Baby Lisa's brothers to be questioned and DNA tested

[epiphany]

DB's son with SB is five.. how old is the other son in the household?

Lisa's other half-brother is eight years old.

 

[epiphany]

Lisa Irwin's brothers, who reportedly are ages 8 and 5, will be interviewed by a "child services specialist trained to interview kids," Kansas City police Capt. Steve Young said. The interview will be non-confrontational, he said, and a police officer won't even be in the room.

http://www.kmbc.com/news/29590466/detail.html#ixzz1bu2n0abk

 

[mck16]

Opening a case does not equate to temporary removal of children. I work as a mentor with a few women who have open cases, but have not had "enough" to have their kids removed.

IMO, DHS would not take the kids away as a leverage technique. They have to maintain the dignity of their office as well. LE could indicate this as a strategy though, you are correct there.

IME (as a foster child/foster parent/child advocate/mentor) they are going to have to see evidence of more than just getting drunk to remove their kids. Emergency removal (most common form of removal, where removal precedes a hearing) requires justifiable indication of "imminent danger". Yes, Lisa went missing- but there is nothing public to indicate the other children are in imminent danger. Getting drunk in your home with kids is not illegal. They will need reason to believe that (sober or drunk) an action she made directly caused harm to come to Lisa, or could cause harm to her boys. Being drunk isn't enough. I do believe it will have to be more than not locking the door.

I know these statements makes me unpopular, but we don't have enough homes to provide perfect homes to all. Especially in this region with the massive meth problem, we are forced to concentrate on situations far more dire than getting drunk with your kids at home. JMO.

I think most people are very shocked at the extreme cases DHS works with.

I agreee with you and I don't think CPS has the time or the manpower to investigate every household that this takes place in. I think they are looking for neglect in most homes and we have not seen any evidense of neglect I don't think. jmo

 

[Cazzie]

Lisa Irwin's brothers, who reportedly are ages 8 and 5, will be interviewed by a "child services specialist trained to interview kids," Kansas City police Capt. Steve Young said. The interview will be non-confrontational, he said, and a police officer won't even be in the room.

http://www.kmbc.com/news/29590466/detail.html#ixzz1bu2n0abk

But I imagine LE and FBI can be viewing the interviews live, and recordings will be made for their and child services' review.

 

[curiositycat]

This is a good article regarding "forensic interviewing" of children.
http://www.practicenotes.org/vol8_no1/what_is.htm

 

[Wendy101]

Huh? Does anyone know if the boys had DNA taken already? I thoguht the whole family did....

Also, which boy was sleeping with Lisa? I just read somewhere on here that BOTH boys were...... if so, why would a parent lie about that????

 

[In da Middle]

Getting back to the boys:
With DB saying she was drunk, the boys staying up til 10:30 on a Monday night, and a missing child from the home...I think there is ample reason to open a CPS investigation.

Photos of the initial crime scene will probably document if other dangers existed on the night Lisa was reported missing...(We don't know if LE left these things out; but there is also the possibility that the guns were left out in the open, a wall socket with the fan plugged in was without it's cover plate, and a flammable liquid (cardboard box of wine) was sitting on top of the stove.

There is no 'legal' bedtime that I am aware of.

 

[AngelWings444]

This is good news. I'm hoping the boys might say "something" to give LE some type of lead to find Baby Lisa.

Wondering out loud, if DB's husband coming out and making a statement has anything to do with this new revelation. One would think, he might was his child checked on by CPS, and/or he could give his permission to have his child interviewed.

 

[21merc7]

There is no 'legal' bedtime that I am aware of.

In addition, IIRC we were told LE moved the box of wine to measure the remaining contents, so if we want to assume where the wine was it was in the fridge, most likely. We don't know if LE took the cover to the electrical outlet for testing. Neither issue is one for CPS to come to take your children away. I think most states have CPS question every family member when a child is missing as standard protocol.

 

[captivagrl]

Opening a case does not equate to temporary removal of children. I work as a mentor with a few women who have open cases, but have not had "enough" to have their kids removed.

IMO, DHS would not take the kids away as a leverage technique. They have to maintain the dignity of their office as well. LE could indicate this as a strategy though, you are correct there.

IME (as a foster child/foster parent/child advocate/mentor) they are going to have to see evidence of more than just getting drunk to remove their kids. Emergency removal (most common form of removal, where removal precedes a hearing) requires justifiable indication of "imminent danger". Yes, Lisa went missing- but there is nothing public to indicate the other children are in imminent danger. Getting drunk in your home with kids is not illegal. They will need reason to believe that (sober or drunk) an action she made directly caused harm to come to Lisa, or could cause harm to her boys. Being drunk isn't enough. I do believe it will have to be more than not locking the door.

I know these statements makes me unpopular, but we don't have enough homes to provide perfect homes to all. Especially in this region with the massive meth problem, we are forced to concentrate on situations far more dire than getting drunk with your kids at home. JMO.

I think most people are very shocked at the extreme cases DHS works with.

I've been appointed as Guardian ad Litem in several cases and I fully agree with your statements. In addition, I would like to add that even when children are removed, most are placed with relatives/friends for a short amount of time while parents begin to work through the case plan.

 

[epiphany]

"They said they heard noises (the night Lisa disappeared)," Bradley said. "I don't know if that was before we went to sleep or after." She said she had not talked to her sons about it because she was reluctant to put them through "anything else."

http://www.kmbc.com/news/29590466/detail.html#ixzz1bu8U1fY1

 

[epiphany]

Perhaps, the "noises" were the source of one child's supposed nightmare.

 

[justbeachy]

This is good news. I'm hoping the boys might say "something" to give LE some type of lead to find Baby Lisa.

Wondering out loud, if DB's husband coming out and making a statement has anything to do with this new revelation. One would think, he might was his child checked on by CPS, and/or he could give his permission to have his child interviewed.

That's a good point. I would think they only need one parent's consent for the interview. So if his dad gave it, I wonder if there would be anything DB could do to stop it. But, if she has primary custody, would that affect it? I know nothing about these things...

 

[Abby Normal]

Just saying that an investigation is to either rule in or rule out the possibility of removing the children. The initial interview is done in order to record if there is reason to remove the children. Interviews are conducted to determine if there is "founded" or "unfounded" evidence of abuse/neglect or endangerment.

When CPS initially talks to a child, the goal is to get the information without the caregivers input. So, in any case, they separate the child from the parents...even if it is only for a few minutes or hours as opposed to days, weeks, months, years or permanently.

Yes, I feel LE holds the card to officially report the Irwin home. If they do that CPS has to open a file. The only time I know of that DHS/Social Workers initiate the opening of cases are when they have been informed by others of concerns or they are a witness to some evidence of abuse or neglect. Then, they too, are required by law to report their concerns to CPS.

(This I know from working in the public system.)

Yes, they would need to talk to the kids to determine if there is a pattern of abuse, neglect, or endangerment. Of course, then the focus would not be on the night Lisa disappeared. It would (should) be an overview that includes that night.

I think that since they have an established relationship and have to maintain it, they would be in touch with DHS and discussing boundaries of such a maneuver amidst the process.

 

[JustJax]

As a general rule, police do not interview children who are witnesses. Instead, they refer them to a child protection center, where social workers talk to the children. Police are not allowed in the room.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/25/3229412/legal-dance-with-police-is-part.html

When my daughter was a crime victim when she was 15, we were sent over to the Juvenile division of the county's Victim's Advocacy Services and the lead detective observed and gathered information from the next room thru the one way window while the Advocate was interviewing her.

 

[AnaTeresa]

"They said they heard noises (the night Lisa disappeared)," Bradley said. "I don't know if that was before we went to sleep or after." She said she had not talked to her sons about it because she was reluctant to put them through "anything else."

http://www.kmbc.com/news/29590466/detail.html#ixzz1bu8U1fY1

If she truly hasn't talked to them about it and they actually did hear something, she did the right thing. If no one has talked to the boys about the noises, then their memories are untainted. Not asking the boys about the noises may very well be on the advice of their attorneys. Hopefully, the interview Friday will help to shed more light on things for LE.

 

[believe09]

KC LE are releasing to the media that the children will be questioned, by who and how?

I dont think I have ever seen anything like this.

 

[Zuckerschnecke]

I am so glad they are looking at the DB's brother. This is the one piece of the puzzle that IMHO makes the most sense. I mean, we know he was there that day at the grocery store

He is the BIG missing piece for me as well. I wonder that he was there at the house later that night with some friends or people that DB loosely knew. When this thing gets solved, and I sure hope it does soon, I don't think it will involve a complete stranger per se, but more someone DB and JI will have known through the brother or the neighbor or a friend of a friend of a friend of a drug dealer, etc etc.

 

[matou]

If she truly hasn't talked to them about it and they actually did hear something, she did the right thing. If no one has talked to the boys about the noises, then their memories are untainted. Not asking the boys about the noises may very well be on the advice of their attorneys. Hopefully, the interview Friday will help to shed more light on things for LE.

What was the original MSN source that had the statement about DB not wanting to ask the boys questions about that night because she didn't want them to "go through anything else"? Was it before the 17th because that's when she announced her lawyer, on the 17th. I suppose Ashley Irwin could have consulted with her about not questioning her kids.

 

[Just K]

In addition, IIRC we were told LE moved the box of wine to measure the remaining contents, so if we want to assume where the wine was it was in the fridge, most likely. We don't know if LE took the cover to the electrical outlet for testing. Neither issue is one for CPS to come to take your children away. I think most states have CPS question every family member when a child is missing as standard protocol.

Correct, as I posted, we don't know what other dangers/hazards were present in the home at the time LE arrived 10/04/2011. It is rarely just one thing that prompts a CPS investigation.

The whole point here is that the family may have been advised that they might want to voluntarily agree to an interview of the boys because LE might have every legal right to recommend to CPS that they officially investigate the family. If that happens then the parents will have absolutely no say over the questions that are asked in a CPS investigation. LE seems to be holding this card!