Gates case fallout: Texas CPS issues “Urgent Legal Advisory” to personnel

One that reviews case law felt the Gates opinion was fairly SOP!

I felt the court appeared to have actually told us of how they reinterpreted to expand that “special need”.

This is the way it SHOULD be .. no emergency removals unless it’s necessary to prevent a child from being abused in the time it would take to get an order. Very good.

I’ll be the first to admit that CPS is often guilty of remove first and really sort out the facts second. Hopefully, this will help put a stop to those practices.

However, there’s always another side to the equation. There is a possibility that some worker concerned about sufficient exigent circumstances could end up endangering a child.

What does this mean for Merrianne Jessop?

Kurt,

I applaud you for bringing this up, and I agree with the 5th Circuits decision in the case. If possible, CPS should always try and get an order authorizing the removal of the children, and the decision clearly establishes this.

I would make one minor point on the actual case - all of the claims against the individual officers and social workers, as well as the claims against the agencies, failed, with the 5th Circuit stating that all were entitled to summary judgment based on either qualified or official immunity and the Gateses were not entitled to an injunction prohibiting the removal of the children in the future.

The court also repeatedly made statement like the following:

“we conclude that the TDPRS employees did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the Gates children by seizing them without a court order.” Gates v. TDPRS, No. 06-20763, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15947 (5th Cir. Tex. 2008)

and

“Consequently, the Fort Bend deputies did not violate the Gates children’s Fourth Amendment rights in assisting TDPRS in removing the children from their home.” id.

and

“Therefore, the Gateses have failed to present evidence of a policy or custom that caused their alleged constitutional deprivation with respect to the entry into their home.” id.

In other words, while the court spoke of the need to get court orders, they found that CPS and the officers were not liable for any alleged misconduct.

Case workers, like all government employees were always liable for their actions - but if the law wasn’t clearly established, like in this case, they have immunity.

CPS is just being prudently cautious.

TBM, they weren’t liable then (in 2000) because the “special needs” doctrine had not been well established and clarified. Now it has been. If it had not been for the lack of clarity in the “special needs” doctrine in 2000, all those directly involved would have been found liable for violation of fourth amendment rights for the entering the home without a warrant and interviewing children without court order, given the lack of exigent circumstances.

Joey,

In the very specific, very limited case that you describe, that is correct. They have always, like police officers, been liable when they violate clearly established law, and nothing in that regards has changed.

Until the courts interpret the law and explain it, how are you going to hold them liable for it?

Joey,

The way I took it was that because the court had not yet done it’s part with that “jujitsu”, it was OK.

It read more like it was OK because of what all involved did not know than having considered or being based upon any limits created by what they clearly knew of.

Chai tea

The problem is that CPS workers are human and can err on either side of the equation.

Every time a baby ends up dead, people always say “Where was CPS?’

That fear made the pendulum swing the other way toward “round em up and sort it out later.”

Maybe this case will help restore equilibrium; however, you have to remember that any time the pendulum swings, it can swing too far.

Every time a baby ends up dead, people always say “Where was CPS?’

And therein lies a big problem. CPS can’t and will never be able to “protect children” from abuse. The most they can do is set out policies and procedures to “minimize” abuse.
Putting the unrealistic burden on an agency to ensure no child is ever abused is absurd, and because the finger is pointed at CPS when abuse/death happens we end up with ridiculous laws stemming from over-reaction.
Not to say, they haven’t left kids in truely squalid, dispicable situations that resulted in the kids death.
They just aren’t capable of society’s expectation or their claims.

Hugh McBride, Andrea Yates was mentally ill.

Chai Tea : I hope someone explains to CPS workers that imminent danger is NOT danger that MAY happen in 10-20 years and that imminent danger does not include teaching a child the family values that have been guaranteed by our consitution.

The advisory explains that very clearly.

From the CPS Employee Handbook:
Law
Child or Minor — A person under 18 years of age who is not and has not been married or who has not had his disabilities of minority removed for general purposes.
Texas Family Code §101.003

Kurt, if this is accurate, then how can they charge ‘bigamy’ and ’sexual contact with a minor’ at the same time? If they are charging ‘bigamy’ then it seems that they are giving validity to a ‘marriage’ and not be able to have it both ways. Please advise.
(and blues, spare us the rhetorical tripe. Just talk the law without spending a bunch of time regurgitating about how bad we are when you don’t even know us!!

They can charge both because they are two separate offenses, with separate elements, none of which excludes the elements for the other offense.

So what if he isn’t ‘legally’ married and he ‘purports’ to marry?

A bigamous marriage is void, although it may be prosecuted as a crime. An underage marriage (not bigamous) is also void if there is not a license, a sworn affidavit of parental consent, or a court order. The person performing the underage marriage may be prosecuted for that offense.

A void marriage is not a marriage for the purposes of FC Sec. 101.003, nor does it provide a defense for sexual assault. It doesn’t matter which happens first - the void marriage or the assault - they may both be prosecuted.

I think that you are also misunderstanding the term ‘legally married’ as it applies to Texas law. This does not mean by license only. Common-law also applies, so if someone went through a ceremony (in whatever state) and moves to Texas where they represent themselves as married, they are. That forms the first, legal marriage. Anything subsequent to that legal marriage that purports to be a marriage or has the appearance of being marriage has committed Bigamy.

Texas law doesn’t have the loopholes that the FLDS is used to - and they will probably go to prison for their error in this regard.

Pretty crafty TBM. Agreed no loopholes. But totally unconstitutional in that it penalizes speech (purporting to be married) and thought (believing one is married) and free association (cohabiting) — each of which in turn is supposed to be a guaranteed right. IMO, Texas cannot take three guaranteed rights, and say that if exercised in a certain combination it’s illegal.

Cheeze for clues as to how to appeal your bigamy situation, I suggest you take a look at my blog on the subject: http://freetoseparate.blogspot.com/2008/08/tom-green-sc-ruling-suggests-direction.html

DHM, your explanation sounds very much like people who face alcohol counseling as part of their ’sentence.’

A person I know was supposed to take a test to see if he were in need of a 6-8 course on alcohol counseling. I found a similar test on line and we both took it - I failed; he didn’t. The only problem is that I don’t drink and never have, and he does drink.

After reading and analyzing the questions, we concluded that they are asked along the same line as “Have you stopped beating your wife/child?” If you answer yes, you’ve confessed to an action that may not be true, but is what the questioner wants to hear; if you answer ‘no’ you are guilty of on-going abuse.

This appears to be what is happening in the Barbara’s case. Because she refused to play the game the court and CPS wanted, they punished her by hurting her child.

As for those who think Barbara is not ‘emotional’ enough and that is yet another crime she is committing…My son was severely injured and has so far needed 7 surgeries. Two surgeries lasted 12 and 9 hours - During that time and the days immediately following, no one observing me in public would think that I was emotionally devastated by either the initial injury or the follow-up surgeries - I waited until I reached my own home, my own bedroom before crying hysterically for my child’s pain and suffering -

What Barbara and MerriAnne are going through are so much worse - I did not have predators and gawkers following and documenting my every move - I wish I could fly them both away from this horror their life has become.

deputyheadmistress

I can’t argue much with what you said. The only statement I take exception to is about child deaths and prior CPS involvement.

There are many cases of child deaths without prior CPS involvement. I am curious if there are any stats out there.

Joey,

I’m very surprised that you use the same arguments that the proponents of gay marriage use. It would be appropriate for the FLDS to be supporting gay marriage, since they both want to destroy the traditional institution of marriage and ignore current law.

Of course, it won’t fly at the SCOTUS level. You are equating acts with speech, and SCOTUS won’t.

…or a Texas tradition?

The state in which any number of men can purport to be married to each other! :)>

Joey,

If you want to argue that, go for it - but it won’t work.

Joey,

Common law marriage, ceremonial marriages, and marriage by license are all legally defined in Texas. The fact that YOU don’t like our definition is too bad, but it doesn’t change the facts.

There is no ambiguity in the Texas definition - it is very clear, just as the definition of bigamy is very clear.

Ignorance of the law on your part does not constitute a problem for Texas - it is the responsibility of all Texas citizens, residents, and visitors to know the law, and, as they say, ignorance is no excuse.

Face it - the FLDS really picked the wrong place to practice their felonious behavior and to abuse children. Texans don’t overlook it like other states apparently do. Gee, could the ‘Prophet’ be wrong?

Then why has CPS taken custody of a young woman who they consider to be married, but no longer considered a minor/child, by legal definition?

TBM, wait till your common law bigamy law gets tested on the basis of free speech violation hypotheticals. Every knows it’s difficult to prosecute common law bigamy. If it were so unambiguous, it wouldn’t be so difficult right? I submit that the reason it’s difficult, is because in order to prosecute common law bigamy, you have to violate someones right to free speech and free association. You have willing parties, the marriages are not registered, what’s the beef? I believe too many people have this platonic idea of “marriage” in their mind. But so far, defining this thing called marriage has been pretty difficult in a secular sense, i.e. outside of a particular group’s well-defined religion. I suggest the state stay out of it, and stick to legal contracts, such as the civil union.

We may be up to ten indictments, but two of them are about the two men who were arrested at the ranch during the raids, one is for misdemeanors of failing to report suspected child abuse, and one is for a guy who was already in jail. The rest are against four men.

A Grand Jury met inthe same county not too long and issued 18 indictments by the close of the day. This GJ has met, what, 3 times? And they are recycling the same handful of men and indicting a guy who is already in jail. Impressive.

” Most of them come from abusive homes and they are on a mission to save kids like them. ”

i’m not sure what kind of factual information a statement like this is coming from. it sounds more like you are spouting off on something you know very little about.

in fact, it sounds as if most of the posters in this thread know very little about CPS and the texas family code. first of all, “CPS should be part of DPS, not the IRS”?!?!?! i sincerely hope this was some kind of failed sarcasm. CPS is a part of the texas department of family and protective services, which is connected with neither DPS or the IRS. furthermore, someone stated, “LE should be involved with removals.” oftentimes, LE is involved with decisions to remove. also, CPS workers actually are required to have more education than most LE officers and definately have more social work and less punitive training. so that statement makes no sense. someone else stated the court should always approve removals. THE COURT ALWAYS DOES APPROVE REMOVALS. cps must have a removal approved by a judge within 24 hours. then within 2 weeks the parents have an opportunity to come to court and contest the removal. in many cases, they are given court-appointed attorneys. they have representation. if they were truly doing nothing wrong, their children will be returned. CPS then provides and pays for services to help give the children back to their parents. contrary to what was also posted, there is no individual caseworker who can remove a child without approval. the supervisor and program director approve every single removal

finally, it has always been a rule that CPS is required to have permission to enter an individual’s home. all this information would be easy for you to find out, since CPS policy is posted on the public website. sometimes indivuals break rules; that doesn’t mean the entire agency is bad. i think it takes very small-minded people to assume so.

i would advise that, before you sit from your position and judge CPS , you obtain a bachelor’s degree. from there, get a job that requires 45+ hours a week of very emotionally, physically, and mentally demanding work. make sure you work nights and weekends in a dangerous environment with no way to defend yourself. add in a beurocracy where your indivual voice is not heard, where your days are determined by a state legislature who has never done your job. then turn on the news every night and hear yourself being criticized daily by the media and others who have no idea what they are talking about. make sure your workload is very high and growing every day. make sure you absolutely do not have enough time to get your job done, and no one is helping you. finally, make sure you do this for only 30,000 dollars a year.

then you can complain about how bad CPS is.

I can’t drum up much sympathy for you. Your job is one you worked to get. You studied to obtain the qualifications for the position. You applied for the job. You planned to get where you are. You’re hardly a victim of circumstances. If you think your job is too stressful, start looking around for other work.

LOL
You got bad training and then teamed up with the wrong agency. There are plenty other jobs in more ethical social services agencies.
What CPS needs is thousands of Super Nanny’s. She’s turned some pretty horrific situations around, which included physical and emotional abuse, in two weeks.
Far more effective, respectful, and no one risks loosing their kids. Although, I’ve often wondered if CPS goons watch that program and make calls to the family’s homes after they air.
I don’t know of any CPS stories with happy endings.
Bail, and find more a more ethical employer.

But, as long as you’re here, perhaps you could address a question. Based on the following definition and the fact that CPS/ Judge consider her to be “married”, how can CPS incarcerate her?

From the CPS Employee Handbook:
Law
Child or Minor — A person under 18 years of age who is not and has not been married or who has not had his disabilities of minority removed for general purposes.
Texas Family Code §101.003

SKK,

I assume, with the comment mentioning that “it’s worth the cost”, it was directed at me.

The number I used of 9, the count which fit the description TBM gave, did not include what I believe are misdemeanors Dr. Barlow faces.

The cost, at best, will provide a few convictions which will not change a great deal. You can’t expect 10,000 to abandon their beliefs just because of any convictions.

The church has not married anyone in 2 years and stated they would observe the laws regulating age in future marriages.

Add in any charges in Utah, Arizona or federal courts, should any evidence obtained at the ranch not be suppressed, and the end result does not change much. The most it will do is add cost to the church. I anticipate Texas will help to pay for that after civil complaints are filed.

The practice of polygany will never die out. It is legal every place if the parties involved do not purport to be married. The FLDS should have had “live with” ceremonies and records that reflect such.

There are no complaining victims, none beyond the ex-member whiners selling books and movie rights. The “victims” identified in charges will either wait for their men or possibly be assigned to others (however that works), as the government can pay through entitlement programs to keep them going if needed.

The “egregious and more shocking offenses” amount to a continuation of practices that were not violations a few years ago and the added marriages to those younger Warren attributed to an urgency when he wrote “while it is possible before the enemy could stop this marriage”

I do not read that as an attempt to “hasten the conflict” for the reasons you noted.

Another interesting thing will be how the trust is dissolved or closed out when all the property is settled. At this point the effort is to put some rather unrealistic restrictions on property if and when church members get it from that trust. To allow ownership while telling those owners who they cannot sell or give their property to looks like a takings case to me.

The balance of the moves by various governing entities being made against the “church” appear to be efforts in the direction of chasing the funds and leadership of that “church”. I do not believe that will accomplish what anyone may be hoping for.

A rough summary of what I anticipate a few years from now is that less that less than 1/10th of 1% of the FLDS population will be convicted, none will abandon their beliefs, plural marriage will continue, they will be less receptive to governing authorities, the costs will be difficult at times and the church will appreciate the big fat check Texas will have to pay them someday.

If $uch result$ ju$tifiy the action in the mind$ of Texan$, $o be it.

edit to last paragraph…dedicated to keeping kids in their homes and training parents….

no, i am not a caseworker for CPS. and no, my feelings have not been hurt. i am capable of interacting in a public forum and sharing my opinions without becoming offended that not everyone agrees. mr. schulzke, if you truly do invite input from a variety of sources, i would suggest that, as the webmaster, you brefrain from spreading misinformation about posters in your blog.

surely you all also realize that there are many people who disagree with you who do not work for CPS. i think that every state’s child welfare agency has issues, just as every government agency does. these are very complicated problems that definately need to be addressed. the way to address the problems with CPS is not to condemn all CPS workers and spread misinformation. it also does not address the problem to assume that everything CPS does is wrong.

“that in the FLDS case, hundreds of children were unjustifiably uprooted from their homes and families.” i believe you are making an assumption here. all the allegations have not been released, so it would be difficult for anyone to know exactly what happens. now if any of you would care to debate whether or not children should be removed from parents who are allowing their 13 year olds to have sex with grown men, that is a different debate all together.

i didn’t make any wild accusations. i stated that no one has all of the information.

so, mr. forguson, you are saying that grown men should be able to have sex with 13 year olds? am i translating your comments correctly?

CC: Clear the air. Tell us exactly what position you hold. Then we will be more likely to believe you when you insist or insinuate you’re not a caseworker.

i believe you are making an assumption here. all the allegations have not been released, so it would be difficult for anyone to know exactly what happens.

BS. Nearly 200 and counting of the children of YFZ have been non-suited. CPS has admitted that nearly 200 of the children they forced into their orphanages were never abused. Get real.

Here….this press release might help:

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/1998pres/19981124b.html

For Immediate Release November 24, 1998
PRESIDENT CLINTON ANNOUNCES EXPANSION OF THE INTERNET TO INCREASE ADOPTIONS
November 24, 1998

Today, the President will issue a new directive to the Department of Health and Human Services to expand the use of the Internet as a tool to find homes for children waiting to be adopted from foster care. The President will make the announcement with the First Lady at a White House ceremony marking National Adoption Month and celebrating new adoptions in the District of Columbia.

Creating an Internet Registry to Meet the President’s Goals for Adoption. *****In 1996, President Clinton set a goal of doubling, by the year 2002, adoptions and other permanent placements from the public child welfare system. Since then, adoptions have increased; from 1996 to 1997 alone, adoptions increased by over 10 percent, from 28,000 to 31,000. Today, the President is directing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop a plan to expand internet use to share information about children who are legally free for adoption in order to shorten the time needed to find them adoptive families. HHS estimates that approximately 100,000 children in our nation’s foster care system cannot return to their birth families and need families to adopt them. An effective national registry will help break down geographic barriers to adoption and assist in meeting the President’s adoption goal. HHS Secretary Donna Shalala will report to the President within 60 days on a plan to work with the states and other leaders to carry out this effort. *****

Building on a Strong Record. Today’s announcement builds on a deep commitment by the President, the First Lady, and the Administration to facilitate adoptions and improve the child welfare system. Since taking office, President Clinton has championed efforts to make foster care work better for the children it serves, to find and assist adoptive families, and to break down barriers, including high adoption costs and complex regulations:

Look up THIS piece of legislation and read it….VERY eye opening:
=====================
Achieving Landmark Legislative Reform. On November 19, 1997, the President signed the Adoption and Safe Families Act,
=====================
reforming our nation’s child welfare system and making it clear that the health and safety of children must be the paramount concerns of state child welfare services. This landmark legislation was based in large part on the recommendations of the Clinton Administration’s Adoption 2002 report, which the President requested by executive memorandum on December 14, 1996, to meet his goals of doubling adoptions and permanent placements by the year 2002 and moving children more quickly from foster care to permanent homes. The Act tightened time frames for making permanent placement decisions for children and ensured health insurance coverage for all special needs children in subsidized adoptions. Also, it created new financial incentives for states to increase adoptions, and continued funding for services to keep families together when it is appropriate and safe.
Making Adoption Affordable for Families. In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, which provides a $5,000 tax credit to families adopting children, and a $6,000 tax credit for families adopting children with special needs. This provision has alleviated a significant barrier to adoption, helping middle class families for whom adoption may be prohibitively expensive and making it easier for families to adopt children with special needs. Since President Clinton took office, the number of children with special needs who were adopted with federal adoption assistance has risen by over 60 percent. In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, President Clinton ensured more support for families who adopt children with the $500 per-child tax credit.
Giving States Flexibility and Support. To test innovative strategies to improve state child welfare systems, the Clinton Administration has granted waivers to 18 states, giving them more flexibility in tailoring services to meet the needs of children and families. In addition, the Administration has provided states with enhanced technical support and helped improve court operations. The President secured $10 million in FY 1999 in new funds to support state efforts to implement the new adoption law, and has, through the Adoption Opportunities program, supported state and local innovative demonstration projects to promote adoption, provide post-adoptive services, and build new public-private partnerships. To prevent children from entering foster care in the first place, in 1993 the Clinton Administration enacted and secured federal funding for the Family Preservation and Support Program to help states, local governments, and service providers develop effective programs to serve children and families at risk.
Breaking Down Racial and Ethnic Barriers to Adoption. New inter-ethnic adoption provisions, passed as a part of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, ensure that the adoption process is free from discrimination and delays on the basis of race, culture and ethnicity by strengthening the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act which the President signed in 1994.
Providing Supports for Child Protection and Adoption. In 1993, President Clinton signed into law the Family and Medical Leave Act, enabling parents to take time off to adopt a child without losing their jobs or health insurance. In addition, the welfare reform legislation signed by the President maintained the guarantee of child protection and adoption, and did not reduce funds for child welfare, child abuse, and foster care and adoption services.
###

Read these sections:

Linky: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/cblaws/public_law/pl105_89/pl105_89a2.htm

TITLE II — INCENTIVES FOR PROVIDING PERMANENT FAMILIES
FOR CHILDREN

Sec. 201. Adoption incentive payments.
Sec. 202. Adoptions across State and county jurisdictions.
Sec. 203. Performance of States in protecting children.

The legislation was *****PASSED AND SIGNED INTO LAW ****

by William Jefferson Clinton in 1997, Kurt.

Please READ the LAW that I have posted for you. If that isn’t good enough, I don’t know what is.

I don’t have access to the GSA’s books.

Maybe you do?

CC058; While I don’t know much about the Texas family code, I do have some familiarity with CPS and social workers. My dad was a supervising social worker contracted with the state of California. This was a second job for him- he spent 25 years doing something else, and then decided to change. He said he only ever met one social worker who had any common sense at all. I always thought it was pretty odd that Dad was a social worker since he’d been such an abusive parent, but it is true he handled other people’s kids better than he did his own.
My parents were also foster parents for several kids when I was growing up, and they took in a teenaged boy after we were grown and gone, and he’s a married father with a child now, and is still part of the family.
I am a homeschooler, as well, and anonymous hotline calls are the method of choice for disgruntled educators, neighbors, and relatives to voice their displeasure with homeschooling. Homeschool publications are rife with accounts of false accusations made through the hotline.
I am an adoptive mother- we adopted a sibling group of two, older children, one of them with multiple disabilities. Our caseworker was very kind, but she, too, had a shortage of common sense. Our birthmother’s caseworker, likewise, kind, but didn’t think it important to tell us that there were people with court orders against that birthmother because of her violence, and did not abide with our request not to tell this unstable, disturbed person where we lived.
This is why I go anonymous on the internet and have an unlisted number.
Oh- I also lived in Washington state toward the tail end of the Wenatchee Witch Hunts- children removed from families and placed for adoption on the basis of lies and false accusations and a climate of ethics that makes Mike Nifong look like a boy scout.
I have read several books on the Child Abuse industry, including Brenda Scott’s, mentioned above, and it is, in fact, a fact that a disproportionate number of CPS workers do indeed come from an abusive background themselves and their goal in choosing social work is to save others. This is generally true of mental health professionals as well. I didn’t make it up, I didn’t read it on the internet somewhere- it’s documented by the research.

And what this means is that a disproportionate number of CPS workers have no reference for normal family life.
One of the most disturbing accounts I have read was by a social worker herself, who, when she had no children, judged those parents who screamed, cussed, and cried and chased after the car driving away with their children as ‘unstable’ and troubled.
She considered those cooly detached parents who nodded and agreed with the caseworker that they did have problems, who never cried and who thanked the caseworker for her intervention to be good, sound parents on the fast track to return.
And then she had a child. And she realized there was actually something very, very wrong with parents who did not react emotionally to having their children removed, that what she saw as stability was a dangerous level of detachment, and she was horrified at what she’d done in her career.
Worse still was the fact that she could not convince any of her co-workers of this.

Are there good people there who mean well? Of course. Even some of the worst probably mean well. But it’s a poisonous system founded on flawed premises and it must go.
Its function isn’t even to actually protect children- it’s just to make people like you and other d0-gooders feel good about yourselves. The fact that a child in foster care is THREE TIMES more likely to be abused there than at home proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you really cared about children, that stat would make you expend some energy towards rescuing those children from the system that not only abused them, but charges their parents for the privilege of having their kids kidnapped and abused.

Benjamin Franklin said “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” I don’t think it’s wise to throw out our Constitutional rights in order to “save the children.” The Bill of Rights is very specific on what CPS & law enforcement have to do & I don’t think it’s asking too much for them to respect & follow those guidelines.

And as for the histrionics about children dying before CPS would be able to do anything, I often read in the paper about children dying of abuse & of neighbors & family members who called CPS to no avail. Of course, in those cases, CPS says that caseworkers were sent to investigate, but they can never find the records of those visits. Hmmmm.

Social Worker,
Welcome. Perhaps you can help some of us understand why CPS is still seen as the better option when kids are four times more
likely to be killed or injured in their custody.

Why is TDFPS so stubborn? What they’re doing isn’t working. Claiming to protect kids is a fraudulent statement. Wraparound, at the least would ensure kids stay in their homes, except under dire circumstances.

You are absolutely right. You can read in the paper or turn on the news and see where children are abused or neglected and CPS wa involved with the family and did nothing to protect the children. For the most part CPS caseworker do respect the Bill of Rights and 4th Amendment Rights. And that is why we read in the paper about children abused or neglected when CPS was involved. The law is very specific about what CPS can and Can not do. Example….It is not enough for a parent to be using Methamphetamines for CPS to remove the children. CPS caseworkers must show how a parent using Meth is a danger to a child. I do not believe that foster care is always a better option for children and in many cases it is not. However, most oftern it is the safest option for the child at the time the child is placed. I would like to know where you get your stats about children being four times more likely to be injured or killed in custody of CPS? Children in Texas are left in homes with drug addicted aprents, domestic violence, parents with mental health issues, sex offenders and so on. You see it is quite simple. The law even before this fuling states that a woman can move a sex offender in her home and live with her children and it is not until the sex offender has abused or neglected her children that CPS can step in and do anything at all to include leaving the children in the home and educting the mother about signs to look for should her children be sexually abused. Now it makes it even more difficult. With the Gates Ruling, CPS can remove a child that has been sexually abused without a court order but if other children in the home do not make an outcry, those children must be left with the offender until a court order is obtained to remove them from the home. CPS position is if one child has been abused the other children are at risk. I guess that dire circumstances in matter of opinon and what one sees as danger to children someone else does not. I know that as a mother I would not want to take a chance that my children could be hurt from being exposed to being around sex offender.

That another child is at risk if another is abused is not always the case. Think for once.

The same civil liberties that protect innocent parents also protect guilty parents and caregivers. You statement about hurting the parents hurts the child is not always true. Following the rules or laws of the Texas Family Code is what CPS workers must do. That is what guides them in doing their job. I understand people who blog here are angry and there is more information about the raid on the FLDS that the public is not aware of. Keep in mind that all the public knows is what is reported by the media and lets face it, they dont always get it right and when people dont know what is going on it is easy to speculate. I dont believe that the raid on the FLDS was handled the best way it could have been. But I do know that there was some abuse and neglect going on there. As far as your comment that another child is not always at risk, well, if I put 2 children in a locked room with a rattlesnake and remove one child once he has been bitten, it would be irresponsible to not remove the other child and consider that child at risk. And as far as your comment, “Think for once” while I am all for good debate and respecting others differences, I make it a habit not to get into a battle of wits with an unharmed person.

However, most oftern it is the safest option for the child at the time the child is placed. I would like to know where you get your stats about children being four times more likely to be injured or killed in custody of CPS?

Strayhorn’s report. It’s been cited numerous times here.
http://www.window.state.tx.us/news/60623statement.html

You see it is quite simple. The law even before this fuling states that a woman can move a sex offender in her home and live with her children and it is not until the sex offender has abused or neglected her children that CPS can step in and do anything at all to include leaving the children in the home and educting the mother about signs to look for should her children be sexually abused.

Link for the law that supports that?
Quiet contrary to what I’ve observed. One case that refutes that, and was publicized, is Jackie Reynolds. Charged with sexual assault of a child. Cleared of charges. CPS kept him in their system as a perpetrator and forbide his fiance to allow him around her kids.

We are here blogging here today becuase CPS overreached itself in removing 400+ children from the XYZ Ranch without any of them being in emminent danger of abuse. Angie Voss and her ilk were so caught up in the idea that they were rescuing children from polygamy that the legal nicities were ignored. The claim that the ranch were large household and the current “concern” for underage marriages are desperate attempts at catch-up. Yes, CPS has a tough job to do. It is absolutely vital that they make the right decision. No child should be left in a dangerous situation. Because of the child’s need to be left with someone a natural incentive to care for the child,care must be taken not to unecessarily remove children. Bloggers have been commenting about a foster mother in Georgia who left a foster child in a hot car to die. She removed the two children she had adopted and left the foster child in the car. I am taking the time to point out that she removed the two children with whom she had established a connection and she left the child behind to die with whom she had no connection.

Nice try, “Concerned CPS Worker”, but this ruling does not prohibit removing children at all.

//Millions of children will now be saved from the destruction of the CPS monster and the foster care system. //

Hundreds of thousands, to be more accurate.

Comments on the Gates Ruling

Many areas within the Courts ruling have produced chilling effects…
1). Not obtaining a court order prior to removal of a child from the home
2). Not obtaining a court order prior to removal of a child from the school, no public standard for expectations set by law
3). DFPS\Law Enforcement not informing parents of interviewing their children, no public standard for expectations set by law
4). No investigation into as to why CPS Caseworkers avoid obtaining a court order on a regular basis, no public standard for expectations set by law
5). No investigation into the “practice of avoiding” obtaining a court order on a regular basis, no public standard for expectations set by law
6). A conscious decision by Circuit Court Judges to not provide a solution to the known issues in the Gates case before the Gates case occured eventhough the information was available in the public, but not researched by said Courts, no public standard for expectations set by law
7). DFPS not held to an “Emergency Standard” as many other state agencies are, no public standard for expectations set by law
8). Special needs children making the “Report of Abuse” must be considered when assigning a “Priority” number to a case
9). No independant investigative body responsible for complaints lodged against DFPS, since the Attorney General is responsible for representing DFPS, conflict of interest from the memo

The Laws are written without “equal application” consideration. Such as when children are “Interviewed” , no Child Advocate, Parent, Legal Guardian or Legal Council is provided to ensure their rights regardless of age. What are the Parents rights against home invasions?