Piss off CPS

It's all under control.

Published on October 4, 2005 By lifehappens In Current Events

Once apon a time, some children were abused. Dad hurt them and Mom made them cry. Someone called CPS and a nice lady went out to talk to mom and dad.

Dad said, "Everything's fine. See the food."
Mom said, "I love my kids"
They said, "you can't come in without a warrent, but you can see the kids are fine. All these people say so."

The lady goes away. No proof, no warrent. "I guess it's okay." she says. "I'll leave them alone."

Later, the kids were hurt some more. Then one died.

Everyone is mad at the nice lady. "Why didn't she protect the kids?" "Right to privacy? Kids deserve to be protected! You didn't do your job! Bad lady!"

The End.

It just goes to show......if they check and the kids are fine=your rights are trampled. If they don't check, or believe you=they didn't do their job (protecting children).

If you don't like the system the way it is today, how would you propose changing it? I'd love to hear ideas from Dr Guy and Gid. I honestly understand your desire tor the right to raise your family how you see fit. But not every family is nice like yours. How do you want to protect those who need help and leave everyone else alone? For all your self-rightous posturing and screaming from a soapbox, you haven't offered constructive ideas for change.

Enforcing a warrent just give the parents time to clean up and buy food. Refusing to allow a discussion with a child could prevent a cry for help. So jsut what DO you expect? HOW do you want to deal with this? Hmmmm?

PS If you think I am being rude or insensitive...I probably am. But the point still stands and I'm waiting for an answer.

Comments (Page 3)

Dr Guy

on Oct 08, 2005

At what point does the welfare of a child become more important than an abuser's constitutional rights?

So where do you draw the line? Child Abuse (noble), Shoplifting?

Where do you draw the line to revoke constitutional rights?

Shit happens. And we are powerless to prevent all of it except in a totalitarian state. Thought police anyone?

Gideon MacLeish

on Oct 08, 2005

dharma,

lifehappens asked questions and I answered them. For someone who "supports us", you sure are on my ass pretty hard, aren't you?

I'm done with this discussion and others related to the topic as far as you are concerned. Sorry for dumping on your blog with a reply, lifehappens.

dharmagrl

on Oct 08, 2005

Where do you draw the line to revoke constitutional rights?

I don't know. That's why I'm not a member of the Judiciary or the supreme court.

For someone who "supports us", you sure are on my ass pretty hard, aren't you?

I don't think so. I fully support you in your quest to keep your children with you and to disprove all false allegations of abuse or neglect that have been made against you. I support your decision to utilize your constitutional rights in your relationship with CPS.

What I DON'T support is your opinion that CPs is some kind of horrific entity that does more harm than good because that's simply not true. I refuse to believe that every child removed from the family home was done so by an over-zealous social worker who was sticking her nose in where it didn't belong. CPS does do SOME good...I've known families who, had it not been for CPS assistance, would have been homeless and penniless. Social services got involved, pointed these folks in the right direction, and got them the help that they needed and then some.

Are you refusing to answer questions because it's on LH's blog? Because I can go write an article about it - if you're willing to give me your opinion on it over there I'll be more than happy to create an article on the subject. I'm not being facetious; I really do know what you think should be done in cases where there really is abuse; where you think the need to remove the children from the home outweighs an abuser's constitutional rights.

Gideon MacLeish

on Oct 08, 2005

dharma,

I've answered that question repeatedly. I believe investigations into criminal activity should be done by trained law enforcement personnel rather than CPS agents in a "civil" action (that's not very civil when the children are removed), and should be done in accordance with the Constitution.

I believe that anonymous CPS reporting should be eliminated because it not only infringes on the sixth amendment rights to face one's accuser, it actually HINDERS legitimate CPS investigations due to the fact that an anonymous report is not admissible in a court of law. I believe it could reasonably be replaced with a "shield law" in rare cases where the reporter has legitimate reason to fear for their security and safety (such as, for instance, a report filed by a child who is the victim of the abuse).

I believe parents should have the right to an attorney provided them from the moment an investigation is first lodged, at public expense if necessary, because many of them are unaware of their rights, and due to ignorance of the law, may say or do things that are misconstrued by well meaning "authorities", as well as others. At present, lawyers are only provided when CPS begins termination of parental rights, an action that rarely happens for that reason and leaves children who are legitimate victims of abuse in a dangerous limbo.

I believe that the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" should apply, as it is the accepted standard of American legal procedure, and that parental rights should not be terminated involuntarily until/unless a CRIMINAL trial has adjudged the parents guilty of abuse or neglect.

I believe that CPS agents should cease and desist from interviewing children in schools without parental knowledge or consent unless a warrant is obtained consistent with the standards enumerated in the 4th amendment.

I believe that governmental agencies should stop their quota based pay system that rewards CPS for removing children from the home and further rewards them if the children are classified as "special needs", increasing the likelihood the child will become drug dependent under CPS "care". If CPS continues to exist (and I don't see why they should, frankly), it should only be as a subsection of a legitimate law enforcement agency such as the county or state police force, and funding should not be based on the number of seizures, as is currently the case in many jurisdictions.

I believe that parents have a right to objective information about their rights and responsibilities under the law.

I have many other beliefs about them, and, frankly, have blogged continually as to my beliefs.

bakerstreet

on Oct 08, 2005

Child abuse is a crime, child neglect is a crime. Crimes should be investigated by the police and prosecuted by the courts, with the defendant's rights seen to.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!