Posted on 10/17/2005 12:14:30 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
If you wanna watch the case worker freak out before your very eyes, try editing their "report" for accuracy, such as correcting any of their hyperbolic statements, BEFORE you sign it and return it to them.
It's absolutely priceless.
Statutory immunity has limits, e.g. does not protect employees from criminal or civil prosecution for acts that were illegally prohibited by the agencies they work for. Just ask all the police officers across the country who are having their wages garnished for the rest of their lives, due to someome having won a "racial discrimination" suit against them -- and many of those cases had very dubious grounds, and in quite a few nobody was remotely injured (i.e. some black guy sues because he was stopped and ticketed for speeding, and convinces a jury that the officer was singling out black drivers to stop and ticket for violations).
The "Rev" Mewborn was not a state employee, and had no statutory immunity.
And statutes are promulgated, amended, and repealed by legislators, who are elected by citizens.
The Constitution leaves the details of how to deal with crime, to the States, where citizens are supposed to use the ballot box to ensure that abuses of police powers are not tolerated. The specifics of many of these cases include clear violations of Constitutional rights. However, the existence of CPS agencies with powers sufficient to enable them to intervene when there is good reason to believe that a child citizens's basic rights are being seriously violated, is not in conflict with the Constitution.
Find me a DA with the guts to file those charges.
The Constitution leaves the details of how to deal with crime, to the States, where citizens are supposed to use the ballot box to ensure that abuses of police powers are not tolerated.
That depends upon whether you believe that the 14th Amendment incorporates the BOR. The Supreme Court, for the most part, does. Hence, those details are up to Congress, and have been since Mondale's (IMO unconstitutional) bill funding CPS agencies within the States.
However, the existence of CPS agencies with powers sufficient to enable them to intervene when there is good reason to believe that a child citizens's basic rights are being seriously violated, is not in conflict with the Constitution.
If they don't have probable cause for a warrant, yes it is. Again, the number of incidences where such powers as you covet would make any difference is vanishingly small and are therefore unjustified.
The trouble is in interpreting "probable cause". I'm not convinced one way or the other whether legitimate probable cause existed in the case you originally posted about. But certainly there have been many cases around the country in which the evidence cited as "probable cause" clearly didn't meet any reasonable definition of the term. But the specifics of what qualifies as "probable cause" isn't spelled out in the Constitution, nor is there any way that it reasonably could be. So the on-the-spot interpretation of whether the evidence presented in any specific case qualifies, is necessarily left to judges in state courts. Egregious and deliberate abuses of that discretion are certainly subject to subsequent review by a federal court, but I don't think any federal court would invalidate the whole concept of CPS agents with warrants having the right to remove children from a home.
The "probable cause" standard, Constitutionally speaking, is the same as for any arrest or police intervention. It is accepted as inevitable that from time to time, the process will result in an innocent person being arrested, interrogated, and spending a few days in jail and/or being required to post bail. But no court will rule that the incidence of such cases is reason to remove the power of arrest from state and local police.
For the egregious abuses, the perpetrators should be prosecuted and face civil liability. It would only take a handful of successful cases for concerned parents to be able to keep copies of news items to show to CPS agents to remind them that if they're stepping over the line, they may be paying for it for a long, long time. And such reports would inevitably be circulated within social work professional organizations, and be part of CPS agent training programs, so CPS agents would be well aware of them. This approach has worked well -- too well, really -- with police, who now often opt to let the black speeder speed on by, even when he clearly ought to be stopped, rather than risk having their wages garnished for the rest of their lives.
But for the far larger problem of "gray area" cases, and cases where the CPS agent and judge involved acted in good faith but were wrong, I really think this is properly a legislative issue. States need to spell out some specific standards, specifically identify certain things as NOT qualifying as factors supporting removal (e.g. homeschooling), specifically outlaw certain common abuses like the "admit to get" schemes (although that one could also be handled by a federal court decision, deeming the concept to be an impermissible attempt to force a confession regardless of guilt or innocence), and specify maximum time limits for the state to prove its allegations or return the child(ren).
Oh really? HOW many? The BJS numbers say, "not that many."
But the specifics of what qualifies as "probable cause" isn't spelled out in the Constitution, nor is there any way that it reasonably could be.
There is a ton of precedent. That's why you take it to a judge and get a warrant. The problem with the CPS system is that the evidentiary standards are a joke and the proceedings are held in secret.
Egregious and deliberate abuses of that discretion are certainly subject to subsequent review by a federal court,
Abuses to which secret proceedings are inherently disposed. Most people would be totally tapped out before they could even try going to Federal Court (which would be after going through the entire State Court system). If they get a court appointed lawyer, they don't EVER appeal.
but I don't think any federal court would invalidate the whole concept of CPS agents with warrants having the right to remove children from a home.
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but for different reasons. Judges routinely trash the BOR in the name of false expediency, just like you would.
Mr. Johnson finally ran out of patience with the family court and basically told the judge he was ready to go to legal war. The court settled on selecting an independent child development expert familiar with AD to interview Christopher from a list that Mark supplied several sessions prior. Mark had Christopher flown to San Diego where he was interviewed for two days. The report was sent to the court and the hearing was today.
All charges were dismissed. The subpoena to abduct Christopher was quashed. CPS has apologized. None of this would have happened if CPS had been successful in taking custody of Christopher without FAR more time, money, and grief.
Since the interview, the family has been reunited. I have met these children at our congregation on several occasions. I have shared Shabbat with the family in our home. I can say without reservation that Christopher is an engaging, intelligent, respectful, healthy, and handsome kid, a real charmer. This is a close family with high standards for decency, respect, Godliness, and education.
To those of you who suspected the worst, you were dead wrong. To those of you who offered your prayers in support of this family, thank you.
Thank you for the update! That wonderful family has been through hell and back.
Excellent news, CO. Thank you for the update and best wishes to the Johnson family.
Thanks for the update. I'm glad it had a good outcome.
The problem was the man didn't allow access to his child. The problem was solved after he allowed access to his child. I was right.
No, you're not. He was always willing to allow access to the child by an independent therapist familiar with AD, but NOT by CPS contract interviewers. Got it?
Thanks for the update. My opinion still stands.
At least consistent with the quality of your other opinions.
Glad to hear everything worked out all right.
As to the Johnson family's situation, I think they made a huge mistake (or their lawyer did...malpractice if he/she recommended running) when mom and the kids went into hiding. That just raises all kinds of flags for me (sorry.) My guess, they were infact using some kind of tie down therapy (and when they recommended the CPS talk to the therapist that deepened the concern, and expedited the matter--ie., could CPS have possibly dealt with the 'therapist' before and were concerned with the methodology used? There seems to be some parts missing in the treatment of this boy...
Thank you for this update. I have wondered from time to time about the family and so sorry for what they have gone through on top of working with a RAD child. I know of adoptive parents who worked with three siblings, all of whom were RAD. It was a nightmare as they went from one agency to another to get help. Eventually CPS stepped in and took the kids. The parents got them back but CPS stayed on their case so bad, the parents finally gave up. They are emotionally, financially spent today along with the guilt of giving them up.
We are very happy to report to you that our prayers have been answered! Our case with CPS and Social Services was dismissed yesterday by the judge at the request of the county. The protective custody warrants were recalled and cancelled and Social Services has agreed that there is no assistance that they can be to our family and has closed our case. Praise be unto God for he is good… (See Psalm 118 included below).
This is monumental and we are extremely pleased with this outcome. It is truly unique and without precedent. As we have said all along, we have had nothing to hide in our parenting, and with the help of an independent third party psychological assessment of our son and our family this was clearly demonstrated to the county. To God be given the glory for this outcome has his signature upon it.
Words can’t express our gratitude to everyone who has prayed with and for us, contributed financially to the legal fund, written letters, made phone calls, sent faxes and emails, and turned out in support of our stand at the courts, rally, and board of supervisors meeting. Your every action was an example of God’s divine intervention on our behalf for which we express our most sincere appreciation.
We are settling on a date and location for a reception to personally thank you, share with you and your invited friends and family members what we have learned through this experience, and generate ideas as to how to ensure that our families don’t have to endure what we have gone through, and what we think should be done if something like this does happen to you. Both Sonnora and I really hope you can attend. Also, we are making a special request for the fathers and husbands to come out. We, especially Sonnora (remember, she has been in hiding and hasn’t had the benefit of seeing your encouraging faces, or hearing your encouraging words in person), are looking forward to this opportunity to give back to you for you have given so much to us.
The Lord’s right hand has done mighty things for us, the Lord’s right hand is on high…
Sincerely,
Mark I. Johnson
We cooperated with the SS, because the allegations were not only ridiculous and unfounded, but because we knew they were completely baseless, and they did, too-- no removal of children, nor reccommendation for one.
They did have a number of hoops they wanted us to jump through and classes they wanted us to take at our expense, which translates into more jobs and more funding for them, but no work for someone like me whose job requirements do not permit showing up on a 'regularly' scheduled basis.
After nearly a year of their crap, we finally had to get a lawyer to get our names cleared.
The SS backed down and reversed their 'decision' at the first letter from the attorney, (who knows my wife and I and the kids as well), stating that they had better get their witnesses together, and we'd see them in court. (They did not have any witnesses, because there was no abuse or neglect to witness.)
One person, be it a neighbor, babysitter, someone down the street who does not like the car you drive or the yard signs you put up at election time, or anywhere in the system who does not like you can make your life pure unholy hell. All they have to do is go to a payphone and call in an anonymous tip. Then you are in the position of proving your innocence. There is a presumption of guilt.
These people tried to come across as if they were our 'friends'--be ye not decieved.
Fight it as hard as you can, from day one, and never give up. Your children are at stake.
"Bladder control problems" translates often to mean wetting the bed at night. That would be enough to make the room smell of urine, even if only one episode had happened since the room had been cleaned last.
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.