART OF THE PROCESS? I am the one that claimed that the judge was out of the loop if the DJO unilaterally determined that probable cause existed for a removal and signed the "court order." That the judge becomes part of the loop AFTER the removal does not address, let alone dispute, my claim that the judge was out of the loop at the time the decision to remove was made. So, as you can see, it is understandable that I post that the judge is in the loop after the removal but not in the loop beforehand, when the DJO signs the "court order" for removal BEFORE the removal. From the top of this post, from your attributed remarks: " Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." I challenged that statement, nothing else. I never said that DJOs don't sign, a point you keep babbling about as though I had. How unethical you are. And yet, over and over again, you continue to write about processes after removal, when the selected quote deals exclusively with the process of deciding probable cause and issuing a court order for removal BEFORE actual removal. Show us how it is "quasi-extralegal" and please define the term first. ...Because it is not technically illegal. The legislature intended by requiring a court order and providing a space for a judge to sign, that a judge would hear the showing of probable cause and issue the court order. So far, nothing you have posted challenges the statement I made and you left intact. No, you have NOT even addressed what I did. You keep answering or responding to claims you make up and assign to me while avoiding the ones I actually did make. I am trying to restrict myself to the statement I made and your rebuttal of it in pages of pages of text. In your narrative, you consistantly talk about other processes that occur after the process I was talking about in the paragraph you claimed to be responding to. It is only now that you come to the realization we have been talking about apples and oranges? I want to see the proof for your opening statement end of paragraph claims concerning "and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." Well, to keep the context, lets include the words leading to the quote above, which defines the procedure the sentence is talking about. We will take the section of the quote that you pointed out in the top of your post as the "lie": "Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without knowledge of the presidng judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." See? Context makes a difference, no? You may begin in topic any time you like. The rest is window dressing you are adding that do NOT address my question and demand that you prove what you say. I will try to keep away from the window dressing and restrict myself to the part of my statement quoted above. The proof that the judge is out of the loop when the decision is made that there is probable cause for a removal order and that order signed by the DJO without the judge knowing the facts of the case or making the decision. Pretty simple. It is my opinion that this unilateral action by the DJO is a quasi-legal process because the legislature requires a court order and reasonably expected a judge to hear the argument in support of probable cause and then sign the order. You continue to respond without contradicting what I have said. No, you keep posting commentary that YOU claim or insinuate I have said that I have not. Show me where I claimed DJOs don't sign for removals. Good. We agree. I have not done that. I have asked you to justify your lying claim about their INTENT in doing so. And their process being for the purpose of keeping the judge out of the loop, the law violated, and policy ignored. Law is not violated. I did not say that it was. You did. You said, as I've pointed out, a quasi-extralegal process. That, by any definition I can find is a claim of law breaking. Violation. Policy is not ignored. So you believe you have stuffed enough of your bull**** after bull**** dancing rhetoric in this thread that now anyone but you and I are bored and left, or fallen asleep, and you can lie with impunity? That is why I did not say in my statement that policy was ignored. You didn't use the word "ignored." Obviously you are right, if your accusation is correct. They didn't ignore it, they defied it, as in "fly in the face of" and "intentionally." YOUR WORDS. Not mine. Hair splitting, Doug. To dance away from responsibility for your accusation. A very dangerous one to make, I do believe, if you included judges in that, as it seems by your entire statement. You said, "fly in the face of." Did you mean something none of us but you mean by that statement? Does it not mean NOT obey the law? The policy? The intent of the legislature? You even admit, presumably that there is legal support for the actions of the DJO: "It is a very HOT political problem that will be debated on the legislative floors in Jefferson City in February. Currently, in effect, a DJO's signature has the authority of a court order . . . they SIGN court orders in leiu of a judge's decision. " They have "authority?" Whose? The courts? The legislatures? How would they then be doing as you accuse them, or someone out of the three positions named in your statement: " It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop. " (it is no more "quasi-extralegal" as the process of picking up a drunk, slapping him in the tank, and presenting him to the court in the morning. You are so full of ****.) You yourself show the legality of the process when you say: "The DJO finds "probable cause" and signs a "court order" for removal ..." The DJO is either unauthorized by law, or authorized by law. Which is it, Doug? You claim it's partially or in some measure(quasi) not permitted or governed by law (extra). That is a clear accusation of law breaking on your part. Let's see you support it. Or learn to say what you actually mean without the artifice to jerk people's emotions and thereby their thinking around. It's not a quasi anything. It's legal. And: "This is the practice. And, as 127 points out, the practice in this state seems to fly in the face of the statutory requirements, legislative intent of the laws, and published policy. " I bring your attention to the words in this sentence above, "practice in this state" and "fly in the face of," "law," "legislative intent," and "policy." Are you going to answer my question, or not? Does this "process" or practice break the law, or doesn' it? Is it done to intentionally, "to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop?" But if the judge is not around to hear the facts of the case and does not have anything to do with producing the "court order" for removal, then the judge is clearly out of the loop for that particular process. Oh, "this particular process." I see. You weasel. The judge is not only part of the general process, which is all you addressed originally, but this is standard practice as well for LEOs in other criminal proceedings and inforcement. It is entirely illogical to have it otherwise. If the authority to remove were vested solely in the judge, he or she would be overwhemled, and forced into the same process used for warrant issuance, in every single case....UNLIKE ANY OTHER ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING WHERE LEO'S CAN AND DO REMOVE EVIDENCE, AND VICTIMS BEFORE A HEARING, as well as even effecting an arrest. You are, as usual, attempting to set up destructive barriers that will get children killed should the legislators be asleep or as corrupt as I believe you to be and set up such barriers unknown in other branches of law enforcement. Where a child endangerment claim exists in a situation where there is time and reasonable characteristics for a warrant, of course a warrant can be effected. But you know and I and anyone with half a brain or more knows that in most instances child protection allegations do NOT fit the criteria and more closely conform to exigent circumstances. Where they do NOT, the child usually isn't removed. Where there is need to remove the child more often it is. That is most likely the legislative intent borne out by the use of DJO in your state, and DCF or CPS investigators other states to effect safety removals. You are attempting to cripple the system. I hope the legislators don't let you get away with it. It endangers children further. I made argument, not one about anything before this statement: "and this procedure is done without hearing and without the knowledge of the presiding judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountability and keep judges out of the loop." Well, I will have to include a few words before it, since they define what the procedure I am talking about is. The type of procedure and when the process occurs is the very crux of the misunderstanding. You somehow missed that the paragraph addresses only that process, which occurs before the child is removed. "Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without knowledge of the presidng judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." Context makes a difference, you see. That is not the truth, and I want proofs from you that it is, or you are attempting to foist a factually wrong claim on the reader and me. And since you continue to ignore it, you are then lying by design and fancy footwork. I have answered above, about six paragraphs ago. If they do NOT and the DJOs are being used to deliberately, as you claim, circumvent the judge, and the law, and policy, then I want some proof that is so. I did not say that the DJO's are being used to deliberately circumvent the judge. That's your claim, not mine. I said that the judge is often out of the loop when the DJO makes the decision there is probable cause and signs the removal order. Where did I ever suggest that this was done to circumvent the judge or that the judge did not know it was happening? I have already answered the subset of your question about law and policy. Since the judge holds the hearing within 72 hours, and that is now the law in MO, and presumably the DJO is a legally constituted job in MO and is legally assigned to the court (the other, higher profile job of DJOs is in juvenile offender and justice proceedings) then you have one hell of a job to do to find proof of this claim of law breaking, quasi legal, violations etc. The hearing is held within 72 hours AFTER the child is removed. As you know, I was talking about the process that occurs before the child is removed. No, you and I do NOT know that. Only YOU knew that. I say you say "out of the loop" without any clarification and with an accusation of lawbreaking. You are refusing to respond to that issue of your accusation, by focusing on this one point. I am not going to argue it further with you. It is a he said they said dead end and you DO know that, and you DID chose to go here to stay as far away as possible from your accusation of intentional law breaking. (Why do you say, BTW, that the 72 hour requirement is NOW the law. It has been for years.) I set no timeline. I am familiar with the time before it was. Why do you bring it up, other than yet another complication to the dance steps you are frantically doing? That the judge hears the case after removal does not contradict my statement about the process that happens before removal. Not according to how you phrased it, but that is NOT a concern. What is a concern that you go on and on and on and STILL have not responded to the more important question. Do you accuse anyone of the three, judge, DJO, DCF worker, of trying to avoid responsibility by intentionally breaking the law, defying policy, and circumventing the intent of the legislators, as you put it in "fly in the face of?" Well? But I wish to see it and charge you with being either mistaken or lying. Given that you have gone to great trouble to avoid answering my challenge and have invented challenges I did not make, I count you as a liar, sir. That IS how liars operate in argument and discussion. You are a weasel. Why have you not responded to this above? our attention is directed to the phrase: "...designed to bring together the child welfare and judicial processes..." Yes, in the JCIP in St. Louis, within 72 hours after removal. Consider my attention duly drawn to that statement and my notice to you that it does not address in the slightest way my statement to which you claim to respond. How would the court be out of loop if the DJO is assigned to his or her job with the court, by the DJO agency, and there must be an appearance within 72 hours for a dispositional hearing WITH THE COURT, PRESUMABLY WITH A JUDGE SITTING? BEFORE removal, AFTER removal. My statement addressed only the process that occurs before removal. The judges involvement AFTER removal does not mean he was in the loop before the removal. That's NOT out of the loop, Doug. At the time the DJO solely made the decision probable cause existed and signed the order to remove, which is the process the paragraph addressed, the judge was out of the loop. ......snipping the repetitious and smarmy weasel dancing...... Doug. You are hairsplitting. You did NOT say before the hearing. You said, with NO time line, and anyone can look up a few inches and see it plain, that there as NO hearing. "without hearing." You still haven't read the paragraph? Read, cited, and done so again and again. It says what it says, and only after the fact of your posting it, are you coming back to weasel it, and to avoid that part that I have repeatedly asked you to answer. You would think I have repeated it enough. Enough to put any reader asleep so you could pull your bull**** with less chance of being detected? Yes, you certainly have...and you done so with out answer the specific questions put to you on intent of any or all of the three: judges, DJOs, DCF workers. I distinctly addressed in that paragraph only the process of deciding whether to issue a court order for removal and who was involved in signing that order in many cases. Here is the portion of the paragraph we are discussing one more time: You distinctly addressed, over and over, in a manner that did NOT actually answer the question I put to you. Describing the events, players, and other cobbled up garbage does NOT answer the question. Are you accusing them or any one of them of deliberate intent to skirt the law, policy, or legislative intent? You said so, now I want you to either prove they are doing so intentionally, or explain how you will correct this libelous piece of trash. "Yet, in the majority of cases, the DJO signs the court order and this procedure is done without hearing and without knowledge of the presidng judge. It is quasi-extralegal process intentionally done to reduce accountablity and keep judges out of the loop." Quite clearly, I am addressing only the procedures of deciding upon and executing a order to remove. Which of course shows quite clearly you are NOT addressing other questions of considerably more importance. Your accusation of them being intentional lawbreakers, how the process is NOT legal or defensible by precident and analogous processes in other areas of law enforcement, and why the hell you are a liar. The last I don't expect an answer to, but the two previous I do, or the last is proven, again. You are accusing those involved with intent to avoid resposibility, defy the law, policy, and the legislature. You left them individually unnamed as to role, but you included these three titles: judges, DJOs, and DCF worker/investigators in and around your accusation. Who among them do you accuse of this intent to break the law, Doug? I'm waiting. Clearly, in a time line, that order to remove comes before the actual removal. I never argued otherwise. You simply haven't presented a convincing argument this is wrong, illegal, or in fact a deliberate intentional, as YOU claimed, attempt to "fly in the face" of law, policy, and legislative intent. Let's see you do it. LEOs "remove" in many instance with the same kinds of characteristics, BEFORE a judicial hearing and without warrant. Car stops are typical. But so are residential calls on domestic violence or other suspected crimes. 1) Order for removal 2) Removal 3) Hearings after removal. You have NOT provided proof that this done to intentionally skirt the law, or defy or violate it, or policy, or the intent of the legislature. I doubt THAT is going to be argued in the legislature, do you in the next few days or so? The paragraph to which you have been responding for two posts concerns only item one. You continue to talk about item 3. Apples and oranges. No, I have made a very clear statement with specific items quoted, and then referred again and again, that you have dodged answering. DO YOU ACCUSE ANY OF THESE PEOPLE, DJOs, DCF workers, judges, of deliberately breaking the law to avoid responsibility, law, policy, and legislative intent? Answer the actual questions asked, and do so directly. Do you so accuse? What court of any kind holds a hearing BEFORE the "perp" is engaged by enforcement agents? Oh, geez, let me see, those kind of courts that decide whether there is probable cause to issue a search warrant or an arrest warrant. Yep. And do they require the issuance of a warrant before every LEO engagement, or are some judicial hearing held afterward? Stop playing at being stupid. You are a serious contender...no need for the play. You knew perfectly well that "before all LEO actions" would be understood. Do you mislead out of ignorance, or out of malicious intent? Are you still beating your wife? No, as I never beat her. Oh, okay. Then my answer to your question above is, "No, because I never mislead." You are now lying. My review of this thread, and where you came in to respond to 127 shows me that you jumped in again, as you do and have done so much in the past, with someone fighting for recovery of their children. You have taken their battle, and shoving aside REAL assistence focusing on their need, and interjected our propaganda goals in most clever seemingly sympathetic ways. In so doing you drain OFF their focus and attention to the issue most powerfully effecting their lives and that of their children. If you were here I'd spit in your face. Consider it done. 127 needs help with the problem, not your bull**** political campaign which may or may not have merit. YOUR crappola in this thread is of zero usefullness to 127, other than to distract, which is so very easy when someone is vulnerable and has to fight to stay focused on the problem at hand. I said you are sick. This is exactly what I mean. If you can't give help and support ON TOPIC, Doug, take your ****ing political schtick and shove it up your ass and let your lackeys fetch it out for you all YOU to play with. KNOW that when you load up someone such as 127 with it, a real person, a parent, with real issues to struggle with, and real live children to worry about, who want presumably to be with 127, you are SICK SICK SICK. It's all about YOU and YOUR agenda though. Isn't it, Dickhead? 0:- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dr. Menke: For babies: 'Worship truth and justice - you need no other God.' | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | March 30th 05 10:51 PM |
Parent-Child Negotiations | Nathan A. Barclay | Spanking | 623 | January 28th 05 04:24 AM |
How Children REALLY React To Control | Chris | General | 444 | July 20th 04 07:14 PM |
How Children REALLY React To Control | Chris | Solutions | 437 | July 11th 04 02:38 AM |