GUILTY MN - Madeline Jane Kingsbury, 26, mother of 2, Winona, 31 Mar 2023 *arrest* #2

[Atha]

Can someone possibly explain their opinion why AF would say the children need protective services? What exactly does this mean? I’m glad Maddi’s parents will retain custody right now and pray it stays that way.

One of the reasons in Minnesota Law for a child to need protection or services is that a child is without their parent, guardian or custodian. AF is not legally any of those things right now, so it is straightforward and without blame for AF to say the children are in need of protection or services (CHIPS).

ETA: MK is the only one right now who fits the definition. Her parents do not, even though they currently care for the children. In MK's absence Winona County becomes the guardian/custodian.

Source: The definition of Child in need of protection and services in Subd. 6 of the statue below.

Sec. 260C.007 MN Statutes

 

[stingingnettless]

One of the reasons in Minnesota Law for a child to need protection or services is that a child is without their parent, guardian or custodian. AF is not legally any of those things right now, so it is straightforward, and without blame for AF to say the children are in need of protection or services (CHIPS).

Source: The definition of Child in need of protection and services in Subd. 6 of the statue below.

Sec. 260C.007 MN Statutes

Oh yes i read that earlier in the thread and forgot, thank you!!

 

[Sadi]

One of the reasons in Minnesota Law for a child to need protection or services is that a child is without their parent, guardian or custodian. AF is not legally any of those things right now, so it is straightforward and without blame for AF to say the children are in need of protection or services (CHIPS).

ETA: MK is the only one right now who fits the definition. Her parents do not, even though they currently care for the children. In MK's absence Winona County becomes the guardian/custodian.

Source: The definition of Child in need of protection and services in Subd. 6 of the statue below.

Sec. 260C.007 MN Statutes

Thank you

 

[Sadi]

One of the reasons in Minnesota Law for a child to need protection or services is that a child is without their parent, guardian or custodian. AF is not legally any of those things right now, so it is straightforward and without blame for AF to say the children are in need of protection or services (CHIPS).

ETA: MK is the only one right now who fits the definition. Her parents do not, even though they currently care for the children. In MK's absence Winona County becomes the guardian/custodian.

Source: The definition of Child in need of protection and services in Subd. 6 of the statue below.

Sec. 260C.007 MN Statutes

Thank you

 

[Sadi]

That I am not sure at all, that or maybe it took awhile to reach an agreement between his lawyer and county? But I could be also mistaken about what this all means - my brief legal background is in criminal so custody is not in my wheelhouse

Thank you

 

[Atha]

Also why did they leave it till the last minute to cancel? Is it a delay tactic?

Today was the preliminary hearing. This is the time and place for the judge to hear if any agreements have been reached before a trial. An agreement was reached between AF and Winona County, so that cancels the scheduled trial. This is a routine court procedure and process.
(Even though it was surprising for most of us.)

 

[Sadi]

Also why did they leave it till the last minute to cancel? Is it a delay tactic?

Great question. Would LE look at this as suspicious? What about the County?

 

[Damarna]

In MN CHIPS actions are court cases that involve the health, safety and welfare of children. Children can be considered CHIPS because they are abused or neglected, truant, runaway, or otherwise need protection or services. Cases are brought to protect children and to deliver services so children can be safe at home or, if children cannot be home and must be in foster care, so they can safely return home. If services do not resolve the issues, children may be permanently removed from the care of their parents including through termination of parental rights. (Minnesota Judicial Branch - Child in Need of Protection).

I'm wondering if he's trying to get her parental rights terminated. My grandkids were under a CHIPS petition when I fostered them. Termination was not the desired outcome but it was indeed possible. By declaring them in need of protection he's not necessarily saying they are in current danger but the long term "abandonment" my mom is the danger. Just my own thoughts. I don't know that the headlines are accurate in their description. But, with that said, who knows what AF is thinking??

 

[Sadi]

Does it mean there’s going to be one new trial for custody and the criminal charges mentioned by the County of concerns about the safety of the children in the home totally gone? Or am I more confused than ever ? What’s the timeframe for the custody trial to be scheduled?

 

[Sadi]

In MN CHIPS actions are court cases that involve the health, safety and welfare of children. Children can be considered CHIPS because they are abused or neglected, truant, runaway, or otherwise need protection or services. Cases are brought to protect children and to deliver services so children can be safe at home or, if children cannot be home and must be in foster care, so they can safely return home. If services do not resolve the issues, children may be permanently removed from the care of their parents including through termination of parental rights. (Minnesota Judicial Branch - Child in Need of Protection).

I'm wondering if he's trying to get her parental rights terminated. My grandkids were under a CHIPS petition when I fostered them. Termination was not the desired outcome but it was indeed possible. By declaring them in need of protection he's not necessarily saying they are in current danger but the long term "abandonment" my mom is the danger. Just my own thoughts. I don't know that the headlines are accurate in their description. But, with that said, who knows what AF is thinking??

Thank you

 

[cheko1]

Talk about confusing, this is it. If AF doesn't have a job or a means to support the kids. Why should he want them? I hope he wasn't on her Life Insurance Policies.

 

[youarentsilly]

Also to add: I think his bravado is worrisome.

Please cite "bravado" for those of us who, apparently, missed it.

 

[youarentsilly]

Talk about confusing, this is it. If AF doesn't have a job or a means to support the kids. Why should he want them? I hope he wasn't on her Life Insurance Policies.

Um ... because they are his kids?

 

[Knox]

I am still confused too. We need a WS lawyer to help us understand what's going on. Anyone?

IMO, in order for the current case to be dismissed and filed in family court. He had to agree to their terms.
-In a joint agreement between the children's father, Adam Fravel, and Winona County, Fravel admitted that the children are in need of protection or services due to the abandonment of their guardian, and the county agreed to dismiss and not pursue the petition under the grounds that the children are exposed to criminal activity in their home or that the children are lacking in care due to a guardian or parent unwilling to provide care.

Now his case in Family Court can move forward and the County will dismiss the petition ofr protection.
Fravel filed a petition to award himself full legal and physical custody of his children, ages 5 and 2 years old, in Winona County District Court on Monday. The Kingsburys are listed as respondents in that filing, along with Madeline Kingsbury and Winona County Health and Human Services.

After temporary custody is awarded to either Fravel or the Kingsburys in the separate custody case, Winona County will dismiss the petition for protection.

 

[Knox]

Also why did they leave it till the last minute to cancel? Is it a delay tactic?

IMO, the previous court hearing back in May had a purpose - exactly what the ACA called it, "A Fishing Expedition". Fravel's attorney complained at that hearing about the redacted MPD reports.

But in all fairness - if the County is willing to dismiss once the family court issues a decision. It would appear to me the petition basis - "that the children are exposed to criminal activity in their home or that the children are lacking in care due to a guardian or parent unwilling to provide care" - couldn't be proven?

 

[SimplyCass]

Case Search - Minnesota Court Records Online (MCRO)

The case number is 85-FA-23-900. I have redacted the names of the grandparents, the DOBs of the parents, and all attorney names.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

KSTP’s sister station KAAL-TV reports the trial to determine whether the children require protection services was canceled when their father, Adam Fravel, admitted to the court that he doesn’t have legal custody of his kids on Monday.

This means the children are technically in the custody of Winona County — but are staying with Kingsbury’s parents.

Madeline Kingsbury's children to remain in her family's care

KSTP's sister station KAAL-TV reports the trial to determine whether the children require protection services was canceled when their father, Adam Fravel, admitted to the court that he doesn't have legal custody of his kids on Monday.

kstp.com

 

[cheko1]

Um ... because they are his kids?

Just because they are his kids means nothing to the Court or SS. MOO If it did he'd have them. MOO

 

[youarentsilly]

Just because they are his kids means nothing to the Court or SS. MOO If it did he'd have them. MOO

I don't know what you are talking about now. Your question wasn't about the court. You asked why he would want to have custody of his own kids. I answered your question.

Here it is.

 

[cheko1]

I don't know what you are talking about now. Your question wasn't about the court. You asked why he would want to have custody of his own kids. I answered your question.

Here it is.
View attachment 427119

Thanks for pointing out my errors....