Why doesn't CPS take away the minor children?

[Abby Normal]

Additionally, leaving kids in cars unattended has become an actual crime in many states, whereas there are no "drinking while being a caretaker" laws.

 

[cityslick]

Additionally, leaving kids in cars unattended has become an actual crime in many states, whereas there are no "drinking while being a caretaker" laws.

This is the truth. I don't even think it's comparable to leaving the kid in the car. First of all the child is still in your home. Second of all, as you stated there is no law that says you must be sober while there are children in the house. Third, there would have to be multiple, recorded instances of this situation (parent constantly getting drunk with no child supervision) before CPS would get involved.

 

[Jacie Estes]

This is the truth. I don't even think it's comparable to leaving the kid in the car. First of all the child is still in your home. Second of all, as you stated there is no law that says you must be sober while there are children in the house. Third, there would have to be multiple, recorded instances of this situation (parent constantly getting drunk with no child supervision) before CPS would get involved.

BBM

Wouldn't the house also have to be dirty, unsanitary or unsafe [no heat/running water]. JI/DB's house was neat and clean, certainly no 'pig sty' where someone was so drunk they neglected house. For that matter, Lisa is clean, attentive and appropriately dressed in pics/videos. Her medical records might well attest to the fact that she was a healthy, well cared for baby.

 

[cityslick]

BBM

Wouldn't the house also have to be dirty, unsanitary or unsafe [no heat/running water]. JI/DB's house was neat and clean, certainly no 'pig sty' where someone was so drunk they neglected house. For that matter, Lisa is clean, attentive and appropriately dressed in pics/videos. Her medical records might well attest to the fact that she was a healthy, well cared for baby.

A divorce lawyer (who practices in MO) told me to my face that in order for a mother to lose custody of her child in that state, one of three things have to be going on.

1. Drugs in and out of the home
2. Abuse
3. Unsafe enviroment that's harmful to the child.

All of those points need to be fully documented, in some cases collaborated by multiple people. It's not out the realm of possibility that CPS also adheres to those standards.

 

[not_my_kids]

Here's the situation the way I see it: Every police officer in this country is a mandated reporter. That means that if any officer had seen evidence that the boys were being abused, neglected, molested, underfed, unsupervised, endangered, at risk, or any other single criteria, CPS would have been notified. We don't know if CPS was notified by LE, but because the family is living under a microscope and CPS must ALWAYS meet with the children in question to verify their well being, it is highly unlikely that a referral was made by LE or anyone else, because the media would eat it up. Logically, no referral means no evidence was found, either because LE had nothing to report or the call was screened out at the CPS triage level.

CPS cannot just show up at your home. There must be a referral, either by a member of the general public or from a mandated reporter. (Please, for the love of all that is holy, don't take this as my way of inviting anyone to get involved and make that referral, because that is not what I am doing, in any way.) In MI, you can do nothing but be poor and lose your kids. By that I mean that if you live in a neighborhood where there is an active meth lab next door to your home, and LE doesn't do their job to bust the lab, CPS can legally remove your kids. I discovered that lovely little tidbit during my last CPS case. (I average about one open case a year, because I have people that call them for revenge against me, and because I have an autistic son that self injures and goes to school with a teacher that doesn't believe autistic kisd really injure themselves.) And in some cases, kids can show clear signs of abuse, live in a filthy home, and not see a doctor for years on end, and the worker will think that the family shows promise and institute a case plan and that's it. Do your classes and clean your house and it all goes away.

It all depends on the worker. Not the judge, not the system's protocol, because protocol basically tells the worker to do what they feel is right, and the judge almost always follows the worker's recommendation. So, even if a referral were made, and not weeded out at the triage level, whether to open a case and/or remove the boys would still rest on the worker themselves. That's a lot of channels to go through, a lot of people that have to depend on their gut and not much else before deciding what to do. And a lot of people that know that if they do remove a kid, their decisions will be questioned. If they decide not to, their decisions will be questioned.

No matter what the workers do, it's a losing proposition. We have a system that never worked in the first place, that has essentially been frozen, making it completely useless.

 

[menmo]

A divorce lawyer (who practices in MO) told me to my face that in order for a mother to lose custody of her child in that state, one of three things have to be going on.

1. Drugs in and out of the home
2. Abuse
3. Unsafe enviroment that's harmful to the child.

All of those points need to be fully documented, in some cases collaborated by multiple people. It's not out the realm of possibility that CPS also adheres to those standards.

Well, that divorce lawyer is wrong. I live in MO and in a county I live near, I have seen Mother's lose custody of their child(ren) three times in the last 7 months. I kid you not. The mothers were not into drugs, they were not abusive, and the children were not in an unsafe environment. It came down to who has the most money. I watched it, and sat through it playing out in court, for support. Sometimes I think that it seems the attorneys figure it out between themselves while they're eating lunch together or going to happy hour together. :waitasec:

MOO

 

[cityslick]

Well, that divorce lawyer is wrong. I live in MO and in a county I live near, I have seen Mother's lose custody of their child(ren) three times in the last 7 months. I kid you not. The mothers were not into drugs, they were not abusive, and the children were not in an unsafe environment. It came down to who has the most money. I watched it, and sat through it playing out in court, for support. Sometimes I think that it seems the attorneys figure it out between themselves while they're eating lunch together or going to happy hour together. :waitasec:

MOO

As someone who got a divorce in MO, I can tell you for certain that case you cited is the exception, not the rule. The lawyer was speaking from the perspective of how a majority judges rule custody cases.

 

[belleyes]

kind of O/T sorry
I was reading on WS about another missing child who's siblings have subsequently been removed. People were commenting about the need to have a National CPS database and/or Protocals. I think this is a fabulous idea. So many times kids get "lost in the system". I hear the frustration from everyone on this thread. The system is broken and needs fixed. Unfortunately every experience with CPS is different.

When I was in College we were told social work is and Art and a Science. To some extent you have to go with your gut and/or read between the lines, and on the other hand you have to follow certain regulations even when you gut tell you otherwise(*see below*) Parents doe desperate things when faced with the risk of loosing their children so Social Workers walk a very thin line when determining between keeping kids safe and keeping families intact

*my story*
I took my adopted son home from the hospital. He was #6 child to be removed from this married couple. They had twins born crack addicted and my son was born addicted. They're were also other very disturbing (and substantiated )reports. Fast forward 4yrs---bio-mom escapes her half-way house after her burglary convition, gets high, gets pregnant (how this happens in 1wk is beyond me??? when I've tried for 10yrs),gets locked up again. She maxed her time out and is released 2month prior to the birth where she promptly moves to another county known for its lax CPS system. She contacts me via cell (which is her only contact info for us) and asks me to "get ready" b/c they're gonna take the baby. We get ready and .....NOTHING!!!
The NEW county had no record of her so they let her keep the baby. It is even unlikely that the baby was drug tested. In spite of reports (at my urging) directly from our county to the "new" county. If she lived 10 miles closer she would have lost her child probably without a plan (due to the prior circumstances). I still wait b/c I know its a matter of time before we get a call to pick up the precious angel. I just hope its not too late.
I have talked to her 2x and both times the baby "fell" and hit her head while I was on the phone(to the point of not being able to keep the baby awake--she did call DR. though). Coincidence maybe??? but unlikely. CPS did have an open "keep an eye on the family" case. (probably b/c the baby wasnt gaining weight, and mom told the Dr. that baby wasnt hungry for formula and that baby was "jealous" because everyone was eating chips (baby was 2wks old) and the baby wanted some.hwow:

I share this story to show you how absurd some people are and they still have unsupervised custody.

 

[belleyes]

Bumping up ----Maybe the boys interview was overseen by CPS and the family "voluntarily" allowed the boys to stay with relatives while an investigation takes place------JUST MOO (speculation)

 

[stilettos]

A divorce lawyer (who practices in MO) told me to my face that in order for a mother to lose custody of her child in that state, one of three things have to be going on.

1. Drugs in and out of the home
2. Abuse
3. Unsafe enviroment that's harmful to the child.

All of those points need to be fully documented, in some cases collaborated by multiple people. It's not out the realm of possibility that CPS also adheres to those standards.

BBM It is an unsafe enviornment to leave minor children under the age of 12 (and an 11 month old sick infant) unsupervised. You cannot supervise children in a black out drunk and this was harmful to the child as the child was allegedly abducted while parent unable to protect. Neglect is abuse. In my state black out drunks documented while the sole care provider of the children would have a case opened in DFCS. My educated and informed opinion only.

 

[curiousc]

The interesting thing is that the boys are now staying with relatives after their interviews. Perhaps CPS is now involved?

Not saying this is what's happened, but you never know.

 

[MyBelle]

This is the truth. I don't even think it's comparable to leaving the kid in the car. First of all the child is still in your home. Second of all, as you stated there is no law that says you must be sober while there are children in the house. Third, there would have to be multiple, recorded instances of this situation (parent constantly getting drunk with no child supervision) before CPS would get involved.

bbm. You are incorrect. There are laws about child endangerment and neglect. Plenty of drunks have been prosecuted for child neglect/abuse and rightly so. In this case, the mother went on national television and announced she was outside the house for hours while her children were inside unsupervised, she admitted she was intoxicated to the point of blacking out, her daughter disappeared and hasn't been found and the other children have not been living alone in the mother's care since then. I think it is more than obvious CPS is involved in this case. LE had a duty to get them involved. CPS investigations are not a matter of public record.

JMO

 

[Sparklin]

BBM It is an unsafe enviornment to leave minor children under the age of 12 (and an 11 month old sick infant) unsupervised. You cannot supervise children in a black out drunk and this was harmful to the child as the child was allegedly abducted while parent unable to protect. Neglect is abuse. In my state black out drunks documented while the sole care provider of the children would have a case opened in DFCS. My educated and informed opinion only.

Well, I"m thinking of thousands of moms that go to bed at night and are sound sleepers, taking cold meds because they are sick, taking sleeping aid because they are insomniacs....that need to have their children taken away. We don't KNOW that if Lisa was still in that house and woke crying for mama at any time after Deb fell asleep, she wouldn't have heard her. We don't KNOW!

 

[southern_comfort]

I haven't read this entire thread, and so maybe this has been said already - but I'll say it anyway.

Sometimes when I read WS, my jaw hits the floor because I honestly cannot believe the low threshold some people have for government intrusion. As a person who wants the government to stay as far, far away from me and my family as I can possibly keep them, I have some serious comprehension problems when it comes to people wishing CPS would just barge into private homes and take children away when there are perfectly competent adults to care for them.

I'm at the front of the line when it comes to being critical of drinking while parenting and neglecting the kids. But, there are lots of things that can be done in the way of child protection short of removing kids from a home, and to my knowledge, nobody here knows what has or has not been done with regard to the kids in this case. Removing kids is an awful experience for everyone, especially the kids, and should be a dead-last resort, when there is nobody else in the family to care for them. In this case, we've got a father who (as far as I can tell) hasn't admitted to anything untoward, as well as a plethora of other perfectly competent relatives. For all we know, there may be an order that DB is not to be left alone in charge of the kids. Maybe that's why the family has been living with relatives. We don't know - nor should we know, as a matter of privacy.

The idea that the government should take the other children away, based on what we know, disgusts me. Blech.

 

[MyBelle]

Well, I"m thinking of thousands of moms that go to bed at night and are sound sleepers, taking cold meds because they are sick, taking sleeping aid because they are insomniacs....that need to have their children taken away. We don't KNOW that if Lisa was still in that house and woke crying for mama at any time after Deb fell asleep, she wouldn't have heard her. We don't KNOW!

Yes, we do know DB admitted to being drunk. We also know Lisa disappeared while in her mother's care. Mothers do have their other children removed from their care when something bad happens to another child. Mothers who care about their children don't allow themselves to become incapacitated for any reason, whether it be drugs or alcohol.

JMO

 

[mom2four717]

If this story has a happy ending and baby Lisa comes home, will she be allowed to stay? I hope that it will be with some supervision from CPS.

 

[highflyer]

I haven't read this entire thread, and so maybe this has been said already - but I'll say it anyway.

Sometimes when I read WS, my jaw hits the floor because I honestly cannot believe the low threshold some people have for government intrusion. As a person who wants the government to stay as far, far away from me and my family as I can possibly keep them, I have some serious comprehension problems when it comes to people wishing CPS would just barge into private homes and take children away when there are perfectly competent adults to care for them.

I'm at the front of the line when it comes to being critical of drinking while parenting and neglecting the kids. But, there are lots of things that can be done in the way of child protection short of removing kids from a home, and to my knowledge, nobody here knows what has or has not been done with regard to the kids in this case. Removing kids is an awful experience for everyone, especially the kids, and should be a dead-last resort, when there is nobody else in the family to care for them. In this case, we've got a father who (as far as I can tell) hasn't admitted to anything untoward, as well as a plethora of other perfectly competent relatives. For all we know, there may be an order that DB is not to be left alone in charge of the kids. Maybe that's why the family has been living with relatives. We don't know - nor should we know, as a matter of privacy.

The idea that the government should take the other children away, based on what we know, disgusts me. Blech.

Southern Comfort would you of allowed LE or the FBI to of searched your house for baby Lisa like over 200 households did?

 

[scmom]

Fascinating read on deaths of children by neglectful parents.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v100/n2/807/LR100n2Collins.pdf

 

[Jaxson]

Fascinating read on deaths of children by neglectful parents.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v100/n2/807/LR100n2Collins.pdf

Wow, yes it is!

 

[Jacie Estes]

"Why doesn't CPS take away the minor children?"

Because there is no evidence to show that this must be done.