Cindizzi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2019
- Messages
- 10,925
- Reaction score
- 150,797
Thank you for your beyond excellent timeline/summary of the QS case. It’s a great thing to be able to catch up to what’s been going on when you’ve had to miss a day or two of posts to the thread.TIMELINE UPDATED with info about MomLS's custody hearing for the other two children.
MOOs
I was definitely hoping for more of an update today, though I can respect if LE are holding off on filing charges or making an arrest until the issue of the other children's safety and care is resolved. Ensuring their safety should be everyone's top priority right now.
The courts removed the children from the grandma's care. The gma didn't ensure the safety and welfare of the children when they were in her care. She won't get another chance after one of the children was killed. jmoHave to wonder if yesterday’s custody hearing with LS included bargaining. Perhaps the location of precious QS for custody options for BJH?
MOO
They should be. She may be lucky to avoid being charged with negligence before all is said and done. JMO
The system failed if either the mom or gma ever regains custody.As the custodian, she would be the respondent against whom the petition to remove is filed. It is against her that they make the finding of contrary to the welfare and reasonable efforts in the removal order (this language must be present in a removal order for the local district to tap into Federal funding, so it's uniform across the country.) The legal statute would be whatever GA law covers alleged neglect and/or abuse (and I'm comfortable saying that because it is obviously not a Foster Care placement for kids adjudicated as JD or PINS.)
I don't think that you will see criminal action against the grandmother unless she had a role in the events that led to the child's death/disappearance. I'm pretty certain she will, however, be required to jump through a major number of hoops before she regains custody of the other little boy.
![]()
Georgia Child Abuse Laws - FindLaw
Chart providing details of Georgia Child Abuse Laws. Learn more about this and related topics by visiting FindLaw's section on Georgia Criminal Laws.www.findlaw.com
MOO because I don't have time to look through these links to pull out the pertinent info.
I am pretty sure the courts would not barter the safety of a live child for the location of a dead child. The custody hearing was just to attempt to ensure that another child does not wind up missing or dead, from that home. JMOHave to wonder if yesterday’s custody hearing with LS included bargaining. Perhaps the location of precious QS for custody options for BJH?
MOO
The system failed if either the mom or gma ever regains custody.
Let's pray this sweet child has been found and that his murderer has been arrested!
I am aware of the children being removed from the so called care of BJH, but still think a bargaining could have taken place. Even within the family, they could have pressured LS to speak. They must feel a desperation for regaining custody, having lost one child, and the remaining two in another fashion. That being said, I fear there are no good answers within this family for nurturing a child.The courts removed the children from the grandma's care. The gma didn't ensure the safety and welfare of the children when they were in her care. She won't get another chance after one of the children was killed. jmo
Reunification of families is always the primary goal, so no, it won't have failed if either one regains custody.
That doesn't mean either one of these people will engage in the services they need to become better people/parents, but it's always the goal. Despite common belief, CPS/DCFS does not exist for the sole purpose of breaking up families; we are there to protect children while their parent/caregiver gets their lives together and receives treatment/education necessary to adequately parent the child. If the person doesn't follow through with the things they're court-ordered to do, then the agencies start looking for a different permanency resource for the child.
We (CPS/DCFS) don't want people's kids. We want people to be responsible and take care of their kids if they're going to have them. Maybe we need to teach people what their parents and society failed to teach, or maybe we need to help them resolve the bad decisions they made so they have a chance to be that good, responsible parent -- taking kids from their families and farming them out to people (no matter how fabulous they claim to be) is never something we want to see happen and is always a last resort.
I agree with the caveat of unless G'ma believed that QS would be in the care of StepG'PA and/or babysitter the whole time. In that case, she had provided for responsible care.The system failed if either the mom or gma ever regains custody.
Reunification of families is always the primary goal, so no, it won't have failed if either one regains custody.
That doesn't mean either one of these people will engage in the services they need to become better people/parents, but it's always the goal. Despite common belief, CPS/DCFS does not exist for the sole purpose of breaking up families; we are there to protect children while their parent/caregiver gets their lives together and receives treatment/education necessary to adequately parent the child. If the person doesn't follow through with the things they're court-ordered to do, then the agencies start looking for a different permanency resource for the child.
We (CPS/DCFS) don't want people's kids. We want people to be responsible and take care of their kids if they're going to have them. Maybe we need to teach people what their parents and society failed to teach, or maybe we need to help them resolve the bad decisions they made so they have a chance to be that good, responsible parent -- taking kids from their families and farming them out to people (no matter how fabulous they claim to be) is never something we want to see happen and is always a last resort.
Yup. That was my understanding.I find it interesting that she was mentioned in this negative way, but her husband wasn't. Didn't they both have custody?