I am outraged!

[philhos]

I know of a girl (we'll name her "Jess") who just a couple months ago had her 21 month old son taken from her by CYS (Children and Youth Services). At the time, Jess was living with 2 other mothers who had children of their own. CYS came and took those 2 mother's children (why, I don't know) and according to Jess, the 2 mothers made up lies so that CYS would take her son from her.

I haven't even got to the outrageous part. As of this posting, Jess has still not been charged with any crime (her son was taken from her in March) and it doesn't even look like it will happen.

Since her son was taken, Jess has been ordered (by CYS) to take parenting classes and anger managment classes (which she has to travel to a completely different county to do so). Her son has not been placed into foster care, rather adoptive care (meaning the people he's staying with have the option to adopt him after a certain length of time). She also can only see her son 1 day a week for a couple hours with supervision.

Plus, Jess just met with a friend's lawyer, who has stated that Jess should not have been ordered to do anything until some hearings have been conducted (to date, NO hearings have been scheduled).

To top it all off, Jess was staying with that friend ("Amy") and CYS told Amy that Jess could not stay with her and if she did, CYS would take Amy's kids from her as well.

Frankly, I'm just outraged. I'm ready to storm CYS's offices myself and slap them with a lawsuit and injunction and just plain slap them in their faces. We live in a country where the police need a warrant to wiretap people's phones. Yet, no warrant needs to be issued to take someone's children?!

You just don't understand how angry I am right now (you might if my anger spills into my other posts in other threads). IMO, this is nothing short of American-sponsored kidnapping, American-sponsored child trafficking,

Right now, the lawyer is meeting with a judge (the lawyer is ****** off as well), so some good might be remedied. However, not only do I think Jess should be reunited with her son, I think criminal kidnapping charges should be filed on the caseworker at CYS who did all this. I also think Jess should sue CYS for an extreme amount of punitive damages.

[BANJAXED]

I'm sorry Phil. Sounds like a lot of this was premeditated by the women she lives with. Really sad. I was looking at their website: http://www.co.butler.pa.us/butler/cwp/view.asp?a=1475&q=571434. It just seems like: "hey call this # - tell us some bad stuff , we'll believe you, and we'll pick the kid up". No set process outlined that I could find.

I hope good ol' Edmund gets a big kick in the junk and a nice fat law suit.

[EatonFan]

I know of a girl (we'll name her "Jess") who just a couple months ago had her 21 month old son taken from her by CYS (Children and Youth Services). At the time, Jess was living with 2 other mothers who had children of their own. CYS came and took those 2 mother's children (why, I don't know) and according to Jess, the 2 mothers made up lies so that CYS would take her son from her.

I haven't even got to the outrageous part. As of this posting, Jess has still not been charged with any crime (her son was taken from her in March) and it doesn't even look like it will happen.

Since her son was taken, Jess has been ordered (by CYS) to take parenting classes and anger managment classes (which she has to travel to a completely different county to do so). Her son has not been placed into foster care, rather adoptive care (meaning the people he's staying with have the option to adopt him after a certain length of time). She also can only see her son 1 day a week for a couple hours with supervision.

Plus, Jess just met with a friend's lawyer, who has stated that Jess should not have been ordered to do anything until some hearings have been conducted (to date, NO hearings have been scheduled).

To top it all off, Jess was staying with that friend ("Amy") and CYS told Amy that Jess could not stay with her and if she did, CYS would take Amy's kids from her as well.

Frankly, I'm just outraged. I'm ready to storm CYS's offices myself and slap them with a lawsuit and injunction and just plain slap them in their faces. We live in a country where the police need a warrant to wiretap people's phones. Yet, no warrant needs to be issued to take someone's children?!

You just don't understand how angry I am right now (you might if my anger spills into my other posts in other threads). IMO, this is nothing short of American-sponsored kidnapping, American-sponsored child trafficking,

Right now, the lawyer is meeting with a judge (the lawyer is ****** off as well), so some good might be remedied. However, not only do I think Jess should be reunited with her son, I think criminal kidnapping charges should be filed on the caseworker at CYS who did all this. I also think Jess should sue CYS for an extreme amount of punitive damages.

CYS has too much power in these matters sometimes, and they can do things with complete heresay evidence. I'm shocked and outraged as well. It usually takes months to straighten these things out, even if it's patently clear that no abuse of any kind has taken place.

One of our good family friend's granddaughter had all three of her kids taken from her. One of the kids (who is a habitual liar) accused her parents of beating her. This was unequivocably untrue. The two other kids said it was not true (and they're the older ones). The times/places she said it happened could not possibly have been so. All three kids were there and no one except this child said it happened. So they took all three kids and placed them with our family friend (who is 70 years old and about 4'11"). Guess what? The same kid accused HER of beating her. Again. Completely untrue. Finally the case worker came to her senses and realized that the kid was lying for the attention it got her. After 2 1/2 months of living with grandma, they returned the kids to their parents. All this because a case worker couldn't figure out the kid was lying the whole time. There weren't even any marks/bruises... ANYTHING on the child.

Sad.

[kevin28_1962]

CYS has too much power in these matters sometimes, and they can do things with complete heresay evidence. I'm shocked and outraged as well. It usually takes months to straighten these things out, even if it's patently clear that no abuse of any kind has taken place.

One of our good family friend's granddaughter had all three of her kids taken from her. One of the kids (who is a habitual liar) accused her parents of beating her. This was unequivocably untrue. The two other kids said it was not true (and they're the older ones). The times/places she said it happened could not possibly have been so. All three kids were there and no one except this child said it happened. So they took all three kids and placed them with our family friend (who is 70 years old and about 4'11"). Guess what? The same kid accused HER of beating her. Again. Completely untrue. Finally the case worker came to her senses and realized that the kid was lying for the attention it got her. After 2 1/2 months of living with grandma, they returned the kids to their parents. All this because a case worker couldn't figure out the kid was lying the whole time. There weren't even any marks/bruises... ANYTHING on the child.

Sad.

it's a catch 22 situation. If they remove the child and perform the due-process and nothing has been determined, people get ****** that the child was removed for no reason. If they dont remove the child for due-process and then the child gets hurt worse, or heaven forbid dies, then people are outraged because they didn't react.

I'm not saying what CYS did to your friend is right but just trying to show the double edged sword.

[EatonFan]

it's a catch 22 situation. If they remove the child and perform the due-process and nothing has been determined, people get ****** that the child was removed for no reason. If they dont remove the child for due-process and then the child gets hurt worse, or heaven forbid dies, then people are outraged because they didn't react.

I'm not saying what CYS did to your friend is right but just trying to show the double edged sword.

My issue is it shouldn't have taken 2 1/2 months to figure it out! Just a couple of interviews with the child and a couple of physical exams could have determined that in about 48 hours max. I really had no issue with them taking the kids temporarily (I'd rather error on the side of caution), but come on... 2 1/2 months?

[kevin28_1962]

My issue is it shouldn't have taken 2 1/2 months to figure it out! Just a couple of interviews with the child and a couple of physical exams could have determined that in about 48 hours max. I really had no issue with them taking the kids temporarily (I'd rather error on the side of caution), but come on... 2 1/2 months?

agreed

[Jumbro]

I'm sorry Phil. Sounds like a lot of this was premeditated by the women she lives with. Really sad. I was looking at their website: http://www.co.butler.pa.us/butler/cwp/view.asp?a=1475&q=571434. It just seems like: "hey call this # - tell us some bad stuff , we'll believe you, and we'll pick the kid up". No set process outlined that I could find.

I hope good ol' Edmund gets a big kick in the junk and a nice fat law suit.


At the same time, I've been told by elementary school officials, that if you call child services because a child is being verbally, mentally abused at home, or some other concern....they will not even look into the case unless there are physical markings on the child showing physical abuse.

[philhos]

it's a catch 22 situation. If they remove the child and perform the due-process and nothing has been determined, people get ****** that the child was removed for no reason. If they dont remove the child for due-process and then the child gets hurt worse, or heaven forbid dies, then people are outraged because they didn't react.

I'm not saying what CYS did to your friend is right but just trying to show the double edged sword.

I understand the double edge sword nature of the whole ordeal which would make you think they would do everything as legitmately as they can.

If someone accuses someone of child abuse, take it seriously, but do an investigation before any action is taken place.

[xxlt]

My issue is it shouldn't have taken 2 1/2 months to figure it out! Just a couple of interviews with the child and a couple of physical exams could have determined that in about 48 hours max. I really had no issue with them taking the kids temporarily (I'd rather error on the side of caution), but come on... 2 1/2 months?

Not sure where you live, but in this area the turnover rate among social workers doing child abuse investigations is very high. They see depressing stuff everyday - even on the "good" days - they are physically threatened and often assaulted by people they investigate, most of them have a Masters degree but make a very modest salary, and their caseloads are very high.

It would be nice to think that the worker spent those 2 1/2 months drinking coffee and making paper clip necklaces at the fancy desk in some government ivory tower. Then one day the worker got around to doing the paperwork to resolve the matter in question. I would wager that is not the case. I know it isn't the case around here. Here the case workers are running around like their heads are on fire and their ***** are catching.

Most case workers in this area work 10-30 hours of involuntary and unpaid overtime each week (they get "compensatory time" which means they can take time off another day when they work over but they rarely can use the time because they are perpetually busy) and they work seven days a week and are on call 24 hours. Thus high turnover. So you don't have a lot of peer support because there is no experience to draw on - almost all your "peers" have less than a year on the job and the ones with more than that are burned out and just zombies. It is quite sad.

[philhos]

even if it's patently clear that no abuse of any kind has taken place..

If CYS gets involved there always IS abuse. Either abuse by a parent or guardian or adult in charge of children or by CYS themselves.

That's why I feel the person responsible for taking "Jess's" child away needs to have criminal charges filed against him or her. They've essentially kidnapped her son and given him to someone else to raise. A 21-month-old (well, now 23-month-old) is not spending every day with his mother, only 1 day a week, about 2-3 hours that one day with someone "supervising" her. That's abuse.

All because 2 people who were having their children taken from them (I even question if that was legitimate now) decided to share their misery. That's like you getting arrested for murder 'cause 2 other murderers said you killed someone.

[xxlt]

Philhos, as a man who rarely rushes to judgement, I am surprised at your reaction to this.
I don't have all the facts here, but I suspect you don't either. I'm not trying to be facetious or argumentative, I am just asking you to take a step back and calm down, if you can.

I've worked with quite a few abused kids and some of the parents who abused them or other children. Every allegation of abuse is not false. People have a hard time believing many abusers are guilty because an allegation often seems so out of character or is just too disturbing to believe. I would encourage you to try to ratchet down your anger until you have more facts.

That being said, false reports of abuse are made. But as far as Eaton's comment that the investigating worker should have been able to easily figure out that a kid was lying, I say, "not so fast." I would encourage him and everyone to walk a mile in the CYS worker's shoes. I have known a lot of people who did that sort of investigative work, and it ain't easy. When the stories don't match up, you can't just assume since more people are saying it didn't happen that therefore the accused is innocent. That would be a very irresponsible strategy. Often a spouse or partner (and other siblings) will deny that abuse has occurred either out of fear or because they just can't believe it. It gets complicated. And if the worker makes the wrong decision people can get hurt (or hurt again) and even killed. Oh, and the worker's job is on the line every day. Granted the lives and physical safety of defenseless children are far more important, but it is tough when every decision you make can subject you to termination. So, I encourage you to talk to a few social workers who do child abuse investigations and I think you will see it is not so simple. And if you can't find one, talk to a few cops. Most of them have seen an abuse investigation or two.

Philhos, I really think that there might be facts here that you don't have, and a friend looking for sympathy is unlikely to incriminate himself or herself. Right? I hope if your friend actually did nothing wrong that the matter is resolved promptly. And, if she did do something wrong I hope that the interventions offered benefit her and improve her child's life.

[philhos]

Not sure where you live, but in this area the turnover rate among social workers doing child abuse investigations is very high. They see depressing stuff everyday - even on the "good" days - they are physically threatened and often assaulted by people they investigate, most of them have a Masters degree but make a very modest salary, and their caseloads are very high.

It would be nice to think that the worker spent those 2 1/2 months drinking coffee and making paper clip necklaces at the fancy desk in some government ivory tower. Then one day the worker got around to doing the paperwork to resolve the matter in question. I would wager that is not the case. I know it isn't the case around here. Here the case workers are running around like their heads are on fire and their ***** are catching.

Most case workers in this area work 10-30 hours of involuntary and unpaid overtime each week (they get "compensatory time" which means they can take time off another day when they work over but they rarely can use the time because they are perpetually busy) and they work seven days a week and are on call 24 hours. Thus high turnover. So you don't have a lot of peer support because there is no experience to draw on - almost all your "peers" have less than a year on the job and the ones with more than that are burned out and just zombies. It is quite sad.

And to think, we give these people the authority to take your children away without getting a warrant. Police cannot search your homes or tap your phones without a warrant, but if CYS wants to take your children, go ahead.

[philhos]

Philhos, as a man who rarely rushes to judgement, I am surprised at your reaction to this.
I don't have all the facts here, but I suspect you don't either. I'm not trying to be facetious or argumentative, I am just asking you to take a step back and calm down, if you can.

I've worked with quite a few abused kids and some of the parents who abused them or other children. Every allegation of abuse is not false. People have a hard time believing many abusers are guilty because an allegation often seems so out of character or is just too disturbing to believe. I would encourage you to try to ratchet down your anger until you have more facts.

That being said, false reports of abuse are made. But as far as Eaton's comment that the investigating worker should have been able to easily figure out that a kid was lying, I say, "not so fast." I would encourage him and everyone to walk a mile in the CYS worker's shoes. I have known a lot of people who did that sort of investigative work, and it ain't easy. When the stories don't match up, you can't just assume since more people are saying it didn't happen that therefore the accused is innocent. That would be a very irresponsible strategy. Often a spouse or partner (and other siblings) will deny that abuse has occurred either out of fear or because they just can't believe it. It gets complicated. And if the worker makes the wrong decision people can get hurt (or hurt again) and even killed. Oh, and the worker's job is on the line every day. Granted the lives and physical safety of defenseless children are far more important, but it is tough when every decision you make can subject you to termination. So, I encourage you to talk to a few social workers who do child abuse investigations and I think you will see it is not so simple. And if you can't find one, talk to a few cops. Most of them have seen an abuse investigation or two.

Philhos, I really think that there might be facts here that you don't have, and a friend looking for sympathy is unlikely to incriminate himself or herself. Right? I hope if your friend actually did nothing wrong that the matter is resolved promptly. And, if she did do something wrong I hope that the interventions offered benefit her and improve her child's life.

Oh, I know I don't have all the facts, but I have enough to know that in order to take my children, you better have a damn good reason to do it. I don't see any here.

I might be quick to judge the caseworker in terms of criminal charges, but there is no good reason here for this child to be taken from his mother. If there was, how come she hasn't been charged with a crime 2 months later? How come not a single hearing has been set?

At best, there's suspected abuse and all they have is the testimony of 2 people. That's not enough; not in this country. If there were more, maybe a slew of "accidents" and/or trips to the hospital, combined with marks all over the body, combined with testimony of reliable eyewitnesses. Then, there might be a case. But, still, don't you think the mother should be charged or a warrant gotten to remove the child?

[EatonFan]

Not sure where you live, but in this area the turnover rate among social workers doing child abuse investigations is very high. They see depressing stuff everyday - even on the "good" days - they are physically threatened and often assaulted by people they investigate, most of them have a Masters degree but make a very modest salary, and their caseloads are very high.

It would be nice to think that the worker spent those 2 1/2 months drinking coffee and making paper clip necklaces at the fancy desk in some government ivory tower. Then one day the worker got around to doing the paperwork to resolve the matter in question. I would wager that is not the case. I know it isn't the case around here. Here the case workers are running around like their heads are on fire and their ***** are catching.

Most case workers in this area work 10-30 hours of involuntary and unpaid overtime each week (they get "compensatory time" which means they can take time off another day when they work over but they rarely can use the time because they are perpetually busy) and they work seven days a week and are on call 24 hours. Thus high turnover. So you don't have a lot of peer support because there is no experience to draw on - almost all your "peers" have less than a year on the job and the ones with more than that are burned out and just zombies. It is quite sad.

Agreed.

[xxlt]

And to think, we give these people the authority to take your children away without getting a warrant. Police cannot search your homes or tap your phones without a warrant, but if CYS wants to take your children, go ahead.

I understand what you are saying. And I am a big fan of our civil liberties and certain restraints on the police. I just don't think this is quite the same thing.

I used to work in law enforcement. Most cops will tell you they won't ask for a warrant unless they know they will (and should) get it. I know I never asked for one without justification, and I was never denied a request by a judge. I think social workers are capable of exercising that much judgement. And, given the immediacy of the danger to a child I understand not requiring a warrant for removal. Ultimately it would be in almost all cases an unnecessary step as a judge issuing a warrant for a child's removal would always err on the side of caution. That is, the judge doesn't want to have it laid at his feet if he denies a removal and the next day the child is in the E.R. or the morgue. All it would do is waste some of the worker's time having to prepare and deliver an affidavit to a judge for a signature. They spend enough time on paperwork and in court already.

[BANJAXED]

At the same time, I've been told by elementary school officials, that if you call child services because a child is being verbally, mentally abused at home, or some other concern....they will not even look into the case unless there are physical markings on the child showing physical abuse.

Sad. Sounds like there isn't any consistency in how things operate across the board. I would assume some offices are more proactive then others just by the nature of the people working in them.

Isn't CYC state run? 2.5 months is slow regardless the process :hmm:

[xxlt]

Oh, I know I don't have all the facts, but I have enough to know that in order to take my children, you better have a damn good reason to do it. I don't see any here.

I might be quick to judge the caseworker in terms of criminal charges, but there is no good reason here for this child to be taken from his mother. If there was, how come she hasn't been charged with a crime 2 months later? How come not a single hearing has been set?

At best, there's suspected abuse and all they have is the testimony of 2 people. That's not enough; not in this country. If there were more, maybe a slew of "accidents" and/or trips to the hospital, combined with marks all over the body, combined with testimony of reliable eyewitnesses. Then, there might be a case. But, still, don't you think the mother should be charged or a warrant gotten to remove the child?

Two months seems like a long time, unless you are familiar with the court system. It is a blink of an eye. I've seen people sit in jail for a year or more before being charged. Now, I have to say it made me rather uncomfortable, but I have seen it. And, their lawyers sometimes were beside themselves but couldn't get the clients released.

In a small way I am happy when people bump up against what you are seeing here. Most Americans have a very limited idea of how "justice" works in this country and their ideas are pretty far from correct. I know you are a sharp and relatively well informed person. I encourage you to pay attention to this case but also to learn more about the legal system as you have time. If you think you are outraged today - just wait. Some days you will be outraged on behalf of victims of crime, but if you spend enough time looking in to it you will be outraged on behalf of the accused (or the yet to be accused) and sometimes even on behalf of the guilty and sentenced. There are many flaws in our "great" legal system. And I would say 80 - 90 % of Americans who aren't attorneys, in law enforcement, or criminals have no idea what is going on. And, often the other three groups don't know what is going on either!

[EatonFan]

I understand what you are saying. And I am a big fan of our civil liberties and certain restraints on the police. I just don't think this is quite the same thing.

I used to work in law enforcement. Most cops will tell you they won't ask for a warrant unless they know they will (and should) get it. I know I never asked for one without justification, and I was never denied a request by a judge. I think social workers are capable of exercising that much judgement. And, given the immediacy of the danger to a child I understand not requiring a warrant for removal. Ultimately it would be in almost all cases an unnecessary step as a judge issuing a warrant for a child's removal would always err on the side of caution. That is, the judge doesn't want to have it laid at his feet if he denies a removal and the next day the child is in the E.R. or the morgue. All it would do is waste some of the worker's time having to prepare and deliver an affidavit to a judge for a signature. They spend enough time on paperwork and in court already.

Disagree. There should be a warrant. The only time that a warrant should not be gotten is if there really is an immediate, verifiable danger to the child. The application of the warrant should not be rubber-stamped either. There must be more than some heresay to go off of.

That said a 48 hour temporary taking of the child should be available even if the evidence is circumstantial. Then an interview of the child and physical exam would yield further investigation if warranted (no pun intended).

[philhos]

I used to work in law enforcement. Most cops will tell you they won't ask for a warrant unless they know they will (and should) get it. I know I never asked for one without justification, and I was never denied a request by a judge. I think social workers are capable of exercising that much judgement. And, given the immediacy of the danger to a child I understand not requiring a warrant for removal. Ultimately it would be in almost all cases an unnecessary step as a judge issuing a warrant for a child's removal would always err on the side of caution. That is, the judge doesn't want to have it laid at his feet if he denies a removal and the next day the child is in the E.R. or the morgue. All it would do is waste some of the worker's time having to prepare and deliver an affidavit to a judge for a signature. They spend enough time on paperwork and in court already.

So we should just screw those families who have done nothing wrong because one day CYS might actually be right?

Do you know why police have to get a warrant? It's to prevent mistreatment, to prevent abuse of power. It's an attempt to try to limit corruption by the police department. Why isn't there the same level of concern for corruption by caseworkers? What, do we think cops just are naturally corrupt and all caseworkers are saints? Ha!

There needs to be some sort of checks and balances to limit these cases where children are removed from households with little to no reason to remove them. We need to do everything we can to protect children and that includes happy children who are in the care of wonderful, loving, nonabusive parents.

[xxlt]

Disagree. There should be a warrant. The only time that a warrant should not be gotten is if there really is an immediate, verifiable danger to the child. The application of the warrant should not be rubber-stamped either. There must be more than some heresay to go off of.

That said a 48 hour temporary taking of the child should be available even if the evidence is circumstantial. Then an interview of the child and physical exam would yield further investigation if warranted (no pun intended).

One issue no one has noted, and I will now, is neglect. If a young child is left unattended for extended periods of time this is neglect. Now, the child may not have been hit or malnourished, hence no "physical signs," but neglect is serious. If you leave a three year old in an apartment for 8 hours to 8 days at a time with some food and water, he/she might look fine when you look at him/her and might not tell you any horror story. But, I would argue this is neglect (actually extreme neglect - I would argue leaving a child this age unattended at all is neglect) and justifies removal and removal sans warrant. (I suspect in the "Jess" case the issue may be neglect and not abuse per se.)

[busamboy]

This is a really sticky situation and you really forget that this sort of stuff happens

[xxlt]

So we should just screw those families who have done nothing wrong because one day CYS might actually be right?

Do you know why police have to get a warrant? It's to prevent mistreatment, to prevent abuse of power. It's an attempt to try to limit corruption by the police department. Why isn't there the same level of concern for corruption by caseworkers? What, do we think cops just are naturally corrupt and all caseworkers are saints? Ha!

There needs to be some sort of checks and balances to limit these cases where children are removed from households with little to no reason to remove them. We need to do everything we can to protect children and that includes happy children who are in the care of wonderful, loving, nonabusive parents.

Well, I would submit that you are correct in your line of argument in paragraph two. I would argue that "the law" has not seen it necessary to prevent abuse of power by social workers because historically it has been rare. But, abuse of power has been commonplace by police officers historically, thus the law has tried to limit their powers. That isn't saying all cops are thugs and all caseworkers are angels, it is just saying that the reality is probably that the society and the courts have seen more reason to limit the authority of cops and less to limit that of caseworkers. The caseworker in the "Jess" case may be out of line, but I tend to think he/she will be vindicated if you ever know all the facts. And, if you don't ever know them all you really won't be able to judge. (Isn't that, incidentally, how you still live with yourself as you support "el presidente?" By telling yourself you don't know all the facts?)

Children don't have the same legal standing as adults. By the nature of their vulnerability they also need us to err on the side of caution if there is suspicion of their mistreatment. If my child was ever removed from my care pending an investigation I am sure it would be a most trying time.

But, I would hope rather than being outraged because I had done nothing wrong that I could find the ability (it would be challenging) to be grateful for a society that was so concerned with my child's safety (as I am). The old saying is better safe than sorry. I hope the child in the case you mentioned is safe now, and if and when returned to her mother he/she continues to be safe and neither abused nor neglected.

One thing we know, in the Jess case the child couldn't offer testimony (or very little) and so this makes it a tough investigation. I am assuming financial hardship caused Jess to throw in with the other two women, but association with them may have been considered endangerment - sort of reading between the lines of the fact pattern you presented. Any more facts available, or that you care to share?

[philhos]

One issue no one has noted, and I will now, is neglect. If a young child is left unattended for extended periods of time this is neglect. Now, the child may not have been hit or malnourished, hence no "physical signs," but neglect is serious. If you leave a three year old in an apartment for 8 hours to 8 days at a time with some food and water, he/she might look fine when you look at him/her and might not tell you any horror story. But, I would argue this is neglect (actually extreme neglect - I would argue leaving a child this age unattended at all is neglect) and justifies removal and removal sans warrant. (I suspect in the "Jess" case the issue may be neglect and not abuse per se.)

Then again, there would be evidence of such things. Just because someone said, "Hey, Jess leaves her son home alone all day while she's out drinking it up" by itself is not 'cause to remove the child.

If an investigation leads to that person's claim being accurate, then okay, maybe removal is warranted, but not always.

As to your suspicions in Jess' case, it is indeed physical abuse that was cited for the reason to remove her son, not neglect.

[philhos]

Well, I would submit that you are correct in your line of argument in paragraph two. I would argue that "the law" has not seen it necessary to prevent abuse of power by social workers because historically it has been rare. But, abuse of power has been commonplace by police officers historically, thus the law has tried to limit their powers. That isn't saying all cops are thugs and all caseworkers are angels, it is just saying that the reality is probably that the society and the courts have seen more reason to limit the authority of cops and less to limit that of caseworkers. The caseworker in the "Jess" case may be out of line, but I tend to think he/she will be vindicated if you ever know all the facts. And, if you don't ever know them all you really won't be able to judge. (Isn't that, incidentally, how you still live with yourself as you support "el presidente?" By telling yourself you don't know all the facts?)

Considering all the facts I listed - the most important one being that according to a lawyer that lives and works in Butler county, Jess should not have been ordered to do anything without a hearing and apparently, no hearing has taken place - I am extremely doubtful the caseworker may be vindicated.

Children don't have the same legal standing as adults. By the nature of their vulnerability they also need us to err on the side of caution if there is suspicion of their mistreatment. If my child was ever removed from my care pending an investigation I am sure it would be a most trying time.

But, I would hope rather than being outraged because I had done nothing wrong that I could find the ability (it would be challenging) to be grateful for a society that was so concerned with my child's safety (as I am). The old saying is better safe than sorry. I hope the child in the case you mentioned is safe now, and if and when returned to her mother he/she continues to be safe and neither abused nor neglected.

I am a rational and intelligent man. If there was enough evidence that would make it look like I abused my kids, I could understand their removal as I fought for their return. If my children were constantly in and out of the hospital with various different bruises and broken bones. If they were constantly covered in bruises and scratches. If they missed tons of school to "sicknesses." Things like that, sure, I'd understand the process.

But, if none of that happened and some scumbag told CYS that they saw me beat my kid and that alone was the reason CYS took my kid, let's just say that to me that is kidnapping and I would use any and all means necessary to protect my kids.

One thing we know, in the Jess case the child couldn't offer testimony (or very little) and so this makes it a tough investigation. I am assuming financial hardship caused Jess to throw in with the other two women, but association with them may have been considered endangerment - sort of reading between the lines of the fact pattern you presented. Any more facts available, or that you care to share?

Again, that alone should not warrant a child's removal. If an investigation revealed more troubling signs/evidence, then okay, but as far as I know, no investigation was done. At the least, remove her child when they removed the other children and then if they have nothing other than the word of these 2 "ladies" then return the child to the mother.

The thing that truly outrages me is not so much the removal of this child (as bad as it seems), it's the threat of removing someone else's child ("Amy's") just because "Jess" is living with her. That's really what got my blood boiling.

[jamiethelanky]

There should be a sensible middle ground; that social services come in and monitor a family for a few weeks/months while they gather information and then either leave them alone or press charges. However, if any clear evidence appears in that time they should strike while the iron is hot.

[xxlt]

Considering all the facts I listed - the most important one being that according to a lawyer that lives and works in Butler county, Jess should not have been ordered to do anything without a hearing and apparently, no hearing has taken place - I am extremely doubtful the caseworker may be vindicated.



I am a rational and intelligent man. If there was enough evidence that would make it look like I abused my kids, I could understand their removal as I fought for their return. If my children were constantly in and out of the hospital with various different bruises and broken bones. If they were constantly covered in bruises and scratches. If they missed tons of school to "sicknesses." Things like that, sure, I'd understand the process.

But, if none of that happened and some scumbag told CYS that they saw me beat my kid and that alone was the reason CYS took my kid, let's just say that to me that is kidnapping and I would use any and all means necessary to protect my kids.



Again, that alone should not warrant a child's removal. If an investigation revealed more troubling signs/evidence, then okay, but as far as I know, no investigation was done. At the least, remove her child when they removed the other children and then if they have nothing other than the word of these 2 "ladies" then return the child to the mother.

The thing that truly outrages me is not so much the removal of this child (as bad as it seems), it's the threat of removing someone else's child ("Amy's") just because "Jess" is living with her. That's really what got my blood boiling.

Two things to remember: One, the caseworker is bound by confidentiality laws, and therefore even if you were able to ask him/her about the investigation she could not answer your questions. So, like we talked about already, you are only getting one side of the story. Two, in light of thing one, I have to believe there is an awful lot that you don't know as far as what investigation took place and what evidence there was of a problem. I am not a gambler, but I would wager heavily that it was more than just an allegation (be it made by a "lady" or the mayor of the town) that led to the removal. (And if there wasn't much more to it, there will be one more social worker looking for a job, and an office full of them dividing up the terminated one's caseload until a new hire comes on board.)

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

I know of a girl (we'll name her "Jess") who just a couple months ago had her 21 month old son taken from her by CYS (Children and Youth Services). At the time, Jess was living with 2 other mothers who had children of their own. CYS came and took those 2 mother's children (why, I don't know) and according to Jess, the 2 mothers made up lies so that CYS would take her son from her.

I haven't even got to the outrageous part. As of this posting, Jess has still not been charged with any crime (her son was taken from her in March) and it doesn't even look like it will happen.

Since her son was taken, Jess has been ordered (by CYS) to take parenting classes and anger managment classes (which she has to travel to a completely different county to do so). Her son has not been placed into foster care, rather adoptive care (meaning the people he's staying with have the option to adopt him after a certain length of time). She also can only see her son 1 day a week for a couple hours with supervision.

Plus, Jess just met with a friend's lawyer, who has stated that Jess should not have been ordered to do anything until some hearings have been conducted (to date, NO hearings have been scheduled).

To top it all off, Jess was staying with that friend ("Amy") and CYS told Amy that Jess could not stay with her and if she did, CYS would take Amy's kids from her as well.

Frankly, I'm just outraged. I'm ready to storm CYS's offices myself and slap them with a lawsuit and injunction and just plain slap them in their faces. We live in a country where the police need a warrant to wiretap people's phones. Yet, no warrant needs to be issued to take someone's children?!

You just don't understand how angry I am right now (you might if my anger spills into my other posts in other threads). IMO, this is nothing short of American-sponsored kidnapping, American-sponsored child trafficking,

Right now, the lawyer is meeting with a judge (the lawyer is ****** off as well), so some good might be remedied. However, not only do I think Jess should be reunited with her son, I think criminal kidnapping charges should be filed on the caseworker at CYS who did all this. I also think Jess should sue CYS for an extreme amount of punitive damages.

Well Phil I've read every post in this thread, and I agree and disagree with some posts. However I'm wondering why the child was removed in the first place? I know that false claims are made, but all i have to go on now, is that the children of the other two mothers were taken, and that Jess's child was caught in the middle in the process. My question is why were ANY of the children taken, what was the reason?, what were the other mothers doing or not doing? What are the reasons CYS were envolved in the first place? Were the other mothers doing something illegal and/or was Jess....again why was CYS involved in the first place? I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to get more information. working on a psych unit, we've notified CPS (child protection services) when we have reason to, such as mother that is too psychotic to take care of her children, or just incapable for what ever reason. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing I just would like to know why it happened. And yes I've seen abuses of the system, mainly one parent trying to get custody of the children and the like, also I've seen false claims. But I do agree it shouldn't have taken 2 1/2 months to figure it out.

[EatonFan]

Well, I would submit that you are correct in your line of argument in paragraph two. I would argue that "the law" has not seen it necessary to prevent abuse of power by social workers because historically it has been rare. But, abuse of power has been commonplace by police officers historically, thus the law has tried to limit their powers. That isn't saying all cops are thugs and all caseworkers are angels, it is just saying that the reality is probably that the society and the courts have seen more reason to limit the authority of cops and less to limit that of caseworkers. The caseworker in the "Jess" case may be out of line, but I tend to think he/she will be vindicated if you ever know all the facts. And, if you don't ever know them all you really won't be able to judge. (Isn't that, incidentally, how you still live with yourself as you support "el presidente?" By telling yourself you don't know all the facts?)

Children don't have the same legal standing as adults. By the nature of their vulnerability they also need us to err on the side of caution if there is suspicion of their mistreatment. If my child was ever removed from my care pending an investigation I am sure it would be a most trying time.

But, I would hope rather than being outraged because I had done nothing wrong that I could find the ability (it would be challenging) to be grateful for a society that was so concerned with my child's safety (as I am). The old saying is better safe than sorry. I hope the child in the case you mentioned is safe now, and if and when returned to her mother he/she continues to be safe and neither abused nor neglected.

One thing we know, in the Jess case the child couldn't offer testimony (or very little) and so this makes it a tough investigation. I am assuming financial hardship caused Jess to throw in with the other two women, but association with them may have been considered endangerment - sort of reading between the lines of the fact pattern you presented. Any more facts available, or that you care to share?

Grateful for a society that takes my child away when I've done nothing wrong? Are we back to McCarthy-ism here? Can I simply just accuse a neighbor whom I dislike of wrong-doing and have their children taken away? Really? That's what you believe? Unchecked power for any government branch is a bad idea. I don't care if the social worker is Mary Poppins. Your theme seems to be "It takes a Village". Mine is: It takes two parents.

(Bush, for all his faults, incidentally has done an average job as President. You may not like many of his decisions, but at least you know where he stands. He is decisive. That may be his strongest point.)

[xxlt]

Grateful for a society that takes my child away when I've done nothing wrong? Are we back to McCarthy-ism here? Can I simply just accuse a neighbor whom I dislike of wrong-doing and have their children taken away? Really? That's what you believe? Unchecked power for any government branch is a bad idea. I don't care if the social worker is Mary Poppins. Your theme seems to be "It takes a Village". Mine is: It takes two parents.

(Bush, for all his faults, incidentally has done an average job as President. You may not like many of his decisions, but at least you know where he stands. He is decisive. That may be his strongest point.)

As usual, you completely misread my post. There is a great deal of indifference to human suffering in our culture. You can call it whatever you want ("rugged individualism?") but I think it ***** when an 80 year old man has his car break down on a 90 degree day and he has to walk about a mile up a hill (the "cut in the hill" on I-75 for those who know the Cincinnati area) and about another mile off the interstate to summons help. This happened to a friend of mine about 20 years ago. Incidentally he was a Catholic priest with white hair and wearing his clerical dress. Just one example of callousness displayed by hundreds of humans.

I am not saying you should be happy if you are penalized when you have done nothing wrong, I am saying that if the health, education, welfare, and safety of children (and everyone) were a greater priority in our communities I think they would be better places. We are, like it or not, communal beings. And, like it or not, many parents do (by any rational, objective minimal standard) an inadequate job with their children. The fact that they figured out how to breed doesn't entitle them to torture or neglect the life of the child they managed to produce. They have rights. So does the child. You are a champion of their right to be lousy parents. I am a champion of the child's right to minimum standards of humane treatment. And if the godless communists are the only ones who will define that minimum standard, so be it. Your super heroes can get off their ***** and do something for children any time they want to. (I don't count poisoning the environment, unfunded education mandates, and bankrupting the country as accomplishments for children. Although the decider and company have sure done a great deal on those fronts.)

Regarding the President; you say decisive, I say impulsive. You say bold, I say reckless. You say noble, I say sinister. Potato, pota'to - tomato, toma'to let's call the whole thing off.

[philhos]

Two things to remember: One, the caseworker is bound by confidentiality laws, and therefore even if you were able to ask him/her about the investigation she could not answer your questions. So, like we talked about already, you are only getting one side of the story. Two, in light of thing one, I have to believe there is an awful lot that you don't know as far as what investigation took place and what evidence there was of a problem. I am not a gambler, but I would wager heavily that it was more than just an allegation (be it made by a "lady" or the mayor of the town) that led to the removal. (And if there wasn't much more to it, there will be one more social worker looking for a job, and an office full of them dividing up the terminated one's caseload until a new hire comes on board.)

The thing is I've tried to think of any logical reason to remove the child for this long with no hearings or charges being brought to bear and I can't think of anything.

But, like I said, the thing that really enrages me is that "Amy" was told her kids would be taken if "Jess" continued to live there. If no charges have been filed and they won't be, then how dangerous is Jess that other parents shouldn't even have her in her house?

[philhos]

Well Phil I've read every post in this thread, and I agree and disagree with some posts. However I'm wondering why the child was removed in the first place? I know that false claims are made, but all i have to go on now, is that the children of the other two mothers were taken, and that Jess's child was caught in the middle in the process. My question is why were ANY of the children taken, what was the reason?, what were the other mothers doing or not doing? What are the reasons CYS were envolved in the first place? Were the other mothers doing something illegal and/or was Jess....again why was CYS involved in the first place? I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to get more information. working on a psych unit, we've notified CPS (child protection services) when we have reason to, such as mother that is too psychotic to take care of her children, or just incapable for what ever reason. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing I just would like to know why it happened. And yes I've seen abuses of the system, mainly one parent trying to get custody of the children and the like, also I've seen false claims. But I do agree it shouldn't have taken 2 1/2 months to figure it out.

Truthfully, I don't know why the other mothers' kids were taken (I may have been told, but if so, I don't remember what the reasoning was). However, Jess was told that her son was removed because of alleged physical abuse.

[xxlt]

The thing is I've tried to think of any logical reason to remove the child for this long with no hearings or charges being brought to bear and I can't think of anything.

But, like I said, the thing that really enrages me is that "Amy" was told her kids would be taken if "Jess" continued to live there. If no charges have been filed and they won't be, then how dangerous is Jess that other parents shouldn't even have her in her house?

It may well be a vendetta. I have seen small minded people get very emotionally and inappropriately invested in controlling a "client." It is sick and sad, to say the least. It may be criminal as well. I hope that isn't the case, but it is a definite possibility.

[xxlt]

Truthfully, I don't know why the other mothers' kids were taken (I may have been told, but if so, I don't remember what the reasoning was). However, Jess was told that her son was removed because of alleged physical abuse.

Another issue to consider is how the law reads and how the CYS policy and procedure manual reads. The worker may have been forced by policy and law to do the removal due to the nature of the complaint, the age of the child, etc. Not saying that makes it right, just something to consider.

[philhos]

It may well be a vendetta. I have seen small minded people get very emotionally and inappropriately invested in controlling a "client." It is sick and sad, to say the least. It may be criminal as well. I hope that isn't the case, but it is a definite possibility.

Well, considering that an attorney stated that Jess should not have been ordered to do anything without a hearing (yet, she's already been ordered to take parenting and anger managment classes), it definitely makes me wonder as to the legitimacy of CYS' actions.

[Broken1]

In a country that can allow Ruby Ridge...

Things like this should be expected...

Free wielding power hungry government agencies that have to answer to no one...

[philhos]

Another issue to consider is how the law reads and how the CYS policy and procedure manual reads. The worker may have been forced by policy and law to do the removal due to the nature of the complaint, the age of the child, etc. Not saying that makes it right, just something to consider.

That is something to consider, true. However, it would shock me if this is standard operating procedure or even law. As you (or someone else) said, a temporary 48-hour removal may be necessary and I could understand that, but an indefinite removal with visitation limited to only 1 day a week for 2-3 hours with supervision and placing the child in adoptive care (as opposed to foster care) all without performing a hearing or filing charges does not seem to be something that should be law.

I hope like hell that it is NOT law or SOP, because then I am frightened for my family.

[Danno]

That is something to consider, true. However, it would shock me if this is standard operating procedure or even law. As you (or someone else) said, a temporary 48-hour removal may be necessary and I could understand that, but an indefinite removal with visitation limited to only 1 day a week for 2-3 hours with supervision and placing the child in adoptive care (as opposed to foster care) all without performing a hearing or filing charges does not seem to be something that should be law.

I hope like hell that it is NOT law or SOP, because then I am frightened for my family.

but Phill.... the government knows best! Don't you want them to take care of you? :lol:

[philhos]

but Phill.... the government knows best! Don't you want them to take care of you? :lol:

Have you read ANYTHING I've ever posted? :smirk:

[xxlt]

Well, considering that an attorney stated that Jess should not have been ordered to do anything without a hearing (yet, she's already been ordered to take parenting and anger managment classes), it definitely makes me wonder as to the legitimacy of CYS' actions.

An attorney, a social worker, and a Jess all have a different understanding of "ordered."

I suspect the s/w told Jess to take a parenting class because she thought it would help her make a stronger case for getting her child back (and believe it or not, that is probably the s/w's goal - they don't like removals - too much paperwork and accountability).

So, it may have been a suggestion - not an order. Or Jess may have been told "a judge will probably order this so why don't you get a head start on it - the sooner you start the sooner you finish." (And, the sooner you make yourself appear a fit parent and get your child back.) Also, the judge may be required to order parenting class if there is an allegation. So, an order that will be made eventually is arguably (from a practical point of view) an order now.

Also, the attorney offers good insight only if he has worked protective cases in that area before. If he is a patent attorney, a contract lawyer, or even a civil lawyer who has done child protective work in another jurisdiction - his knowledge of the law may not be sufficient to know what should or should not have happened there. Lawyers sometimes don't know, but like doctors, they often have a hard time admitting it.

[philhos]

An attorney, a social worker, and a Jess all have a different understanding of "ordered."

I suspect the s/w told Jess to take a parenting class because she thought it would help her make a stronger case for getting her child back (and believe it or not, that is probably the s/w's goal - they don't like removals - too much paperwork and accountability).

So, it may have been a suggestion - not an order. Or Jess may have been told "a judge will probably order this so why don't you get a head start on it - the sooner you start the sooner you finish." (And, the sooner you make yourself appear a fit parent and get your child back.) Also, the judge may be required to order parenting class if there is an allegation. So, an order that will be made eventually is arguably (from a practical point of view) an order now.

This is the same caseworker that told "Amy" to kick Jess out of her house or CYS would take her (Amy's) kids. Somehow I doubt it came out as a suggestion. It's not hard for me to believe that the caseworker told Jess in no uncertain terms she HAD to take these classes. In all fairness, I could buy that there was no ill intent, but I don't believe it was just to help Jess resolve this quickly or to limit paperwork.

Also, the attorney offers good insight only if he has worked protective cases in that area before. If he is a patent attorney, a contract lawyer, or even a civil lawyer who has done child protective work in another jurisdiction - his knowledge of the law may not be sufficient to know what should or should not have happened there. Lawyers sometimes don't know, but like doctors, they often have a hard time admitting it.

The lawyer is a family attorney specializing in family cases. I have to believe that would include the same area of law that covers teh CYS and these types of cases.

[xxlt]

but Phill.... the government knows best! Don't you want them to take care of you? :lol:

I get the feeling that since shortly before this thread opened up until now philhos has been playing "Powderfinger" by Neil Young over and over again and he will continue to do so indefinitely. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I love that song and hate the government as much as the next person. But, it is a necessary evil. I am always looking for ways for it to function more on the necessary axis and less on the evil axis.

[Danno]

I get the feeling that since shortly before this thread opened up until now philhos has been playing "Powderfinger" by Neil Young over and over again and he will continue to do so indefinitely. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I love that song and hate the government as much as the next person. But, it is a necessary evil. I am always looking for ways for it to function more on the necessary axis and less on the evil axis.


Oh I know how Phill feels. And I was really just trying to joke around :thumbsup: I was tempted to use the Sarcasim tag, but I figured I didn't have to. haha. Oh well. Live and Learn ;)

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

Truthfully, I don't know why the other mothers' kids were taken (I may have been told, but if so, I don't remember what the reasoning was). However, Jess was told that her son was removed because of alleged physical abuse.

Well it's hard for me to make an informed opinion with out knowing why. I can say the process should not have taken this long though. Good luck though.

[philhos]

Update (for those of you interested): "Jess" has officially been charged with various child abuse related crimes. Nothing that overtly states she beat her child, but things like "endangering the welfare of a child." There's about 4 of them all of that nature. I don't know the level of the crimes nor the minimum punishment if convicted.

"Jess" is, of course, fighting the charges, however, she can't afford an attorney, thus is relying on the public defender (who, from Jess's description, sounds like a real winner <_<).

[xxlt]

Update (for those of you interested): "Jess" has officially been charged with various child abuse related crimes. Nothing that overtly states she beat her child, but things like "endangering the welfare of a child." There's about 4 of them all of that nature. I don't know the level of the crimes nor the minimum punishment if convicted.

"Jess" is, of course, fighting the charges, however, she can't afford an attorney, thus is relying on the public defender (who, from Jess's description, sounds like a real winner <_<).

If you want to know if the crimes are felonies or not and what the penalty ranges are I am sure you can find your state's criminal code on line. They can be a bit cumbersome to navigate if you've never researched statutes before, but I am sure you'll figure it out if you care to.

As far as the PD, he or she is your tax dollars at work. I am glad we have a system that provides legal counsel for those who can't afford it. And, I have seen many a private attorney collect a fee of $5,000 - $10,000 and then only do as well as a PD would have done and sometimes not even that well. I would not recommend that she borrow money from friends and family or sell her blood to hire a "good attorney." I am relatively sure the outcome would be the same either way.

[philhos]

If you want to know if the crimes are felonies or not and what the penalty ranges are I am sure you can find your state's criminal code on line. They can be a bit cumbersome to navigate if you've never researched statutes before, but I am sure you'll figure it out if you care to.

You'd have to know what exactly the charges are before you could do that and your work computer would have to be able to access those sites but I don't really think it matters unless she's convicted (but, I'm relatively sure that no jail time would be involved).

As far as the PD, he or she is your tax dollars at work. I am glad we have a system that provides legal counsel for those who can't afford it. And, I have seen many a private attorney collect a fee of $5,000 - $10,000 and then only do as well as a PD would have done and sometimes not even that well. I would not recommend that she borrow money from friends and family or sell her blood to hire a "good attorney." I am relatively sure the outcome would be the same either way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for the PD's office, it's just that in this particular case the PD just seems to not care (he could actually care a great deal, I'm just going off of "Jess's" description of him).

But, in this particular case, a good lawyer could definitely be the outcome. As far as I know, the case boils down to the testimony of the 2 mothers who's own children were removed from them. If that's the case, then the case hinges on Jess's attorney's ability to create doubt. A good lawyer can do that.

[xxlt]

Philhos, any status reports?

[warsteiner138]

I am late to this thread.

It seems like a real shame.

Are government is to big and powerful.

They took over 400 kids in one swoop with no real evidence.

I do not see any firing or suspension over that unconstitutional raid.

[philhos]

Philhos, any status reports?

Update (I used to love Unsolved Mysteries): "Jess" just got a new PD - according to her, this PD seems to really care and is looking to get the charges dismissed. According to the PD, all the county has on Jess is hearsay testimonial evidence. We'll find out in a couple weeks if that's enough for a trial. She has her preliminary hearing on July 8.

Tips for anyone facing criminal charges: Do not talk to ANYONE, outside of your lawyer, in or around the courthouse or other governmental offices. Jess was told (I'm not sure by whom, a legal aid at the courthouse, I think) that she had no chance to get custody of her son again unless she pleaded guilty. The fact that it doesn't make sense how someone convicted of reckless endangering has a better chance than someone acquitted of getting custody of their child is really irrelevant at this stage.

Jess just needs to do all she can to get through this and to be a better mother. She told me that even if acquitted, she plans on continuing in the parenting classes.

[xxlt]

Update (I used to love Unsolved Mysteries): "Jess" just got a new PD - according to her, this PD seems to really care and is looking to get the charges dismissed. According to the PD, all the county has on Jess is hearsay testimonial evidence. We'll find out in a couple weeks if that's enough for a trial. She has her preliminary hearing on July 8.

Tips for anyone facing criminal charges: Do not talk to ANYONE, outside of your lawyer, in or around the courthouse or other governmental offices. Jess was told (I'm not sure by whom, a legal aid at the courthouse, I think) that she had no chance to get custody of her son again unless she pleaded guilty. The fact that it doesn't make sense how someone convicted of reckless endangering has a better chance than someone acquitted of getting custody of their child is really irrelevant at this stage.

Jess just needs to do all she can to get through this and to be a better mother. She told me that even if acquitted, she plans on continuing in the parenting classes.

Hey, some good news! I hope it works out for her. RE: the classes - I am sure you encouraged that course of action.