AZ - Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 - #23

[pieper4]

Why does Sergio have to leave home and have no contact with his sons?
Sunday, May 20th, 2012

Police released information that Child Protective Services made a voluntary agreement with Sergio Celis. He is not to have contact with his sons. He agreed to leave the family home. That does not mean the children were “removed” from the father or the family.

This type of agreement is developed during a meeting with the family and concerned professionals, as well as the CPS investigator, supervisor and CPS meeting facilitator. If the CPS agency got information from law enforcement that the father had done something to put his children in the way of harm, the agency needed to take action. But, maybe there wasn’t enough information to take the situation to court, under our Arizona laws.

Removal of children must meet stringent legal requirements that the CPS investigator would need to detail in a written petition to the court.

A voluntary agreement is time limited and has stipulations. For example, there is a monitor appointed whose role it is to assure that the father doesn’t violate the agreement. Typically and it is my best guest - that the mother was given the designation as monitor – which would mean that at this time she is trusted by the CPS agency, as well as law enforcement and willing and able to set and maintain these limits.

In addition to that, there may be drop in visits to the home randomly, by a CPS investigator. Or, there could be a trusted family member monitoring and visiting additionally.

All parties, including both parents need to agree to and sign off on a voluntary. It is not legally binding. However, if he violated it, that could provide legal weight for the agency to initiate a court case. In the worst case scenario, if the mother were enabling the violation, the children may be removed and put with approved relatives, or if that is lacking, in foster care.

The agreement doesn’t mean that Sergio Celis is considered to have done something wrong or hurt his daughter. It is a precaution.

If there was grave concern, there would be court action (through the Pima County Juvenile Court) initiated by CPS and not a voluntary contract.

It may be that he has a past record of arrests for driving while intoxicated with the children in the car. Or, he had an arrest several years ago – at a younger age – for using marijuana, cocaine or other drugs. Or, it could simply be based on whatever information law enforcement provided. Keep in mind if that were concrete and irrefutable proof he was somehow involved or negligent, then law enforcement would have initiated an arrest.

Sergio could be severely depressed about his daughter’s disappearance and feels so guilty that he has verbalized suicidal ideation. He could be unable to function due to depression, leading him to cry continually and/or react in unpredictable ways that adversely affect his boys.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/pats-bits-and-bytes/?author=17249?author=17249&paged=2

More from the cited article (an editorial from a "regular" citizen of Tucson):

He may be angry or not, with his sons, or they perceive he is…and they may think he blames them for the incident – after all, they almost always slept in their brother’s room. Why not that night? The boy(s) may have stated they are worried or fearful about this.



There may be someone who is targeting Sergio, placing him in jeopardy, and to remain in the home would further jeopardize his children’s safety.



Perhaps Sergio owes money to unsavory people…and that puts the rest of the family at risk. Is he a gambler? Was there any drug dealing going on in the house? Was there traffic going in and out that the neighbors are now reporting on? Did he do something to anger the wrong people?



There may have been statements made by one or both parents that is inconsistent…or not matching, that raises concerns about what happened. It may be his affect when he reported his child missing, his chuckling about telling his wife to “get her butt home” raised flags in some way. We never know how people will respond to a crisis – you cannot jump to conclusions.



Perhaps Sergio had become overly vigilant in the home to the point it frightened the boys. Maybe he began to stay up all night, patrolling the house and checking doors and on the hour – who knows.



The boys may have said something that concerned investigators – maybe one of both heard someone else in the house that morning.



Maybe the boys think their father is angry with them; after all, why wasn’t Isa sleeping in their room that night like she normally does? He may not be able to assuage their guilt (if they have any), if he himself too feels guilty or distraught. What’s left in him to give the boys right now? He is the man, the protector…and like any father he has to feel terrible about whatever happened.

BBM. This is all speculation from a person named Pat -- including the "slept with the boys" comment of dubious origin.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I don't care what anyone says, NO WAY I let them remove my remaining children from my life if I didn't have anything to hide. That simple.

I have learned to never say never.

But since I dont know what the circumstances are concerning the agreement between Sergio and CPS I cant make a 100% conclusion one way or the other. I would have to know the reasons why he agreed to do this and that is unknown at this time.

I do know this. I would do what is in the best interest of my children whether it was in my best interest or not.

As soon as I know (if ever) the actual reason why he agreed to do this is when I will either agree it was for the best or he shouldnt have agreed to it.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

More from the cited article (an editorial from a "regular" citizen of Tucson):

He may be angry or not, with his sons, or they perceive he is…and they may think he blames them for the incident – after all, they almost always slept in their brother’s room. Why not that night? The boy(s) may have stated they are worried or fearful about this.

There may be someone who is targeting Sergio, placing him in jeopardy, and to remain in the home would further jeopardize his children’s safety.

Perhaps Sergio owes money to unsavory people…and that puts the rest of the family at risk. Is he a gambler? Was there any drug dealing going on in the house? Was there traffic going in and out that the neighbors are now reporting on? Did he do something to anger the wrong people?

There may have been statements made by one or both parents that is inconsistent…or not matching, that raises concerns about what happened. It may be his affect when he reported his child missing, his chuckling about telling his wife to “get her butt home” raised flags in some way. We never know how people will respond to a crisis – you cannot jump to conclusions.

Perhaps Sergio had become overly vigilant in the home to the point it frightened the boys. Maybe he began to stay up all night, patrolling the house and checking doors and on the hour – who knows.

The boys may have said something that concerned investigators – maybe one of both heard someone else in the house that morning.

Maybe the boys think their father is angry with them; after all, why wasn’t Isa sleeping in their room that night like she normally does? He may not be able to assuage their guilt (if they have any), if he himself too feels guilty or distraught. What’s left in him to give the boys right now? He is the man, the protector…and like any father he has to feel terrible about whatever happened.

BBM. This is all speculation from a person named Pat -- including the "slept with the boys" comment of dubious origin.

Yes, I realize that........ in fact it sounds like it could have been written by a poster here since all those theories have been covered at one time or another. And they must be an avid Nancy Grace watcher too since that is where that rumor (sleeping with her brothers) came from.

I just thought it was an interesting read and covered just about all theories.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Where is Isabel?lease: as we continue to hope...

I was looking at JM, RC, & SC's records at a site on FB - can I put I link?( its a discussion type page- in images) I am not sure. Please let me know if I can.

any way...In summary...about their records ::::::::::::THUD:::::::::
umm

JMOO I can't understand why there is still a team out there who think the family blameless saints.


How are all their dui, possession etc...charges all " completely dropped " all the time?

Also, SC's charges april 19th 20,12 ? ??? criminal charges??? re..the dogs loose and unvaccinated> am I right?you get dui's completely dropped but get threatened criminal convictions for unvaccinated pets in AZ? can't be so..

Isn't the timing too strange?( 4/19/12 I would bet tensions were a little high around the home. Plus it was 420.

and when I can get back up from my ::thud:: I will come up with more examples about how this entire group of people continually behave as if they are above the law...and everyone else.

:websleuther:

suddenly just MOO RC + JM , I 'm wondering if they are way more close than I've thought before.

And to think while JM had all those charges (9 /11-1/12 )( probably suspended license and all those " possessions" he was going through probation right there in isa's room.

NIce close family....triangle. They even travel together.!? ( pics from jm's fb)

All of their charges have already been placed here quite awhile ago on WS by other posters.

I didnt see anything in their past criminal history that would lead me to believe they would harm Isa.

IMO

 

[SapphireSteel]

I have learned to never say never.

But since I dont know what the circumstances are concerning the agreement between Sergio and CPS I cant make a 100% conclusion one way or the other. I would have to know the reasons why he agreed to do this and that is unknown at this time.

I do know this. I would do what is in the best interest of my children whether it was in my best interest or not.

As soon as I know (if ever) the actual reason why he agreed to do this is when I will either agree it was for the best or he shouldnt have agreed to it.

IMO

The reason he agreed to sign a "voluntary" no contact order, is that if he had refused, CPS would go to court with their concerns, to gain a "non-voluntary" order.

If CPS went to court, then they present the facts of the case, and why they believe SC is a danger to his children. SC wants to avoid this public airing of his dirty laundry - his agreement has zero to do with the well being of his boys and everything to do with the well being of himself.

BOTH LE AND CPS BELIEVE HE IS A DANGER TO HIS REMAINING CHILDREN. This is NOT a case of CPS over-reacting. They were alerted to this by LE (a credible source).

Please remember, this is NO CONTACT which means just that...no phone calls, no letters, no supervised visits, nothing.

Usually a parent would be allowed supervised visits, and there has to be a compelling reason why this is not the case. WHY would a parent be removed from an already traumatised family? It is certainly not done lightly.

CPS and LE are expert at dealing with fractured families. All attempts are made at every level to keep families together UNLESS there is an excellent reason that this cannot happen.

It doesn't matter which way you argue it - a no-contact order, voluntary or not, is a massive indicator that something in that family is seriously wrong...and not just that one of them is missing.

BTW, has anyone thought that Isa slept with her older brother because she was AFRAID to sleep on her own?

JMO>

 

[pieper4]

Yes, I realize that........ in fact it sounds like it could have been written by a poster here since all those theories have been covered at one time or another. And they must be an avid Nancy Grace watcher too since that is where that rumor (sleeping with her brothers) came from.

I just thought it was an interesting read and covered just about all theories.

IMO

She's an interesting read all right. I enjoy many of her quirkier columns.

I just didn't want that citation you presented to "stand on its own" without proffering more of her content which actually can be viewed as contradictory. She's all over the map.

 

[luvmydogs]

As a parent I would be upset that my high schooler was out at 2 am on a school night!...just saying. Maybe there was a lesson learned? I think the PCSD has no reason to apologize, personally. They stated the "man" in the video was an investigative lead. They have not disclaimed that. There is no reason to believe that someone's age or the fact that the person might go to a private religious school would clear that person, either. If the "kid" looks like he's in his 20s, acts like he's in his 20s, and is out at 2 am on a Monday, he can expect to be treated as an adult, especially when LE is doing their best to try to catch a child molester, possible rapist?
JMO

We will have to agree to disagree For me it's the part that your kid is labeled as a possible child molestor/rapist. Many people saw his video and then heard nothing that cleared him. A simple release saying, "the person of interest has come forward and we have determined he is not connected to the case. Please folks here is the sketch and please report anything to the police". Simple, done, thank you for your time.

In all due respect I strongly believe our children who attend private parachoial school are entitled to sooo much more! A parade or banner announcing his innocent would be the minimum. (being snarky). The only reason I mentioned what school he went to was to validate that I know him and his family. It wasn't to say he was entitled to any special treatment.

 

[FORDANIEL]

I am sticking with my gut feelings,that there will be an arrest soon,and it will be SC,in MHO.

 

[Mjskit]

The reason he agreed to sign a "voluntary" no contact order, is that if he had refused, CPS would go to court with their concerns, to gain a "non-voluntary" order.

If CPS went to court, then they present the facts of the case, and why they believe SC is a danger to his children. SC wants to avoid this public airing of his dirty laundry - his agreement has zero to do with the well being of his boys and everything to do with the well being of himself.

BOTH LE AND CPS BELIEVE HE IS A DANGER TO HIS REMAINING CHILDREN. This is NOT a case of CPS over-reacting. They were alerted to this by LE (a credible source).

Please remember, this is NO CONTACT which means just that...no phone calls, no letters, no supervised visits, nothing.

Usually a parent would be allowed supervised visits, and there has to be a compelling reason why this is not the case. WHY would a parent be removed from an already traumatised family? It is certainly not done lightly.

CPS and LE are expert at dealing with fractured families. All attempts are made at every level to keep families together UNLESS there is an excellent reason that this cannot happen.

It doesn't matter which way you argue it - a no-contact order, voluntary or not, is a massive indicator that something in that family is seriously wrong...and not just that one of them is missing.

BTW, has anyone thought that Isa slept with her older brother because she was AFRAID to sleep on her own?

JMO>

BBM CPS cases are not a matter of public knowledge. The cases are sealed so his 'dirty' laundry would not be exposed unless he talked about it. It becomes public knowledge if/when LE charges a parent with a crime involving a child.

Yes I too think Isa slept in her brothers room because she was afraid. Not necessarily of someone else in the house though. Scary movies and family discord kept me awake as a child, I was too terrified to move and every sound I heard seemed amplified. I finally slept with my older brother and felt safe.

 

[Dee10]

ABC as well as Nancy Grace reported Isa usually slept with her brothers. We had lots of discussion here which came first, but I can't remember if we were able to determine. I do recall it was unclear from both who the actual source was.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The reason he agreed to sign a "voluntary" no contact order, is that if he had refused, CPS would go to court with their concerns, to gain a "non-voluntary" order.

If CPS went to court, then they present the facts of the case, and why they believe SC is a danger to his children. SC wants to avoid this public airing of his dirty laundry - his agreement has zero to do with the well being of his boys and everything to do with the well being of himself.

BOTH LE AND CPS BELIEVE HE IS A DANGER TO HIS REMAINING CHILDREN. This is NOT a case of CPS over-reacting. They were alerted to this by LE (a credible source).

Please remember, this is NO CONTACT which means just that...no phone calls, no letters, no supervised visits, nothing.

Usually a parent would be allowed supervised visits, and there has to be a compelling reason why this is not the case. WHY would a parent be removed from an already traumatised family? It is certainly not done lightly.

CPS and LE are expert at dealing with fractured families. All attempts are made at every level to keep families together UNLESS there is an excellent reason that this cannot happen.

It doesn't matter which way you argue it - a no-contact order, voluntary or not, is a massive indicator that something in that family is seriously wrong...and not just that one of them is missing.

BTW, has anyone thought that Isa slept with her older brother because she was AFRAID to sleep on her own?

JMO>

I will admit I am no mind reader nor do I pretend to be.

I also dont have any idea if LE thinks he is a danger to his children either. They knew he was right up at the fence during the vigil where his son was and nothing happened to him.

There are a myriad of reasons why he could have agreed to the no contact order.

Imo, if LE thought he was really a danger to his children they would have arrested him because lets face it if he wanted to violate the agreement in order to harm them he very easily could.

So, imo, it is not that he is a danger to the boys but its something else and none of us know what that reason is, imo.

IMO

 

[CJMAJORGIRL24]

I don't care what anyone says, NO WAY I let them remove my remaining children from my life if I didn't have anything to hide. That simple.

i believe you!

 

[MBK]

ABC as well as Nancy Grace reported Isa usually slept with her brothers. We had lots of discussion here which came first, but I can't remember if we were able to determine. I do recall it was unclear from both who the actual source was.

didn't SC say in the 911 call or to the police that he checked the brothers' room because Isabel sometimes slept there?

I wonder if she had a bed in that room, slept in a sleeping bag on the floor, or just what . .

(Do we know how much later they stayed up playing video games on the night she was "abducted"?)

 

[FrayedKnot]

Ocean, respectfully, of COURSE both LE and CPS think Sergio is a danger to those boys.

They would be terribly negligent and exhibiting a gross misuse of power of they were to have initiated this separation unless they thought the children were at risk!

Think about it; Sergio is dodgy at best. LE and CPS, while not perfect, are organizations who have untold experience gauging family dynamics.

I sincerely doubt, with every fiber of my being, that CPS suggested ( yes, I know) this separation in order to let Sergio rest up and get back on board the SS Parent. It's a very serious thing and no matter what one believes about Sergio's involvement in Isa's disappearance, one would HAVE to recognize the gravity of being asked to separate from the other children.

Again, you may argue this was "voluntary", but do you, or ANYONE for that matter believe that this was all Sergio's idea? C'mon.

<modsnip> that CPS visiting the home twice in December and recommending the separation in May is NOT minor, no big deal, thing.

<modsnip>

IMO

 

[MBK]

We can disagree on who disappeared Isa, but let's all admit that CPS visiting the home twice in December and recommending the separation in May is NOT minor, no big deal, thing.

I really mean this with all respect to your conviction of their innocence, but you really can't be blind to the four foot high writing on the wall.

IMO

BBM Subtle and to the point.

 

[winterrose]

LE won't make an arrest, according to the Chief, until they can prove it in court, as he said. I really don't think he would be making this very clear, at this point, if they thought it was a stranger abduction or talking about trying to prove who did this. Actually when he was talking about the paths of who could have kidnapped Isa, stranger abduction didn't seem like the top of the list. He just needed that one piece of evidence to prove the path they're looking at, or so it seems, because he was being very careful in what he said.

When a reporter asked what would happen if SC didn't make the agreement, then the Chief said it was up to CPS to take any further action they deemed warranted. But CPS consulted with detectives and some family members,(makes me wonder who they were), then the Chief said the agreement was made. He didn't say SC and RC were consulted, he said some family members, so this wasn't something off the wall just anyone told LE in the investigation and it was sensitive in nature. I personally believe some family members or at least one told LE something in the investigation and CPS did their own investigation consulting some family members to verify it.

 

[Anita Richman]

SBM

We can disagree on who disappeared Isa, but let's all admit that CPS visiting the home twice in December and recommending the separation in May is NOT minor, no big deal, thing.

Hi FK, I haven't been around much (very active kiddos keep me running!), so I missed that CPS visited the home twice in December. I can't go through all the threads I've missed, can you tell me when that info came out?! Thanks in advance!

 

[SmoothOperator]

The reason he agreed to sign a "voluntary" no contact order, is that if he had refused, CPS would go to court with their concerns, to gain a "non-voluntary" order.

If CPS went to court, then they present the facts of the case, and why they believe SC is a danger to his children. SC wants to avoid this public airing of his dirty laundry - his agreement has zero to do with the well being of his boys and everything to do with the well being of himself.{¹}

BOTH LE AND CPS BELIEVE HE IS A DANGER TO HIS REMAINING CHILDREN. This is NOT a case of CPS over-reacting. They were alerted to this by LE (a credible source).{²}

Please remember, this is NO CONTACT which means just that...no phone calls, no letters, no supervised visits, nothing.

Usually a parent would be allowed supervised visits, and there has to be a compelling reason why this is not the case. WHY would a parent be removed from an already traumatised family? It is certainly not done lightly.

CPS and LE are expert at dealing with fractured families. All attempts are made at every level to keep families together UNLESS there is an excellent reason that this cannot happen.

It doesn't matter which way you argue it - a no-contact order, voluntary or not, is a massive indicator that something in that family is seriously wrong...and not just that one of them is missing.

BTW, has anyone thought that Isa slept with her older brother because she was AFRAID to sleep on her own?{³}

JMO>

BBM {¹} Not certain what the laws are there down under in Australia(I'd assume likely similar involving minors.. but I don't live there so my assumption could be incorrect) .. however one thing I do know for certain is how it works here and that is that there would be "NO AIRING OF ANYONE'S DIRTY LAUNDRY" via any CPS court hearing, period! .. therefore regarding THIS CASE and THIS FAMILY the above BBM is incorrect and in no way whatsoever a factor.. even "if" there was a court hearing(which there IS NOT) THE FACT IS..no info would be coming from anywhere about anything involving a CPS court hearing, period.

BBM {²} We have zero information for which to base ANY OPINION on as to whether CPS was acting appropriately or not.. until we have the information(which we may NOT ever get) as to why CPS and the family reached the voluntary agreement there is zilch basis of which to argue one way or the other.. regardless of the source the bottom line remains the same:
we still have zero knowledge of this specific case, with this specific family..

BBM {³} A quite likely fabricated or embellished rumor that came from Nancy Grace and the ABC affiliate that share their broadcast information, IMO is NOT a reliable source.. ITS BEEN traced back to A blabbing from Nancy Grace that cited as her source "a report floating around out there SOMEWHERE"..

 

[winterrose]

I don't know why it would be hard to believe Isa slept in the boy's room. Wouldn't her room have been the room JM lived in for almost a year? If it is, then she was probably used to sleeping in there with them. Plus her parents room is farther away, maybe she felt lonely all by herself being so little when the boys were together and then her parents. It's really not hard to conceive, that's why alot of kids like to sleep with the parents, but some parents won't allow that, so they sleep with siblings.

 

[SapphireSteel]

BBM {¹} Not certain what the laws are there down under in Australia(I'd assume likely similar involving minors.. but I don't live there so my assumption could be incorrect) .. however one thing I do know for certain is how it works here and that is that there would be "NO AIRING OF ANYONE'S DIRTY LAUNDRY" via any CPS court hearing, period! .. therefore regarding THIS CASE and THIS FAMILY the above BBM is incorrect and in no way whatsoever a factor.. even "if" there was a court hearing(which there IS NOT) THE FACT IS..no info would be coming from anywhere about anything involving a CPS court hearing, period.

BBM {²} We have zero information for which to base ANY OPINION on as to whether CPS was acting appropriately or not.. until we have the information(which we may NOT ever get) as to why CPS and the family reached the voluntary agreement there is zilch basis of which to argue one way or the other.. regardless of the source the bottom line remains the same:
we still have zero knowledge of this specific case, with this specific family..

BBM {³} A quite likely fabricated or embellished rumor that came from Nancy Grace and the ABC affiliate that share their broadcast information, IMO is NOT a reliable source.. ITS BEEN traced back to A blabbing from Nancy Grace that cited as her source "a report floating around out there SOMEWHERE"..

I do stand corrected on this point.

What I should have said was -

SC doesn't want to go to court and have anything ON RECORD which may later be used against him in trial.

Your second point - you're kidding right?

Your third point - is pretty irrelevant because I don't put any weight on the fact or rumour that Isa did/didn't sleep with her older brothers. I personally have never found it unusual either way - my kids were always close like that and it was in no way "creepy" or "wierd". It doesn't matter to me if it's true or gossip.