Posted on 10/17/2005 12:14:30 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
Interested Parents,
Tuesday, October 18th at the Biltmore Hotel & Conference Center – 7:00 – 8:30pm, we are holding a meeting to inform, educate, and rally the public around the egregious abuse of power by the Santa Clara Social Services, Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) – Child Protective Services (CPS) as they attempt to rip my family, and many others apart. The Biltmore is located just south of Montague Expressway, east of highway 101 at 2151 Laurelwood Rd, Santa.
At issue are three key points that will be of interest to you as a parent:
Because we are home schoolers, we initially consulted the HSLDA who advised us not to allow CPS into our home or to interview our children unsupervised. We were further advised to seek the services of a local attorney to ensure that our rights as parents were not violated as we work to clear our names related to the allegations of child abuse, which we did.
The DFCS, as a result of our refusal to allow them to interrogate our young children without supervision, together with the fact that we home school and therefore they are unable to gain access to our children without our permission (as is commonly done when children attend school outside of the home), went to court and swore out a Protective Custody Warrant to force themselves into our home, to have their way with our children, and to remove my oldest son into their protective custody. Today, my wife and children are in hiding to protect our family, in a location not even know to me, while I have been engaged in a very distressing and disruptive court battle in an effort to have the Protective Custody Warrant quashed, a request that was denied last Friday.
To date, no one at DFCS has been interested in understanding our unique parenting needs, the resources we have used and the third parties who can speak to quality of our parenting, and love that we have for of all of our children. Their action, based on our stance of “tell us what you are concerned about so we can give you reasonable access to our family to resolve them”, has been to take the child and ask questions later. They have leveraged the courts in this effort.
Since DFCS has no interest, nor apparent requirements to ascertain the facts before they have ripped our family apart, we’ve decided to share them with you. Perhaps when you speak out someone in the agency will finally listen to how they are about to destroy yet another family in an effort to “protect” a child that does not need protection and initiate policy based changes. This is why I urge you to come out Tuesday evening! This is a completely free event paid for out of my paycheck.
Thank you for your support,
Mark I. Johnson
Basically no. I understand all the problems with CPS. Where exactly I would draw the line, I am not sure. I suppose an anonymous call that was very detailed might warrant a friendly stop by the house, but I would have to think about it more. But, I have no problem at all with this case here. Although, I would say, that any interviewing of kids without the parents being present should have to be conducted in the presence of a lawyer representing the kid, and should be tape recorded.
"Having had contact with several of these cases, I will tell you this much: the FReepers are most likely not telling you everything about the case(s) in question."
That's interesting. Seems like the really sensational ones are the ones that we find out about, and many times there are missing details. Are you a SW or in the court system?
My friend that was the SW told me a story about a crack house that she had some info on, there was a woman living there with a young child. She got some info on the situation and processed the paperwork, went to see the judge, etc., and was told to go get the child. When she showed up with the cops people in the house saw her coming with the cops and the mother or her boyfriend (can't remember which) shot the baby as my friend was walking up the driveway to the house.
This young lady was very fearless going into bad parts of town and such, but she said some of her co-workers didn't like to do that so they would find the non-threatening cases to mostly deal with, the ones in the better neighborhoods where they wouldn't have to worry about being shot by some crack addict. She said that the cases she took on it was obvious there was abuse and neglect (like the one above) but some of her co-workers would take on cases where it wasn't as obvious. As I said she couldn't handle it after a few years.
That's why it is important to look out for people being abused by CPS, but at the same time not assume that CPS is always abusive. If I ran the local CPS in the case we are talking about on this thread, I would have no problem getting a warrant given the information that seems to be known.
So who should have saved the two children (Colorado and Utah, several years apart) who were killed by "therapy" for "attachment disorder"? And BTW, both the dead children, and the child described here, were/are adopted, so the state was involved with placing them with these parents in the first place.
"Although, I would say, that any interviewing of kids without the parents being present should have to be conducted in the presence of a lawyer representing the kid, and should be tape recorded."
That's not how it's done. They insist on interviewing the child in private, without the parents or any 3rd-party.
Correct. And that is wrong. As all the phony child abuse cases from the 80's clearly demonstrated.
"That's interesting. Seems like the really sensational ones are the ones that we find out about, and many times there are missing details. Are you a SW or in the court system?"
No, I have known people who got into it with CPS. Basically, I was told the horror story about their precious little angel being taken away...and then found out Paul Harvey's infamous "rest of the story" from their neighbors.
You know, as a NICU nurse, I know what devastating effects substance abuse by pregnant women could have on their unborn children.
I think people who are foster parents and those who adopt them are saints. My heart is broken that this family is being put through all this by public servants who are expected to be educated about these problems.
Best of luck to this family, and thank you for being in their corner.
I live in AZ so all I could do is keep them in my prayers.
I hear what you're saying. Just don't worry about those who see red flags and smell rats. They've been lucky enough not to go a few rounds with CPS. The workers I dealt with realized that my ex was trying to cause trouble. With the second young woman, I rattled off my rights under the Constitution, and my civil rights.
I also mentioned to both women that while they're doing my ex's dirty work, somewhere a child is being hurt. They know, but they have to investigate all complaints.
Prayers for your friend and his family. Children born addicted to alcohol and drugs are an extreme challenge.
"and then found out Paul Harvey's infamous "rest of the story" from their neighbors."
That's unreal. Man, we live in a screwed up world.
Well, a friend of mine who worked at Folsom summed it up:
"Ain't a guilty man in prison, no sir, just ask any prisoner and he'll tell you that he's innocent, and don't you believe that lying videotape from the convenience store!"
The diagnosis given by the family is I believe RAD which is recognized by DSM. The quack therapy described was for AD.
Then you obviously didn't read the story close enough. The police were allowed in and they found nothing. CPS objects to having to interview the child while the parents are present, period. Too bad. I've dealt with these nazis, and frankly, calling them nazis is a complement.
One of us has a reading comprehension problem. I see nothing in the story that states that the police were allowed in, or that they found nothing. Please quote the part of the story that states such.
Precisely - I mean, there's the rub, right? If the Christines don't have a four year old with evidence of a fractured skull, if they get them their shots and maintain sanitary living conditions...well, we're not having this discussion, are we? Throw the fact that their attorney was an incompetent boob into the mix, and the outcome was sort of inevitable.
Sorry, 135 was supposed to be for you too ;)
From the article,
On this basis this, the mother, who has never met any member of my family, or stepped foot in our home, or discussed the circumstances surrounding our son, reported us to the police as child abusers.
It says the police were called. Do you really believe that they didn't go into the house if they got a report of potential abuse? They are legally required to make an investigation.
I wrote that they went in and didn't find anything here.
I am also told by Mr. Johnson, who has read some of this thread and may sign up to respond, that he does not use the violent methods about which you posted. Obviously that won't be good enough for you.
Unless you can assert attorney-client privilege, you probably should consult an attorney licensed in that state with expertiese in criminal law about the potential risks that you face as a result of that information having been shared with you.
If he is wrong, then I am wrong.
Let me ask you this, do you have children? Would you let CPS into your home at anytime? Would you sign a waiver stating that you will allow them to enter/search your home at any time of their chosing just for the privilege of them exonerating you of allegations of child abuse from an ex-spouse or baby sitter?
This is EXACTLY what I had to go through when I dealt with them. Interesting choices you get with these people. All you appologizers on this board, I pray a member of your family isn't falsely accused of child abuse. Because, when it happens, I guarantee your attitude toward them will change 180 degrees from where you are today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.