The Plant answer DNA swab Question

Kane writes:

ALL CPS WORKERS ARE CROOKS, OR ALL FOSTER PARENTS ARE IN IT FOR THE
MONEY.

Hi, Kane!

You are the only member of this newsgroup that has ever said that.

What you did say was, "And to investigate (and thanks for the excuse to
describe this yet again...I think three times this month) they must get
either the
nonoffending parents agreement move out the alleged perp and not
communicate with him or her."

And when it happens it's because there is something in the nature of
the charge, or the initial findings in the investigation that call for
protection of the accuser, or victim, or the part of the investigation
that follows.

The initial findings of the investigation, yes. If those initial findings
of the investigation amount to probable cause that the child is a risk of
abuse or neglect, then the child is often removed. But those initial
findings of probable cause not make it a substantiated case. We still need
to account for the 103,144 children removed from families CPS
unsubstantiated for risk of child abuse or neglect. http://tinyurl.com/9psd

Protection of the accuser, unless the reporter is the child himself, is
obviously not accomplished by removing the child. Reporter's names are kept
confidential and not released to the parents.

If you could be specific as to the "nature of the charge" being cause alone
for forcible removal of a child from her family, it would be helpful. Are
you saying that a child is removed from his home based solely upon the
"charge," without any investigation or finding that the charge may be true?

Nothing that nowhere in what you quouted or anything else I said is
there a time line claimed. Nor is there a claim that it must be so in
every investigation.

Precisely. However, timeline is extemely important. For this reason, I
posted the timeline of the average investigation in my reply to your post.

(Please read your quoted paragraph again.) Can you clarify why you
would
use the distinction "non-offending parent" in describing the time frame
BEFORE an investigation is conducted?

It would be more accurate to say, "non-accused caregiver," but for
that not invested as you are in hairsplitting the claim down to
something you think you can deal with, it's close enough for the
public to understand.

Well, the public needs also to understand that many child maltreatment
investigations begin with such a prejudice toward guilt. This is why the
system is overloaded with false-postive findings. Instead, workers need to
begin the investigation with a neutral stance.

The first object of the investigation
is to determine if sexual abuse occurred and whether there are any
offenders.

Chronologically or priority?

It would depend on when you consider an investigation beginning. If you are
considering the investigation as starting at the hotline desk, then I
suppose, chronologically the phone call is the first thing that is done.
That doesn't sound investigative to me, so I have looked at the
investigation as starting when the worker gets to the home to, well,
investigate. (Background information on parents and past CA/N reports would
have already been retrieved. If the parents lived out of state, that
state's records would have been retrieved. But this information, which
would be pertinent if a substantiated finding is later made, should not
contribute to determining if the abuse or risk of abuse/neglect occurred in
the present case). If investigation begins at the doorstep, then the answer
to your question is both.

The first objective of investigations I've seen tend toward doing what
needs to be done to ensure the safety of the alledged victim, before
any serious exchanges take place as part of the investigation.

Don't you every get tired of being a weasel?

Propaganda. Have you stopped beating your wife?

I never have and never will.

Can you say the same for your implication that I said something I
didn't?

I made the weasel statement as an example of your paragraph above, a
perfect example of "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Oh, okay. So the weasel statement was just an example. Thank you for
pointing that out.

You are welcome.

How about answering the question instead of offering a pointless
diversion?

I did not imply you said something you did not, so obviously I cannot "say
the same" about it. In other words, your question:
"Can you say the same for your implication that I said something I
didn't?" is propaganda -- the same as asking if I stopped beating my wife.

Is your question another "example"?

However, this move comes AFTER the worker has subjectively
determined
during
the assessment or investigation that something is wrong or the child
may
be,
sometime in the future, at some kind of risk, maybe.

I find nothing to disagree with, but you are pursuing this now as
though I did. I simply pointed out that CPS investigates, and that
they may well remove one parent who is named as the perp by someone,
often the child themself. The value of "often" in this case is roughly
about half the time, a bit more

Please share you source for this information. It appears highly inaccurate
to me. Please provide a citation.

CPS does not have the authority to remove one parent who is named by
someone
as the offender during the investigation.

You are mistaken. They have as much authority as any police
investigator does. If a police officer thinks someone poses a risk to
others, or to the investigation they have the authority to take
control of the situation.

CPS workers do not have as much authority as any police investigator does.
You are incorrect.

With a CPS investigator you and others assume they don't have that
authority and go into challenge and even attack mode. The results are
easily seen.

While the investigator may not be trained to detain someone they have
at their disposal, with the full support of the court under the law,
LEO's to do the hands on work. If you don't think so, try getting in
the face of a CPS investigator and see what happens.

CPS workers do not have the power to detain adults and children only when
they have a court order. Law enforcement officers, who often accompany CPS
workers as a courtesy can only arrest, detain or otherwise act in accordance
with their regular procedures. In other words, if the officer acts, he acts
in his capacity of enforcing criminal law not as an adjunct to the CPS
worker's civil authority.

Lacking a police escort they'll simply leave and go get one and the
next encounter will not be as polite. There won't even be a question
until the misinformed person is in cuffs.

Not so. Or are you going to say again that this only happens in some cases?
It does happen in those cases where citizens are charged with violating
criminal law.

And that is a perfect way to precipitate removal of children if you
wish to advise people to refuse to cooperate.

The parent's response depends upon the individual situation, of course. Did
you want me to google up a post where you advise parents to send CPS packing
and not cooperate at all? Did you want the children removed in such cases?

Do you so advise?

The parent's correct response depends upon the multiple, unique variables
involved in their particular situation. It depends upon what brings the
worker to the door. It is impossible to answer that question generally.

As we both state later in our
respective posts, the practice is cases where the allegations against
the
parent are credible and serious, the other parent is asked to take the
child
to a location where they can be interviewed (in some jurisdictions, an
appointment may be made with a CARES unit; in others the parent and
child
may follow the worker to a facility practicing interview methods I
described
in my post).

Nothing I have said in this thread precludes this from happening. Very
little I've said is what you claim I've said.

What I said precludes forcible removal of the child and taking the child
into custody.

And answer my question please. Not just another diversion. Why are you
preaching?

Since I am not preaching, it is impossible to answer "why" I am not doing
so. Is this another "example?"

Why have you stopped beating your wife?

Didn't use the work automatically, and didn't say it would happen in
every case their is an allegation. I gave NO freqency to the reply to
Greegor the Whore. Just that it happens.

Good. Thanks for clarifying.

That should suffice then to answer your questions. Will you end or
will you continue in your disengenuous and immoral defense of The
Whore?

Let's see, shall we.

I continued the thread to answer your questions and to correct some
misinformation you posted in your reply . . . as you can see.

CPS has no power to order the parents to do anything.

Did I say CPS did? If so I stand corrected but I am unable to find
that myself.

Yes, you did. But it is now clarified.

No it isn't. I am still unable to find where I claimed that "CPS has
the power to order the parents to do anything."

I can find a quote in this post.

"You are mistaken. THEY [CPS] HAVE AS MUCH AUTHORITY AS ANY POLICE
INVESTIGATOR DOES. If a police officer thinks someone poses a risk to
others, or to the investigation they have the authority to take
control of the situation." (My emphasis)

While the investigator is not, unless they are a sworn police officer,
authorized to affect the means they are authorized to call on those
that are, LEOs.

The CPS worker does not have the same authority as a police officer. If the
police officer acts, he acts in enforcing criminal law and under his
agency's guidelines for arrest or detainment, not the civil authority of the
caseworker.

In lieu of that, they offer the parties involved options to cooperate
in the best interests of all. If they refuse, it's LEO time.

Are you saying in all cases or just some cases?

Why do you think CPS investigators so often have the police meet them
at the site of the investigation? Coffee and donuts?

It is a common procedure done to protect the worker.

On the other hand, CPS is not the only player, as you well know. The
just CAN order the parent and can take action if the parent does not.
The investigator goes to the judge within a set number of hours after
initial contact for that assignment of their enforcement role...by the
judge. And the document produced is the same one presented to the feds
for IV-E funding. You betcha one exists.

As I mentioned in my prior post, courts were involved with only an
estimated
17.5% of 517,449 child victims in 2001. http://tinyurl.com/9uhv Most
CPS
investigations do not involve the courts and it is rare that a worker
will
go to a judge for an order at this stage of the investigation. If she
does,
she will need to have gathered enough evidence so far in the
investigation
to establish probable cause.

Bull****ting again, Doug. This number varies considerably. But it is
not true. Virtually all such cases, after the initial visit, are going
to court. It is required by law in all states I've every dealt with
and certainly by ASFA.

If the numbers vary considerably, which is not true? All I did was cite the
USDHHS NCANDS data, which reports that 17.5% of child victims had a court
involved in their case. http://tinyurl.com/9uhv


You can cut a fine hair on this one and say, no it isn't, but then you
have to deal with the fact that the state will be penalized under ASFA
if they do not in fact take every case where there is a removal of a
child to a judge in a set number of hours.

The vast majority of children who are substantiated as victims of child
abuse or neglect are NOT removed from their homes at any time before, during
or after the investigation. http://tinyurl.com/9psd

That's called the penalty portion of a law.

Nor are the parents
under any obligation to sign the agreement.

That depends entirely upon the evidence uncovered. But you are correct
that is not obligatory. They can refuse and take the consequences.

Yes. And an investigation has to take place to gather evidence. If the
safety plan suggests they have done something they haven't done, they
should
not sign it. Dan has also suggested, if I understand him, that the
parent
should not sign anything without first consulting their attorney.

This is rather far outside the topic of the claim I made. It isn't
anything I have an argument with. In fact I have made the same
suggestion myself. Though I've also made the suggestion that some
attorney's are worth spit in such matters. They may well urge the
client to agree to things they should not, and have been known to do
so as reported in this ng.

I believe, if I understand him correctly, that Dan advises not signing
in just such circumstance, and signing and performing the plan if it
does no define the signer as being guilty of some shortcomings.

I have suggested before to families in similar circumstances that they
do what business people do with such things. Simply get up with the
document in hand, walk out of the meeting with the words, "I will have
to review this CONTRACT and I will get back to you in three working
days with my decision."

Yep. Good procedure.

Unless you are under arrest or being detained by the police (and even
then you may well get away with it) that puts you back in control
without appearing in any way uncooperative. In fact you can insist
that you are cooperating MORE fully by your care and consideration of
the CONTRACT.

Precisely. I agree.

You can run it at your leisure by an attorney, or use it to line your
birdcage, but it important to think about your children who have been
taken, if they have, and proceed with that in mind.

It't common in other circumstances like these to treat the contracts
with care, making and initialing needed changes (representing your
interests), and with a service plan or safety plan (call it what you
will in your area) include what the other party will do, and do not
sign it until they do in your presence and that of a witness you have
produced.

All safety plans (treatment plans) should specify what CPS will do and the
worker (supervisor) signs as a party. Adding conditions, as you suggest, is
an excellent idea. Parents should not be surprised if the caseworker
refuses to sign, however, because she does not agree with the conditions.

In such an instance, what would you suggest the parent do?

My first encounter with CPS was very much like that. They caved. No
service agreement contract was completed and the child was not removed
from the parent.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't give legal advice but I do point out what
is sensible and well within any legal constraints or expectations.
When asked to sign a contract one can refuse and take the
consequences, or they can agree with stipulations as I've pointed out,
time and editing priveleges, and refuse to sign a one sided
contract...as it isn't unless both sides are represented.

An agreement can be one sided, but a contract cannot and should not.
So the object is to turn the onesided pile of crap into a nice two
sided bouquet of flowers.

While they are sometimes called "agreements", safety plans/treatment
plans/service plans are contracts requiring the agreement of both parties.


Innocent Parents often
mistakenly sign this plan under actual or perceived threats.

You are correct. The innocent mistakenly sign this plan. They should
simply go to the wall and fight CPS from the getgo, having their
children in foster care for up to a year, maybe year and a half, and
very possibly lose them in the end.

Are you saying that children are removed and forcibly kept in custody for a
year and a half just because an innocent parent does not sign a service
plan?

BTW, I never suggested that innocent parents "go to the wall and fight CPS
from the getgo." There are a host of options other than signing the plan as
is or fighting CPS from the getgo. You have shared some of those options.

No, they should calmly and with courtesy decline to sign a safety plan
that
suggests they have done something wrong if they haven't done anything
wrong
(innocent). Or, they should politely ask the caseworker to wait while
they
review the document with their attorney and receive her recommendation
whether to sign it or not.

And they should feel perfectly free to signal their cooperation to any
judge waiting down the line somewhere in the process by editing and
adding a line where the worker or supervisor (latter is prefered) has
to sign it BEFORE the parent does, with witnesses who come with the
parent.

The safety plan already has a space for the worker and supervisor to sign.
Both parties receive a copy, so I am not sure why the order of who signs
first is important.

Balking on the part of CPS at this point while retaining the
child(ren) puts them in an untenable position in court. THEY didn't
cooperate with perfectly reasonable requests of the parents. That's
why the witnesses are important.

Many a time CPS caves unless they have a solid case with ample
evidence.

Excellent advice. One does wonder, however, about what happens to those
parents who do not have the savvy to proceed as you reccomend. In these
cases, CPS proceeds to remove the children without ample evidence and a
solid case.

The whole transaction takes on the tone of trickery and deceit. It is an
uneven playing field with the more powerful party willing to exploit the
weaker unless the parents are privvy to outside information. It doesn't
sound much like "child protection," does it?

This is one of the reasons why the systemic reform is called for. At the
minimum all parents have to be informed of how to negotiate the conditions
of a safety plan.

So the advice I suggest in no way will help the guilty get their child
back. Those instances should run the course to insure there WILL be
compliance, but they can still and should, insist on both parties
signing and outcomes spelled out clearly in the contract: "when steps
one, two, three are completed the child will be returned within 48
hours" or words to that effect.

In my jurisdiction a worker would not sign a safety agreement with such a
stipulation because he or she could not commit to when a child would be
returned. That decision is made later by what will then be a "team" of
salaried experts who consider as one element the fact that the parent has
completed "steps one, two and three." The stipulation more likely to be
agreed to is that reunification will be considered when steps one, two and
three have been completed.

...Only if the parent's attorney has read the safety plan and advises
the
parent to sign it. One must be very careful not to stipulate to
anything
that may be determined to put the child at risk or suggest guilt,
thereby
negating their case at the adjucication hearing. This is the only
opportunity the parent has to challenge CPS allegations and CPS has the
burden of proof.

That is exactly why the document should be returned with editing
initialed by the parent but no signiture of the parent on it until CPS
puts pen to paper.

It's The Whore solution made sane and reasonable. But then his is not
to get the child back but to sue later. That's an entirely different
ballgame. Me, I want the child back. Don't call me when it's time to
sue. I'm not well versed in that aspect.


Agreeing to take a psychological evaluation from one of the therapists
in
CPS's stable is a crucial error.

Bull**** again.

You simply walk into the evaluation session with a copy of the
evaluation of YOUR psychologist in hand and ask the current shrink,
smiling of course, their opinion of this evaluation.

Psychological evaluations for CPS are rarely -- if ever -- done by shrinks.
Therapists (social workers, LPC's or sometimes psychologists) perform the
evaluations, complete with assigning a DSM-IV diagnosis. Once you have the
evaluation done by a therapist you have retained, there really is no reason
to get the CPS therapist's opinion.

Damn, don't you people know ANYTHING tactically? What actually works
is so damn simple when you don't spend your time ranting hysterically
to "kill CPS" when you are in no position to do so.

Who has said that parents should kill CPS?

They can STILL show the court their willingness to take the CPS pscyh
eval. That is a very powerful statement.

Of course if they ARE nuts this will bite them in the butt, but I have
not a qualm about that. I prefer they face the truth. 1

Don't you?

Psych evaluations have little to do with determining if someone is "nuts."
Psych evals always result in a determination that criteria for one or more
DSM-IV diagnoses have been met. Some of the labels are relatively mild,
while others are major. All are negative.

One of the major problems in the publics misperception of psychological
evaluations.

That
evaluation report will be provided to the client (the parent).
Evaluators
in CPS stable make a good deal of their income (if not all) from CPS and
they provide the parent's evaluation report to their client (CPS). If a
stable therapist doesn't have a history of saying what CPS wants to hear
they are taken out of the stable.

You are as usual either lying or badly misinformed. A few months back
I spent a profitable afternoon, three billable hours, consulting with
a worker that was finding a counselor evaluating (obviously to route a
family back to MORE therapy) with bias...in fact three involved
therapists.

Nothing you have said above or below disputes what I have said. And it will
always be up to the CPS worker to act on or ignore the psych eval. Taxpayer
money need not be spent on consultants to so advise their caseworkers.
Caseworkers routinely ignore the findings of a psych eval if it doesn't fit
in with their plan.

The resolution? With my facilitation of the worker examining the
circumstances and what SHE knew the family needed: reuniting without
further services divided up between the three shrinks, just a few
wind-up sessions for the family together, that little bull**** number
by the shrinks ended.

There is a lot of bull**** numbers pulled up by CPS stable therapists. Is a
family's chances restricted to hoping the caseworker hires a consultant?

I heard the howl from 50 miles away, but this is not an unusual action
by a worker. I had to remind her that she was the case manager, not
the shrinks. And they hadn't a decent argument to support their
evaluation.

Right. It is not an unusual action by a worker. Something a caseworker does
all the time without a consultant. Who was howling?

LaVonne: WHY did you repost that out of alt.parenting.spanking?

How narrow is the focus in that newsgroup?
Is it becoming a bit intellectually inbred?

You discuss no legal issues about Juvenile court there?

Or in there do you just discuss the legal issues you like to see?

While I have been bashed a lot in an abuse of the
fact that ascps is NOT MODERATED, I am beginning to
see some dark tinges in the idea of somebody moderating
a newsgroup and making it a bit too cultic.