I'm damn sure I wouldn't agree to a voluntary no-contact order, but then I never had anything to hide. I would go to court in a heartbeat to keep seeing my kids.
There was prior CPS involvement with this family, late last year. Something in the milk aint clean.
:moo:
BBM and we don't even know if that was related to the Celis family directly, or someone else.
I think I would volunteer to stay away for a month or two rather than have my child go in to foster care - but that's me.
The children were not going to be put in foster care, as RC was not involved in whatever issue the non-contact order was about, and she was deemed custodial parent.
The non-contact order was against SC only, and the only repercussions for him refusing it would be that CPS would apply to the courts to force him. Either way, the children would remain with RC as she would remain custodial parent.
First let me correct something, once again. It was not a non-contact ORDER. It is a non-contact agreement Legally that is a very different thing to speak of.
A voluntary no-contact agreement is the first step in the legal path to stop a parent from accessing his children. If he fails to make/keep this agreement, the next step is for CPS to obtain a non-contact ORDER via legal channels. These documents both have the same intent, which is to keep the parent from having any contact with the child...one is just a step further down the legal path than the other.
Second, what you say does not make much sense to me. If SC didn't agree to voluntarily go along with the conditions he was given, CPS would have to remove the children to foster care through a court order.
If SC didn't agree to this voluntarily, the next step is a court hearing to obtain a no-contact order. The children are not going anywhere UNLESS CPS also wish to obtain a no-contact order or place other restrictions on RC. SC and RC at this point, are two separate entities, in the view of CPS. RC is safe to be around the kids, SC is not.
Even if RC is not involved. CPS cannot force a couple to live separately
They certainly can not, but they can obtain a no-contact ORDER and arrest whoever breaks it, and/or apply to add RC to it if she breaks her part in the voluntary agreement. The couple may live together, but NOT with the children.
, and cannot force a couple to divorce.
Erm...no one said they could?
Unless SC voluntarily agreed to remove himself the only way to separate him from the children by legal force would be to remove the children from both parents.
Maybe auto correct changed a misspelled "messing" to "leasing". IDK just a guess.
I'm hoping that when the monsoons hit here in Tucson, that the rains bring flooding, and that it unearth any "secrets" buried in the washes.
Please, please rain flood our washes!!!
I'm damn sure I wouldn't agree to a voluntary no-contact order, but then I never had anything to hide. I would go to court in a heartbeat to keep seeing my kids.
There was prior CPS involvement with this family, late last year. Something in the milk aint clean.
:moo:
The deal is often "either you agree to this voluntarily or we will take your kids right now and place them in foster care until after the hearing. The hearing will be scheduled in X number of business days, not counting weekends or holidays."
Such offers, oddly enough, are often made on Fridays or the day before a holiday. This means that even if the law says "three days" if such an offer had been made to someone last Friday in my state, the hearing would be held next Thursday (Saturday, Sunday and the Fourth of July holiday don't count). For children under around 6-8 years old, a week is virtually an eternity, more time than they can really imagine.
If the family was already in crisis and the children are already upset and feeling insecure,
Then every attempt is made to help them and keep them together - not impose a "no contact" condition as a whim. There has to be a compelling reason to further fracture an already traumatised family.
and it's a choice between the kids staying with one parent or going to foster care... well, I can see why innocent parents go for the agreement.
As for "prior CPS involvement" I would also fall into that category. When my husband and I met, he had a 16 year old from his first marriage. My stepson had been through some terrible things before his father won full custody from his mother and was one angry, acting out kid despite 14 years in therapy. After we married, my stepson started refusing to go to therapy and was generally angry at house rules like "no illegal drugs."
So he discovered that he could cause a lot of trouble for us by reporting us to CPS.
We do not know who reported them the first time, but they have now been reported by LE. It is at a much higher level of involvement than a troublemaking stepchild reporting false abuse.
The first time he reported us, the allegation was that we were starving him. CPS came, we showed them the fridge and cabinets full of healthy, nutritious foods, we gave them permission to check my stepson's medical records (which showed his weight was normal for a 17 year old his size) and closed the investigation as "unfounded."
The next time my stepson reported us, he was more explicit in his allegations: we were not keeping soda, potato chips and pastries in the house. So CPS came out again, viewed the kitchen full of healthful foods, I explained that as a diabetic, I cannot eat such foods and it's easier if they are not in the house, showed them the containers of pre-cut veggies and fruits, the healthy dips, the yogurt, the cheese and other healthy snacks, etc. I also showed them the weekly menu lists where we each signed up for what we wanted a couple nights a week and pointed out that my stepson got what he wanted for dinner at least 3 times a week and he generally ate voraciously at every single meal (it was downright frightening for me to see how a teenage boy can eat). The investigation was closed as "unfounded."
Apparently it is not considered child abuse to withhold junk food from a teenager. <eyes rolling>
My stepson continued to report us and we continued to be investigated for the better part of a year. Every single investigation was closed as "unfounded."
Finally CPS told my stepson that if he made one more unfounded allegation against us, they would report him to the police. That finally put a stop to that merry little dance.
But in my state, anyone who has been reported to CPS goes on the list for ten years along with the results of the investigation.
Even though every single investigation was closed as "unfounded" I am sure that had we been thrust into the public eye for some reason, there would be plenty of people who would cluck and say "all those investigations, they must have been doing something wrong."
My stepson finally grew up (which involved more than one stay in jail) and has long since apologised for his behaviour back then. Now he's a parent and his little girl is one spirited, headstrong kid. <snicker>
My point, somewhere back there, is that just because someone has been investigated, even many times, doesn't mean that they had done anything wrong besides making someone angry.
I'm damn sure I wouldn't agree to a voluntary no-contact order, but then I never had anything to hide. I would go to court in a heartbeat to keep seeing my kids.
There was prior CPS involvement with this family, late last year. Something in the milk aint clean.
:moo:
It's raining! May Isa be found. Keep on raining. The forecast tonight was positive. Ahhh, the sound of rain.
It's raining! May Isa be found. Keep on raining. The forecast tonight was positive. Ahhh, the sound of rain.
It's raining! May Isa be found. Keep on raining. The forecast tonight was positive. Ahhh, the sound of rain.
There is no MSM report about this. It is an opinion from some who have dealt with or had some experience with CPS in their lives, not based on knowledge of the Isa case, specifically.Can someone please link to where it was reported in MSM that if SC did not agree to this "voluntary" arrangement that both boys would be put into foster care away from BOTH parents?