2015.12.04 DCF Hearing today (Friday) - continued to Monday

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
That he moved the girls back into the home that their mother was murdered in bothers me. I am a victim of a crime (though not on this level) and one of the first things my mother did in the aftermath was moving my family to a new home so that I would not have to confront those memories daily. She also sent me through counseling to help me heal. That's what parents who have their child's best interests in mind do.

His refusal to move the girls to a new home, or even take them in for counseling , tells me everything I need to know about where his interests lay.

He cares only about himself, IMO.
 
Chi83 said:
Before I get into my opinion I want to make 2 disclaimers. First, I haven't read the whole thread so if this was said already I apologize. Second, I absolutely believe MS is behind this and should be arrested soo.

With that out if the way I must agree with the judge's decision. There have been no indications that he is a bad or neglectful parent. What one person calls controlling another calls devoted. Plus, the girls have already lost their mom and undoubtedly will lose him too. It would be so unstable for them to lose their mom, dad and home in a few months. The info from LE seems overwhelming to us but if they felt they could arrest him with what they have, he would be in jail and this hearing would not be necessary. If LE doesn’t have him in custody, why should family court take the girls away based on suspicion.

I do think he is guilty. I really hope they arrest him soon because Teresa and her family deserve justice.

This may be unpopular but IMHO.
Click to expand...

As a retired teacher therefore a mandated reporter, taking children away is very serious and difficult. He has not been convicted. He is considered innocent and he is a suspect but that's it.

No one seems to be able to point to abuse. Children simply cannot be removed because someone thinks they should be. It goes through the legal process.

I cannot imagine that people are not trying every approach. The sister of Theresa is a noted prof in child devlopment, IRRC,
They are intelligent people. They will do what they can.

The law says what can happen.

I know we would all take them away and they should be. But the law has to be followed and no proof of abuse has been found.

As simeone posted above. He has made sure that they are isolated and not seen by anyone.
 
human said:
As a retired teacher therefore a mandated reporter, taking children away is very serious and difficult. He has not been convicted. He is considered innocent and he is a suspect but that's it.

No one seems to be able to point to abuse. Children simply cannot be removed because someone thinks they should be. It goes through the legal process.

I cannot imagine that people are not trying every approach. The sister of Theresa is a noted prof in child devlopment, IRRC,
They are intelligent people. They will do what they can.

The law says what can happen.

I know we would all take them away and they should be. But the law has to be followed and no proof of abuse has been found.

As simeone posted above. He has made sure that they are isolated and not seen by anyone.
Click to expand...

DCF does not follow criminal standards of proof. IMO they could remove the kids based on the evidence LE has that the custodial parent paid someone to kill the kids' mother. The evidence (not up to criminal standards yet but good enough IMO) shows that he ALREADY engaged in a purposeful act that he knew would cause great, lifetime emotional damage to the children.

DCF instead presented the case as one for POTENTIAL physical harm to the children. IMO a poor strategy. They had no evidence for that theory--just speculation. :(
 
To add to my prior post, Florida Statute 39.01(2) defines "abuse" as follows:

(2) “Abuse” means any willful act or threatened act that results in any physical, mental, or sexual abuse, injury, or harm that causes or is likely to cause the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly impaired. Abuse of a child includes acts or omissions. Corporal discipline of a child by a parent or legal custodian for disciplinary purposes does not in itself constitute abuse when it does not result in harm to the child.

A child may be taken into custody, pursuant to section 39.401(1)(b)(1), if there is PROBABLE CAUSE (not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" or anything close) that the child "has been abused."
 
AZlawyer said:
DCF does not follow criminal standards of proof. IMO they could remove the kids based on the evidence LE has that the custodial parent paid someone to kill the kids' mother. The evidence (not up to criminal standards yet but good enough IMO) shows that he ALREADY engaged in a purposeful act that he knew would cause great, lifetime emotional damage to the children.

DCF instead presented the case as one for POTENTIAL physical harm to the children. IMO a poor strategy. They had no evidence for that theory--just speculation. :(
Click to expand...

I am guessing then that this why the Judge could not rule in DCF's favor? That her hands were tied because of the law?

Is there any way DCF can correct their strategy and do it the way the judge actually said it should have been done in the hearing? As in a second try? Or is it one and done? TIA
 
AZlawyer said:
To add to my prior post, Florida Statute 39.01(2) defines "abuse" as follows:

(2) “Abuse” means any willful act or threatened act that results in any physical, mental, or sexual abuse, injury, or harm that causes or is likely to cause the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly impaired. Abuse of a child includes acts or omissions. Corporal discipline of a child by a parent or legal custodian for disciplinary purposes does not in itself constitute abuse when it does not result in harm to the child.

A child may be taken into custody, pursuant to section 39.401(1)(b)(1), if there is PROBABLE CAUSE (not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" or anything close) that the child "has been abused."
Click to expand...

Would the Judge have asked the girls about offensive touching by their father?

ETA: Wendy wrote a short sentence in one of her posts that got me thinking that might be a possibility.....
 
Zuri said:
I am guessing then that this why the Judge could not rule in DCF's favor? That her hands were tied because of the law?

Is there any way DCF can correct their strategy and do it the way the judge actually said it should have been done in the hearing? As in a second try? Or is it one and done? TIA
Click to expand...

Well, the judge could have brought up the other argument herself, so I'm not letting her off the hook.

Yes, DCF can fix its argument and go back for a second try. But IMO every time they do so they are increasing the pressure on MS and therefore increasing the risk of harm to the kids. :(

They needed to get it right the first time dammit. :sigh:
 
AZlawyer said:
To add to my prior post, Florida Statute 39.01(2) defines "abuse" as follows:

(2) “Abuse” means any willful act or threatened act that results in any physical, mental, or sexual abuse, injury, or harm that causes or is likely to cause the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly impaired. Abuse of a child includes acts or omissions. Corporal discipline of a child by a parent or legal custodian for disciplinary purposes does not in itself constitute abuse when it does not result in harm to the child.

A child may be taken into custody, pursuant to section 39.401(1)(b)(1), if there is PROBABLE CAUSE (not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" or anything close) that the child "has been abused."
Click to expand...

Here in Maryland abuse and neglect are defined differently. How about in FL? How about neglect of the girls' rights to counseling and friends? He is so wrapped up in stress and guilt- he has to be neglecting their needs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Zuri said:
Would the Judge have asked the girls about offensive touching by their father?
Click to expand...

No, not unless there was some reason to think that was happening. Otherwise you're just upsetting and confusing the kids for no reason.
 
observation said:
Here in Maryland abuse and neglect are defined differently. How about in FL? How about neglect of the girls' rights to counseling and friends? He is so wrapped up in stress and guilt- he has to be neglecting their needs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's harder to prove, though. Parents are given a lot of leeway regarding their judgment calls about raising their kids. There are serious constitutional rights involved here. And there are studies suggesting that sending kids to counseling when their parents die only prolongs the healing process. So you have to be careful about calling that neglect. Also, that's the kind of thing that can be corrected without removing the kids from the home. DCF can provide in-home services, so there would be no need to remove the kids just to provide counseling.
 
AZlawyer said:
No, not unless there was some reason to think that was happening. Otherwise you're just upsetting and confusing the kids for no reason.
Click to expand...

So in essence, the fox is guarding the hen house so to speak. MS is controlling the access and dialog surrounding his children. Now this is scary...
 
Zuri said:
So in essence, the fox is guarding the hen house so to speak. MS is controlling the access and dialog surrounding his children. Now this is scary...
Click to expand...

Infuriating and sad, but true. You stated it in a nutshell, Zuri :(.
 
MamaNeedsACosmo said:
That he moved the girls back into the home that their mother was murdered in bothers me. I am a victim of a crime (though not on this level) and one of the first things my mother did in the aftermath was moving my family to a new home so that I would not have to confront those memories daily. She also sent me through counseling to help me heal. That's what parents who have their child's best interests in mind do.

His refusal to move the girls to a new home, or even take them in for counseling , tells me everything I need to know about where his interests lay.

He cares only about himself, IMO.
Click to expand...

MamaNeedsACosmo, I'm sorry you became a victim of a crime. :hug:
I'm also am a survivor of a violent crime.

Your mum did what good mums do, protect their children no matter what.

Thank you for sharing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
No it's not said:
'He has designated a certain family member to take them, if he cannot be there for them..'..'DCF says that family member is unacceptable..husband has sexual abuse report'.

-Nin
Click to expand...

Just want to clarify, article cites DCF stating the "individual person that he named appears to be appropriate, however her family condition is not suitable". MOO, this cold mean that the individual, the woman, may not be related to the girls. Maybe I missed something, probably did.:facepalm:
 
AZlawyer said:
That's harder to prove, though. Parents are given a lot of leeway regarding their judgment calls about raising their kids. There are serious constitutional rights involved here. And there are studies suggesting that sending kids to counseling when their parents die only prolongs the healing process. So you have to be careful about calling that neglect. Also, that's the kind of thing that can be corrected without removing the kids from the home. DCF can provide in-home services, so there would be no need to remove the kids just to provide counseling.
Click to expand...

While we are on the topic, do you have any idea why they didn't just take them into protective custody, then file the petition for an emergency hearing? 72 hour
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 233 more.
Total: 2,346 (members: 234, guests: 2,112)

Online statistics

Members online
234
Guests online
2,112
Total visitors
2,346
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,802
Messages
18,099,788
Members
230,930
Latest member
Barefoot!
Back
Top