Not sure if everyone has listened to this radio interview yet -- it's SM and his attorney. Really telling stuff in this interview; I found it very interesting. It goes through the details of that epic mediation session as well as some of JB's history and the history of her (unfounded) charges against SM. It appears SM and his attorney are filing a lawsuit against the commissioner who handled JB and SM's case....interesting.
http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=577&a=36125&p=&n=AudioClip
------on the previous thread #12----beginning at post # 283----"
ingra1327"
transcribed that entire radio interview!
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - WA WA - Sky Metalwala, 2, Bellevue, 6 Nov 2011 - #12
Thanks. But I don't remember hearing about the lawsuit against the commissioner. I only read Ingra's fabulous transcripts, though. I didn't listen!
On another subject, I just wanted to clear something up about CPS because I sense a bit of confusion.
CPS is a governmental agency that has the power to investigate claims of abuse or neglect and to remove children from homes in the event such claims seem substantiated.
But they only have the power to remove kids until the courts have a hearing on the matter.
They are similar to the police. The police can arrest someone on suspicion of a crime but the police do not try that person, determine their guilt or innocence or sentence them.
So, after CPS removes a child, there is a hearing in juvenile dependency court, unless CPS determines that their is an on-going family law case (or probate case) and someone involved with the children goes to court to seek a change in custody or a guardianship that satisfies CPS's concerns. They would then release the child to that person(s) and there would be no court hearing in juvenile dependency court.
But if such a case is not on-going or cannot be filed quickly, whenever a child is removed by CPS, there is a hearing in juvenile dependency court to determine whether continued custody by the state is appropriate and if so, where the child should be placed - either foster care or with an approved relative or other person.
After that, there are multiple hearings to determine whether reunification should occur, whether a different placement is necessary, etc. But at that point, the case is in the hands of the court and CPS only acts in an advisory capacity. Technically, their recommendations at that point are to be given no greater weight than any other witness (although they are).
CPS has the power to remove a child from a home or CLOSE ITS CASE if, once a child removed from a home by CPS is placed elsewhere via court orders in a family law or probate court proceeding, before a hearing in juvenile dependency court can be held to determine whether on-going state custody is appropriate.
CPS does not have the power to determine who is granted custody of a child, past initial, emergency placements, or to issue restraining orders or to prevent a child from being placed with certain parties, whether they were the accused or not, once juvenile dependency court commences its proceedings. CPS does not have the power to keep a child in state custody. They are, in fact, an investigative body only, really, that issues recommendations to the police and to the courts.
In this case, CPS was involved many times. It appears, from declarations and news reports, that CPS was called when Julia was hospitalized, due to, possibly, mandatory reporting because of statements that food was not allowed in the home. However, at that point, Solomon asserted that he made other arrangements to make sure the kids were fed, and they apparently closed their case.
On another occasion, CPS
and LE were involved due to allegations on the part of Julia. However, Solomon and his attorney state that after questioning him, investigating and issuing polygraphs, they closed their case as "unfounded" or "inconclusive" and no further action by CPS or LE was taken.
Even if that is the case, however, a court in a different jurisdiction, like family law court or probate court (some states use probate court for guardianships of minor children), can still make decisions as to child custody based on allegations that were deemed inconclusive or unfounded by CPS. The court can reexamine the allegations and determine that there exists enough there to change custody. That is because the standard followed by the court in family law and guardianship cases is different than what is followed by CPS or juvenile dependency court.
Let me give you an example. I had a case where the mother put bruises on her daughter's arms. CPS investigated and found the case to be "Inconclusive" even though the child stated her mom hurt her. They offered voluntary services and closed their case when mom did not accept. I went into family law court and based on those facts, obtained a change of custody. "Best interest of the child" is the standard in CA in family law cases while something akin to "imminent harm" is the standard in juvenile dependency cases.
In any event, it appears clear that in this case, CPS never took the children into emergency placement until the very end, when SKY went missing and no juvenile dependency cases was opened on this family until then either. Their role has been investigatory and advisory only.
I hope that made sense and was somewhat helpful.
