Wilsons running from New Mexico

Greegor wrote:
Betty:

So you gave up on logic and you're going for the
emotional appeal on a legal issue?

This is like back when caseworkers tried
saying that refusing them entry was
obstructing an investigation.

How is it like that, and what would YOU call it if someone is legally
mandated to investigate and the principle parties are refusing to
participate?

That didn't go well for the caseworkers.

Investigators have options. More than one.


The parents stuck around 24 days with no court order.


You still don't know if there was or wasn't a court order.

How hard is it to get a court order when
sexual abuse is reasonably alleged?

You don't know if there was a court order or not.

That would have changed things.

Not necessarily.


The bottom line is that caseworkers think they
are a law onto themselves.

Nope. That's a baldfaced lie.

They probably duped the sherrif's dept into
issuing the warrant.

Really?

It wasn't an LEO investigation thwarted, but
a CPS administrative investigation right?

Mmmm..and you have this claim of not being LEO investigation on what
authority, Greg?

You know very well the caseworkers pushed
for the "agreement" that the kids stay with
the grandparents. I've SEEN that lie!

R R R .... yes, I'll bet you have.

What, by the way, is wrong with keeping the children with kin, rather
than going for broke and placing them with stranger foster parents?

You are caught up in "KILL CPS" "EVIL CPS" aren't you now, Greg?

If they had enough to justify that, why didn't
they get a darned COURT ORDER?

You don't know if they had one or not. And if grannie is willing to take
the kids while the issues are sorted out you DO see how much better that
is for everyone, if the allegations prove to be untrue, right?

This case stinks of caseworker malfeasance.

Really? Calling on a relative to keep the kids while dealing with a
highly sensitive issue like child sexual abuse is "caseworker malfeasance?"

Could you explain your reasoning for us?

Please do.

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Greg wrote
This is like back when caseworkers tried
saying that refusing them entry was
obstructing an investigation.

That didn't go well for the caseworkers.

Betty wrote
So? Maybe that isn't obstructing. You can hardly compare refusing entry to
your home without a warrant and refusing to take a child to an SA exam as
part of an investigation.
They simply are not the same thing.

Did you notice the language where the girl
"ADMITTED" to being sexually abused?

Strange teminology to use about a victim.

Kids were "PLACED" with the grandparents by CYF.
(But not with a court order?)

Are the kids Native American under ICWA?
The step-dad is Navajo.

Clearly these people are in HUGE trouble
but it still sounds like there are some
descrepencies.

Greg wrote
This is like back when caseworkers tried
saying that refusing them entry was
obstructing an investigation.

That didn't go well for the caseworkers.

Betty wrote
So? Maybe that isn't obstructing. You can hardly compare refusing entry to
your home without a warrant and refusing to take a child to an SA exam as
part of an investigation.
They simply are not the same thing.

Did you notice the language where the girl
"ADMITTED" to being sexually abused?

Strange teminology to use about a victim.

Kids were "PLACED" with the grandparents by CYF.
(But not with a court order?)

Are the kids Native American under ICWA?
The step-dad is Navajo.

Clearly these people are in HUGE trouble
but it still sounds like there are some
descrepencies.

Greegor wrote:
Greg wrote
This is like back when caseworkers tried
saying that refusing them entry was
obstructing an investigation.

That didn't go well for the caseworkers.

Betty wrote
So? Maybe that isn't obstructing. You can hardly compare refusing entry to
your home without a warrant and refusing to take a child to an SA exam as
part of an investigation.
They simply are not the same thing.

Did you notice the language where the girl
"ADMITTED" to being sexually abused?

Such language used in other contexts seems to go over with full
understanding. I can suggest two scenarios. One is that kids in such
situations are ALWAYS asked the question, and given the sensitivity and
shame connected to sexual abuse may well deny it at first. The second is
that the media used the term, not CPS or the police.

Strange teminology to use about a victim.

Not in the least. You are so deep into your fantasies and delusions that
any single word you can light on meets your sick needs.

Kids were "PLACED" with the grandparents by CYF.
(But not with a court order?)

If you read any of the many posts where I've cited, AND quoted
information about kinship placement in the US you will have read that
CPS had many such cases where CUSTODY was not taken by the state, but
they assisted in placing the children. Those kinship placements are the
ones most cited to complain about the lack of state funding for those
homes. The child has to be in custody to warrant subsidies.

You forget so easily.

That is, what you want to forget. 0:-

Are the kids Native American under ICWA?
The step-dad is Navajo.

It depends on what the tribe says, and no one else. The answer lies here
with the Diné tribal authorities. I believe they have a functionary that
takes care of that according to prior decision by the governing body for
the people. Tribes have a minimum division of blood relation to the
tribe to be eligible. CPS, in all cases, by federal law, check EVER
CHILD taken into custody, whether they appear "Indian" or not, because
even some 'Black. people ARE in fact eligible to membership in various
tribes. 'White' people as well. The single quotes are to alert you to
the fact I do NOT hold with such divisions among us, but accept that
others do.

Don't you EVER look anything up, or must you live by insinuation in your
life to feel in control?

Clearly these people are in HUGE trouble
but it still sounds like there are some
descrepencies.

Gee, yah think?

Even WITH direct access to case records it's very difficult to sort all
the many viewpoints that can be expressed in such cases. Here you have
an agency, the police, the media, and of course the couple that want to
blow as much smoke as possible to obscure the facts, if they are guilty.

You take advantage of perfectly natural limitations on human beings and
their process of communication to further your delusions by insinuation,
Greg.

In this case ALL you have is a media report. Now go figger that YOU
can't figure out exactly what is going on. Neither can anyone else but
the principals.

You do realize, I suppose, that this method of thinking tends to foster
delusions in the one using it?

Your imagination may one day run away with your sanity.

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Kane wrote
What, by the way, is wrong with keeping the children with kin, rather
than going for broke and placing them with stranger foster parents?

Without a court removal order?

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
What, by the way, is wrong with keeping the children with kin, rather
than going for broke and placing them with stranger foster parents?

Without a court removal order?

Greg, wake UP. That WAS the point. Easier to place with relatives with
or without a court order. All you need is everyone's consent.

Betty has made that point clearly to you. As have I. And, little self
indulgent self pleasuring twittering ****ant, YOU DON'T KNOW IF THERE
WAS OR WAS NOT A COURT ORDER.

YOU created that scenario from your fetid putrid over ripe imagination,
did you not?

So do you see un-court-ordered removal happening with stranger foster
placement? Or do you see what happened. A placement with g'parents with
no NEED for a court order?

R R R R


Yer a laugh riot, boy. Were DO you pull your delusions from anyway?

-0:-








--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Kane wrote
What, by the way, is wrong with keeping the children with kin, rather
than going for broke and placing them with stranger foster parents?

Greg wrote
Without a court removal order?

Kane wrote
Greg, wake UP. That WAS the point. Easier to place with relatives with
or without a court order. All you need is everyone's consent.

Please explain how the parents are legally not allowed to
cancel their consent by leaving.

Is an arrest warrant to prevent such a ""voluntary""
agreement from being canceled?

Why get consent when CYF "placed" the kids there?
Doesn't sound like it was purely an agreement.

Such an agreement does NOT create a legal
obligation, and can be withdrawn at will.

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
What, by the way, is wrong with keeping the children with kin, rather
than going for broke and placing them with stranger foster parents?

Greg wrote
Without a court removal order?

Kane wrote
Greg, wake UP. That WAS the point. Easier to place with relatives with
or without a court order. All you need is everyone's consent.

Please explain how the parents are legally not allowed to
cancel their consent by leaving.

That was not the issue, Greg. They left under an order to have their
children go to an examination. Isn't that right?

Is an arrest warrant to prevent such a ""voluntary""
agreement from being canceled?

Where they under service of a warrant for leaving, or failing to make
the appointment as scheduled?

Why get consent when CYF "placed" the kids there?
Doesn't sound like it was purely an agreement.

Doesn't "sound" like anything at all, really. You are just busy fishing
for some excuse to blame CPS.

Such an agreement does NOT create a legal
obligation, and can be withdrawn at will.

Not to the order to show up for an appointment.

And it's very possible that there was such an agreement that was legally
binding. We don't know what happened, Greg. That's the only way you can
continue this charade...but dreaming up possibilities.

It's possible, boy, that there WAS a court order. We do not know. If
there was you can give up that bull**** that their departure would have
been known to the public by way of a "headline" as you put it. Just
rarely happens that way. There has to be something really bloody for a
producer or an editor to give headline status to such stories. They
happen a great deal, actually. Common stuff.

It's also possible that CPS asked the parents to sign an agreement about
the placement. Most such events ARE signed off by all parties as to the
conditions, etc. Visitations, favorite foods, with or without pets,
staying in their school or not...you know, the normal concerns of families.

How long are you going to wallow in your 'malpractice' fantasy, Greg?

You sure live for "DestroyCPS" now don't you?

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Kane wrote
What, by the way, is wrong with keeping the children with kin, rather
than going for broke and placing them with stranger foster parents?

Greg wrote
Without a court removal order?

Kane wrote
Greg, wake UP. That WAS the point. Easier to place with relatives with
or without a court order. All you need is everyone's consent.

Greg wrote
Please explain how the parents are legally not allowed to
cancel their consent by leaving.

Kane wrote
That was not the issue, Greg. They left under an order to have their
children go to an examination. Isn't that right?

What stated that a court had ORDERED this?
Was probably ""ORDERED"" by a caseworker.
Did you forget I experienced them LORDING OVER us?
With absolutely NO legal right to do so, by the way.
One even tried to trick me into violating a no-contact order
that did not exist! OOPS!

YES, Caseworkers often exceed their true authority!
That's what you get when you turn loose rabid zealots
in a government job!

Is an arrest warrant to prevent such a ""voluntary""
agreement from being canceled?

Where they under service of a warrant for leaving, or
failing to make the appointment as scheduled?

The original news story said foremost that the complaint
was interference with an investigation by missing the gyno.

Why get consent when CYF "placed" the kids there?
Doesn't sound like it was purely an agreement.

Doesn't "sound" like anything at all, really. You are just busy fishing
for some excuse to blame CPS.

Such an agreement does NOT create a legal
obligation, and can be withdrawn at will.

Not to the order to show up for an appointment.

Judges sign enforceable ORDERS, not caseworkers.

And it's very possible that there was such an agreement that was legally
binding. We don't know what happened, Greg. That's the only way you can
continue this charade...but dreaming up possibilities.

Kane, Didn't YOU start this with some smart ass comments
about how these people might run my way?

It's possible, boy, that there WAS a court order. We do not know. If
there was you can give up that bull**** that their departure would have
been known to the public by way of a "headline" as you put it. Just
rarely happens that way. There has to be something really bloody for a
producer or an editor to give headline status to such stories. They
happen a great deal, actually. Common stuff.

Yes, OR it could just be that sexual abuse HYSTERIA set in!

It's also possible that CPS asked the parents to sign an agreement about
the placement. Most such events ARE signed off by all parties as to the
conditions, etc. Visitations, favorite foods, with or without pets,
staying in their school or not...you know, the normal concerns of families.

Yeah, "sign this or we take your kids!"..
That's not under duress!
And they can't rescind their agreement?
Is it a contract or not?

Kane wrote
How long are you going to wallow in your 'malpractice' fantasy, Greg?
You sure live for "DestroyCPS" now don't you?

They tried to destroy my family using horrible deliberate LIES!

They DESERVE some serious prison time
and won't get it, so I don't feel one bit sorry for these perps.

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
What, by the way, is wrong with keeping the children with kin, rather
than going for broke and placing them with stranger foster parents?
Greg wrote
Without a court removal order?
Kane wrote
Greg, wake UP. That WAS the point. Easier to place with relatives with
or without a court order. All you need is everyone's consent.
Greg wrote
Please explain how the parents are legally not allowed to
cancel their consent by leaving.

Kane wrote
That was not the issue, Greg. They left under an order to have their
children go to an examination. Isn't that right?

What stated that a court had ORDERED this?

It was a police matter, as far as I recall the news article.

Are you suggesting that no one ordered it?

Was probably ""ORDERED"" by a caseworker.

Anything is possible. So?

Did you forget I experienced them LORDING OVER us?

I forget very little, Greg. You didn't notice?

With absolutely NO legal right to do so, by the way.

yawn back to Greg again. At least now, after it being pointed out by
three posters recently and again and again in the past, you have
included your "family." Nice going. Glad we got through to you...just
try to remember it.

One even tried to trick me into violating a no-contact order
that did not exist! OOPS!

"Trick" you? Why Greg, no one could trick a smart fellow like you.

YES, Caseworkers often exceed their true authority!

No, not often. Just from time to time. Smart fellows like you can use
those occasions to overcome CPS with comparative ease, like you did when
the child was returned a few weeks after removal. Isn't that right?

I know someone that CAN do that, that you repeatedly rebuffed and fought
with though. Guess who.

That's what you get when you turn loose rabid zealots
in a government job!

Yep. When are you hiring on then?

Is an arrest warrant to prevent such a ""voluntary""
agreement from being canceled?
Where they under service of a warrant for leaving, or
failing to make the appointment as scheduled?

The original news story said foremost that the complaint
was interference with an investigation by missing the gyno.

Nope. That is not, to my memory, what it said. It simply said an
examination. There may have already been a "gyno" or not. YOU don't
know. I don't know. Why presume, Greg?

Because it suits you to do so? Maintains your fantasies?

Why get consent when CYF "placed" the kids there?
Doesn't sound like it was purely an agreement.

Doesn't "sound" like anything at all, really. You are just busy fishing
for some excuse to blame CPS.

Such an agreement does NOT create a legal
obligation, and can be withdrawn at will.
Not to the order to show up for an appointment.

Judges sign enforceable ORDERS, not caseworkers.

I have a little surprise for you. Caseworkers work under statutes that
allow them to make certain demands and requests. Look some up. They ARE
enforceable without the judges "order," though often those are included.

We've argued them here for many years now. Were you sleeping the whole
time?

You are all over the place here, Greg. First you want to argue that
there had to be a court order, or that there couldn't be, because it
would have made headline news if there were, blah blah blah.

All just a smokescreen from you to further your, "something is fishy in
this story" insinuation.

And you have not, to this point, been able to mount a credible argument
based on the known facts in this case for that claim.

It's the media, Greg. They rarely release a story that doesn't have
large holes in it, usually by omission and or slanting for the bloody
content.

Live with it, but don't presume it's the state or CPS or the court, or
whoever it is you have to blame to find a reason for living.

And it's very possible that there was such an agreement that was legally
binding. We don't know what happened, Greg. That's the only way you can
continue this charade...but dreaming up possibilities.

Kane, Didn't YOU start this with some smart ass comments
about how these people might run my way?

Could be. Want to be more specific? I don't recall it, but you likely
can, as usual, construct a reasonable facsimile to play with.

It's all you have done so far. One delusional fantasy after another.

It's possible, boy, that there WAS a court order. We do not know. If
there was you can give up that bull**** that their departure would have
been known to the public by way of a "headline" as you put it. Just
rarely happens that way. There has to be something really bloody for a
producer or an editor to give headline status to such stories. They
happen a great deal, actually. Common stuff.

Yes, OR it could just be that sexual abuse HYSTERIA set in!

Anything is possible. But I would say it's unlikely in this instance.

We are talking about an appointment to show up for an exam related to a
sexual abuse case. Obviously the state is not second guessing, just
investigating. Do you wish them not to investigate?

It's also possible that CPS asked the parents to sign an agreement about
the placement. Most such events ARE signed off by all parties as to the
conditions, etc. Visitations, favorite foods, with or without pets,
staying in their school or not...you know, the normal concerns of families.

Yeah, "sign this or we take your kids!"..

And you have proof there was such a threat?

But they allowed the parents to have access to the children for
transporting?

That's not under duress!

Darned if I know. Where in the story would you get that? I'm simply
wandering with you down your path of fantasies. I keep hoping that I can
lead you back to reality, naively.

That's one of my charming faults...that I continue to hope in the face
of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You aren't really recoverable.

And they can't rescind their agreement?

Nope.

Is it a contract or not?

It is. If it exists. We don't know if it does or not. You are guessing.
I'm playing your guessing game with you.

It's interesting to see how far you'll go before you'll wake up, or even
IF you'll wake up at all.

Read the article again use IT and IT alone to support your funny
imaginings.

Kane wrote
How long are you going to wallow in your 'malpractice' fantasy, Greg?
You sure live for "DestroyCPS" now don't you?

They tried to destroy my family using horrible deliberate LIES!

Oh? Why would they try to destroy your family? You didn't have one, did
you? When did you marry Lisa? Adopt the daughter?

And if they wanted to destroy it, why did they place with the G'parents,
who doubtless disqualify the state from collecting any federal Title
IV-E monies for foster placement?

They DESERVE some serious prison time
and won't get it, so I don't feel one bit sorry for these perps.

The second phrase is in conflict with the first above.

I don't recall you being asked for any pity.

This is the attitude that will lose the case for you if you are allowed
to spew in court, Greg. You'll will be seen as a bitter, misinformed,
self aggrandizing fool.

You don't want that do you, being a real Boy Scout and all, eh?

0:-



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)