AZ - Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 - #24

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pensfan said:
Voluntary safety agreement only means that CPS told Sergio that he had the choice to:
1. stay away from his boys voluntarily (BC must make certain that he is not in the home with the boys) AND sign their safety plan agreeing to this. In addition he must complete the rest of that safety plan that includes things we don't know about. The rest of the plan might require him to undergo counseling, take psychological exams, submit to random drug tests, attend parenting classes, and etc...

2. watch CPS take his kids away from him AND his wife for an indefinite amount of time which could be PERMANENT

Pensfan
verified psychiatric mental health nurse
Click to expand...

I'll watch ... how about that?

Please post this "safety plan" that you talk about. TIA.
 
Ransom said:
Again ... there is NO order as in no-contact ORDER. Zip, nada and NOPE on that. It's all voluntary. AGAIN.

ONE more time:
He said Monday that Sergio Celis voluntarily agreed to stay away from his two sons. He said the agreement is between Sergio Celis and CPS. The boys are with Becky Celis and are not in CPS custody, Villaseñor said.
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/cri...cle_e7c41468-9dec-11e1-b1f1-001a4bcf887a.html
:sigh:
Click to expand...

Thank you, Ransom, and CPS would have to take SC to court for the "no contact order" right? and certainly IMO there could be many other more serious actions CPS could take, right?

There are many different actions that CPS takes with parents -- The most serious would be removal from all family, and court orders. "Sometimes information gathered by Child Protective Services (CPS) indicates that the risk of harm to a child is so great that he or she would be unprotected if allowed to remain in his or her own home. When this happens, children must be removed on an emergency basis. Juvenile court may place the child into the custody of the Arizona Department of Economic Security. When a child must remain in the agency’s care, CPS will work with the family, the courts and a team of professional service providers to develop a plan of treatment for the child and the family."
https://www.azdes.gov/main.aspx?menu=154&id=2026

As opposed to a "Voluntary Placement By A Parent" which is treated quite differently, and shows that the parent or parents are quite capable of participating willingly in improving the situation IMO
Here's the criteria that CPS considered before deciding on this voluntary action...

"To determine whether provision of voluntary services is appropriate, consider these questions:

F Are there community or extended family resources available that can help the parent address these concerns without DES involvement? Is the parent willing to use them?
F In conversations with the caregiver, do they acknowledge that there a need for support for their family?
F Based on your conversation with the caregiver, does he/she appear both willing and able to make changes in behavior and/or home environment to reduce the potential for harm to the children?
F Has the parent received services from the department in the past? If so, what was the result?
F Is the parent willing to accept voluntary services from DES?
F What steps can be taken to ensure that the children will remain safe while voluntary services are provided?"

https://extranet.azdes.gov/dcyfpolicy//ServiceManual.htm
 
Azcrabcakes said:
(snipped to your one comment: The US seems to value education less and less each day, and the results are more ignorance, more crime, and more harmed/murdered children.
Click to expand...

I am really offended by that statement, for the record. How insulting. What country do you come from? Wow.

The educational system in the US is complex. Clearly in any country, education surrounding dysfunction is all good, but to make a comment like that about the US. Wow. You are wrong, IMO.
 
Dee10 said:
I am confused. What does this mean to you and why would Sergio agree? Curious on your take per your stance.
Click to expand...

Means nothing to ME. Sergio agreed for his own reasons along with Rebecca and her reasons ... or their reasons. I don't speculate... never have but I did once say why RC/SC would do what they did. My stance is as an ex-CPS worker in NM not AZ and I know the fed/state rules.
 
Locals are telling the blog owner of another site that Sergio has recently has been seen with his boys. Are there locals on here? Is this factual or gossip? TIA
 
Pensfan, this has not been verified by any MSM. There was some discussion of this on the last thread.
 
When something *goes wrong* inside a family and a child is killed as a result, there is nothing the general public can do about this type of crime. It can't be undone. The parents may try and hide it as an accident, or they may get rid of the body altogether and claim kidnapping to avoid detection. Either way, the parents don't want to go to prison and it's a legal matter between the parents and LE and the state.

If there's no boogeyman kidnapper on the loose connected to that particular case, then there's nothing for the public to worry about. I'll go as far as saying it's not the public's business at that point because it's a matter for law enforcement. Yes, people get obsessed with such cases because it feels like a kidnapping, but it's not!

Children don't just go missing. Often something occurs within the family and statistics bear this out. If LE is not putting out notices about a kidnapper in the area, then doesn't it make sense that there is NO kidnapper prowling around that is connected to Isa's case?

At some point people must understand there's nothing they can do and further, it's not their legal issue.

At this point I see the Isa case in the same vein. Until or unless one of her parent's comes clean with information, she is not likely to be located. This is a family matter and a police matter. If LE isn't asking for assistance then it means they don't need the public's help.
 
time said:
Here's a hypothetical question, I guess. I'll probably get shot down easily with something one of you knows that I don't, but here goes.

Could there be any reason CPS said one of the parents gets to stay (seemingly with supervision as people have been talking about) with the boys and the other has a no contact order . RC and SC chose for RC to be the parents to stay with the boys. Reason, RC could lose her job if she had a no contact order since she works with kids.
Click to expand...

I am no lawyer, but I can say that we are talking civil vs. criminal here...And that HR would NOT be able to terminate an employee without due cause...of course they would, but they would not. Except that she works in peds, which might cause a higher standard of scrutiny.

CPS records are not police records. That said, anyone who works with children in any capacity may need to be current in any CORI eval...along with medical/nursing licensing, so... something this high profile might raise flags, otherwise, there are surely criminal/parties to DV amongst us every day that go undetected by employers, and are not fired for such.

I do not know if Arizona is an Employee at Will state, but I guarantee you that even if they are, it would be a GIGANTIC RISK to terminate Rebecca in light of this situation. There would likely be a wrongful termination suit, and justified, to follow. She would win. Period.
 
Ransom said:
I'll watch ... how about that?

Please post this "safety plan" that you talk about. TIA.
Click to expand...
If I had his safety plan, I'd share it with you. :)

I am using knowledge from my experience working with psychiatric patients (x 30 years) who were removed from their children by CPS. In the state of PA, when a parent is suspected of being an abuser, CPS tells them that they can voluntarily agree to stay out of the home with the kids or CPS will remove the children from that home. To ensure that the supposedly abusive parent "understands", CPS has them sign a Safety Plan. On the Safety Plan, CPS makes their first list of demands such as attendance at parenting classes, random drug screens, psych assessments, and etc... If the parent violates his voluntary agreement to stay away from the kids and their home, CPS takes the Safety Plan to a judge, explains that the parent violated their voluntary agreement, and the judge gives CPS a court order to remove the kids.

From my experience trying to help soon-to-be discharged adult psych patients, when a parent signs the safety plan and volunteers to stay away, CPS begins to push and threaten (to take their children) the remaining parent to get a restraining order against the supposedly violent parent.
 
Texas article on CPS's voluntary safety plan.
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2...ty-plans-allow-cps-to-circumvent-due-process/
http://www.chron.com/news/kilday-hart/article/Hart-Voluntary-CPS-plan-has-some-parents-3587923.php
(Yes, that dad whose wife was gunned down BY STRANGERS in the pediatrician's parking lot trying to protect her baby was threatened with CPS taking his baby or signing a voluntary safety plan allowing CPS to take his child. I couldn't make this stuff up. He did eventually get his baby returned.)
 
Pensfan said:
If I had his safety plan, I'd share it with you. :)

I am using knowledge from my experience working with psychiatric patients (x 30 years) who were removed from their children by CPS. In the state of PA, when a parent is suspected of being an abuser, CPS tells them that they can voluntarily agree to stay out of the home with the kids or CPS will remove the children from that home. To ensure that the supposedly abusive parent "understands", CPS has them sign a Safety Plan. On the Safety Plan, CPS makes their first list of demands such as attendance at parenting classes, random drug screens, psych assessments, and etc... If the parent violates his voluntary agreement to stay away from the kids and their home, CPS takes the Safety Plan to a judge, explains that the parent violated their voluntary agreement, and the judge gives CPS a court order to remove the kids.

From my experience trying to help soon-to-be discharged adult psych patients, when a parent signs the safety plan and volunteers to stay away, CPS begins to push and threaten (to take their children) the remaining parent to get a restraining order against the supposedly violent parent.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
I have had 25 + years with CPS in NM but I never worked with psychiatric patients/parents. I take that back. I had one case, but it was fairly bogus and it was proved in court.

The fed/state mandate is different than what you worked with. IMO. I really believe that you and I come at this case from two different points of view.

This case ... at this point in time ... there is NO COURT ORDER. :moo:
 
Well, I guess we could wait and see what happens if he goes against the agreement, that's not an order, but he has to abide by it or else. KWIM
 
Ransom said:
Thanks.
I have had 25 + years with CPS in NM but I never worked with psychiatric patients/parents. I take that back. I had one case, but it was fairly bogus and it was proved in court.

The fed/state mandate is different than what you worked with. IMO. I really believe that you and I come at this case from two different points of view.

This case ... at this point in time ... there is NO COURT ORDER. :moo:
Click to expand...

I agree. There isn't a court order. Sergio voluntarily signed the CPS safety plan. Safety plans aren't a court order. If Sergio violates his safety plan agreement, he is in serious trouble with CPS. This is a very dangerous place to be if he wants to be a parent to his children. This is why I doubt that he was seen with his boys at this time.
 
Prof said:
Thank you, Ransom, and CPS would have to take SC to court for the "no contact order" right? and certainly IMO there could be many other more serious actions CPS could take, right?

There are many different actions that CPS takes with parents -- The most serious would be removal from all family, and court orders. "Sometimes information gathered by Child Protective Services (CPS) indicates that the risk of harm to a child is so great that he or she would be unprotected if allowed to remain in his or her own home. When this happens, children must be removed on an emergency basis. Juvenile court may place the child into the custody of the Arizona Department of Economic Security. When a child must remain in the agency’s care, CPS will work with the family, the courts and a team of professional service providers to develop a plan of treatment for the child and the family."
https://www.azdes.gov/main.aspx?menu=154&id=2026

As opposed to a "Voluntary Placement By A Parent" which is treated quite differently, and shows that the parent or parents are quite capable of participating willingly in improving the situation IMO
Here's the criteria that CPS considered before deciding on this voluntary action...

"To determine whether provision of voluntary services is appropriate, consider these questions:

F Are there community or extended family resources available that can help the parent address these concerns without DES involvement? Is the parent willing to use them?
F In conversations with the caregiver, do they acknowledge that there a need for support for their family?
F Based on your conversation with the caregiver, does he/she appear both willing and able to make changes in behavior and/or home environment to reduce the potential for harm to the children?
F Has the parent received services from the department in the past? If so, what was the result?
F Is the parent willing to accept voluntary services from DES?
F What steps can be taken to ensure that the children will remain safe while voluntary services are provided?"

https://extranet.azdes.gov/dcyfpolicy//ServiceManual.htm
Click to expand...

YOU are so right in your ponderings and postings. You say more than I ever can. lol.

I truly appreciate everyone posting here for Isa. Whether we agree or not ... we all care and for that I am so thankful.
 
Local here, and I've not heard of ANY sightings of SC with his boys since the CPS agreement. (Of course he was near at least one of them during a candle-light vigil/walk, but I reported that before and it's been discussed a lot on this forum.)
 
Pensfan said:
I agree. There isn't a court order. Sergio voluntarily signed the CPS safety plan. Safety plans aren't a court order. If Sergio violates his safety plan agreement, he is in serious trouble with CPS. This is a very dangerous place to be if he wants to be a parent to his children. This is why I doubt that he was seen with his boys at this time.
Click to expand...

I think all that b.s. about SC being with his sons is just b.s. I don't think he nor his wife would risk that. Box of salt is always something to keep handy.:moo:
 
Anita Richman said:
Local here, and I've not heard of ANY sightings of SC with his boys since the CPS agreement. (Of course he was near at least one of them during a candle-light vigil/walk, but I reported that before and it's been discussed a lot on this forum.)
Click to expand...

Bless you for still being here for ISA, as a local. You make my heart sing as you post your most honest thoughts without bias. :moo: I really do appreciate you. That said ... where is our little ISA?

There is not much else I can say. :tears:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 111 more.
Total: 320 (members: 112, guests: 208)

Online statistics

Members online
112
Guests online
208
Total visitors
320
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,822
Messages
18,246,041
Members
234,458
Latest member
Ava77
Back
Top