Why doesn't CPS take away the minor children?

[redheadedgal]

I, too, find it odd. Especially in light of DB saying on national tele that she may have been black out drunk with 3 other minor children in the home.

• In the Jhessye Shockley, Missing Arizona Child case: Three remaining siblings were removed from mother’s (Jerice Hunter) home for reasons unknown.

*Sure, CPS could say mommy left the children unattended, but a 13 year old was home. I babysat at 13, along with many of my friends.

Source: http://opalfusionmag.com/2011/10/27/jhessye-shockley-missing-arizona-child/

And, in the Aliyah Lunsford case:

The siblings of missing 3-year-old Aliayah Lunsford from Weston, West Virginia have been removed from the family home on Dennison Street on Saturday, according to the State Journal.

The W.VA. Dept. of Health ad Human Resources did not give a reason.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Aliayah Lunsford: Sibling removed from home of missing Weston girl - National missing persons | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/missing-per...rom-home-of-missing-weston-girl#ixzz1cUcI6Ki0

Both recent cases, both children supposedly kidnapped, and all other children removed.

I'm scratching my neck as to why DB and JI still have the two boys.

excellent post with relevant and unassailable examples to back up your assertion... thank you!

 

[RANCH]

The point that is lost, from what we know, is SB put her daughter in the exact same position that DB put the two boys in that evening. The only difference is DB's daughter went missing. SB was drinking with DB most of the night. SB was even on the porch talking to Shane after DB went inside.

SB's daughter was in the same situation as those two boys. So is the question, was her daughter endangered any more (or less) than those two boys that night? Isn't that the question as to why CPS doesn't take the two boys away from DB, because of the neglect they were put under that evening?

I agree that SB put her daughter in the same situation as the two boys. So why is all of the criticism only being pointed towards DB and not towards both women? And if their actions were so dangerous, why hasn't CPS stepped in to protect these children?
JMO.

 

[cityslick]

I agree that SB put her daughter in the same situation as the two boys. So why is all of the criticism only being pointed towards DB and not towards both women? And if their actions were so dangerous, why hasn't CPS stepped in to protect these children?
JMO.

You got your answer upthread. One person has been on camera defending her actions that night and one hasn't said a word publicly. IMO, that's the reason why.

 

[cityslick]

excellent post with relevant and unassailable examples to back up your assertion... thank you!

Nobody has proven (in fact some don't even believe) that DB was blacked out or even drunk. So if it's not proven that DB was blacked out or drunk, how is it proven that the kids were unattended.

Also SB could of also backed DB up, saying even though DB was drinking she still had her wits and facilities about her, not enough to prove that the kids were unattended.

 

[iamnotagolem]

I guess I wonder why the boys haven't been removed and why (and maybe there has) there was not a cps investigation launched against SB. I think both showed their lack of responsibility by spending hours out on the stoop while their children were left alone in the house without being checked on.

There is always the possibility that SB gave the police a different story about checking on the kids and that is why the kids haven't been removed.

 

[RANCH]

I guess I wonder why the boys haven't been removed and why (and maybe there has) there was not a cps investigation launched against SB. I think both showed their lack of responsibility by spending hours out on the stoop while their children were left alone in the house without being checked on.

There is always the possibility that SB gave the police a different story about checking on the kids and that is why the kids haven't been removed.

For all we know, CPS investigated both SB and DB to see if their children were in danger and concluded that no action was necessary for either one.

If SB gave a conflicting story to police about child care that night, how would they know who was telling the truth? The neighbor guy maybe?
JMO.

 

[redheadedgal]

The recent revelation from the KC PI about her joking about having a boxed wine party after Lisa is found is just WAY too strange as well, IMHO.

 

[RANCH]

I couldn't find a thread where this should specifically be, so please feel free to move if there is a better place.

I am really surprised that with all that is going on, that these boys have not been removed from the home. I would think that it would be helpful to LE as well in getting them access to the children for interview, etc. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

BBM
I'm bringing the original post back to ask why the boys haven't been removed from DB and JI's home? Would an unverified comment that Deb made to KCPI be grounds for CPS to remove the boys?

If it was proven that she did make a comment about a boxed wine party when Lisa is recovered, would that be enough for CPS to act and remove the boys?

I kind of doubt it. JMO.

 

[redheadedgal]

any LE or social workers that post on this case? just wondering if you could tell me whether or not someone would be monitoring the boys and their well being since last october?

i mean, with a parent claiming to be drunk and blacked out when a baby supposedly "disappears", shouldn't there be some sort of supervision especially since these drinkfests continue? (deb's words: "i like my adult time")...

 

[RANCH]

any LE or social workers that post on this case? just wondering if you could tell me whether or not someone would be monitoring the boys and their well being since last october?

i mean, with a parent claiming to be drunk and blacked out when a baby supposedly "disappears", shouldn't there be some sort of supervision especially since these drinkfests continue? (deb's words: "i like my adult time")...

I think that CPS's job is to protect children. If CPS doesn't do their job, then children suffer. Do you think that CPS has failed to protect children in this case? And if so why?

 

[redheadedgal]

norest-- you're ex LE to a degree... any idea? thanx

 

[hambirg]

I think that CPS's job is to protect children. If CPS doesn't do their job, then children suffer. Do you think that CPS has failed to protect children in this case? And if so why?

You can't be that naive! If that was really the case, we wouldn't even be here discussing these cases.

Their job is to keep families together. . .to perpetuate the federal system! I know because my best friend is a CPS case worker. I hear her frustrations everyday! She is there to protect children, but the mammoth bureaucracy is an uphill battle. The burnout rate is off the charts, because the good people that are really there for the kids can't really do their jobs. So do they fail? Uh. .she works in the same unit that allowed Josh Powell to have "supervised" visits with his sons. So I guess because DSHS decided that he was not a threat that it means that it was so?! I have zero to null faith in DSHS's decisions. I know too much.

So knowing that DSHS has decided that the boys are safe in the Irwin/Bradley household means nothing to me!!! There is nothing of value to take away from that decision. Please don't make me start posting cases as examples. You have been here too long to know that CPS is a monstrous failure. To use that as a justification is a joke. . .and you KNOW that! How many kids have been failed by CPS?

MOO

 

[RANCH]

You can't be that naive! If that was really the case, we wouldn't even be her discussing these cases.

Their job is to keep families together. . .to perpetuate the federal system! I know because my best friend is a CPS case worker. I hear her frustrations everyday! She is there to protect children, but the mammoth bureaucracy is an uphill battle. The burnout rate is off the charts, because the good people that are really there for the kids can't really do their jobs. So do they fail? Uh. .she works in the same unit that allowed Josh Powell to have "supervised" visits with his sons. I have zero to null faith in DSHS's decisions. I know too much.

So knowing that DSHS has decided that the boys are safe in the Irwin/Bradley household means nothing to me!!! There is nothing of value to take away from that decision. Please don't make me start posting cases as examples. You have been here too long to know that CPS is a monstrous failure. To use that as a justification is a joke. . .and you KNOW that! How many kids have been failed by CPS?

MOO

I hope that I'm not that naive. I didn't know that CPS was a monstrous failure and I'm sorry that you feel anything I've said is a joke.

 

[hambirg]

.....

 

[hambirg]

I hope that I'm not that naive. I didn't know that CPS was a monstrous failure and I'm sorry that you feel anything I've said is a joke.

I don't believe you. .. MOO!

And I didn't say that anything you said was a joke. . .I said that to use that CPS hasn't intervened as a justification that the boys must be safe is a joke. Don't twist my words. There are far too many cases here that show that often times CPS doesn't get it right. To say that CPS hasn't intervened doesn't mean anything. .. they usually don't. .. even in the worst cases of abuse.

 

[RANCH]

I don't believe you. .. MOO!

And I didn't say that anything you said was a joke. . .I said that to use that CPS hasn't intervened as a justification that the boys must be safe is a joke. Don't twist my words. There are far too many cases here that show that often times CPS doesn't get it right. To say that CPS hasn't intervened doesn't mean anything. .. they usually don't. .. even in the worst cases of abuse.

Hey, I'm fine with you bringing up any examples of CPS doing a poor job. I'm not trying to twist anyone's words or point of view. The fact that CPS hasn't acted yet in this case stands on it's own. JMO.

 

[hambirg]

Hey, I'm fine with you bringing up any examples of CPS doing a poor job. I'm not trying to twist anyone's words or point of view. The fact that CPS hasn't acted yet in this case stands on it's own. JMO.

Super. . .do you have some cases to back that up? Since you are the one using that as a justification. . .give some examples.

 

[RANCH]

Super. . .do you have some cases to back that up? Since you are the one using that as a justification. . .give some examples.

I'm not sure what you want for examples. Are you saying that I should give you cases were CPS protected children by removing them from a home when they were in danger of harm? I thought that was their job.

 

[cityslick]

CPS is going to get involved when they have evidence of neglect/abuse. But in many cases CPS will go out of there way to make sure there is such evidence, since removing a child from the home is a last resort for CPS, not a first resort.

In this case, there is no evidence of neglect/abuse. Despite everyone's personal feeling about DB's behavior, it is not against the law to drink alcohol when there are children present. And since no one exactly can prove what DB's state of drunkeness was on that night and if she was in fact 'neglectful' due to being drunk, I don't see how CPS can get involved, especially if there is no past history (either via family/neighbors/etc) documented that children were left unattended due to being drunk.

 

[Whisperer]

cps, being a government agency, is not the best source to depend on to make the decision for childrens' welfare.

As many of us has seen in all the cases we know about, I cant think of one where they were able to make a good decision about the child. In fact, in many cases, the child winds up dead.

It is a sad day when you are forced to depend on a government agency to solve your personal/family problems.