Another Outrageous CPS Story

from JoeUser Forums

Here's another one from my CPS files. A local family who had their children removed, not only hasn't gotten them back after more than a year and a half, but now they are ordered to pay $500 in child support per month for their three children.

These children, mond you, were removed because their parents lived without utilities in their home. Basically, they were removed because of the poverty of the parents. Since the children were removed, the father has been working for a year now, and the family has complied with the orders of the court. The court, however, will not bend.

The imposition of the $500 child support is especially appalling. Many fathers are ordered to a percentage of their salary, rather than a flat amount of, support for their children, and as long as their support is maintained, they have at least partial custody rights. This family has no such rights.

In this ruling, the motivation behind the order is clear. This family will be unable to pay the $500 a month consistently as well as their other living expenses, and an "advocate" from the court will "advise" them that their legal liability can be removed by signing away their parental rights. In other words, the court cannot find justification to permanently remove these children from their home, so they will use trickery instead.

In the wake of the removal of slavery, indentured servanthood was supposedly done away with as a practice. The legal requirement of these parents to pay this child support (which, in this area, is an exorbitant amount) is in effect forcing the parents to indentured servanthood...only to jump through hoops to try to regain their children, an outcome the state of Texas seems hell bent on not letting happen.

It's my hope that over time, more people see these articles and are moved to action against the CPS system. If you are moved by these articles, or know anyone who has been victimized by CPS, please do me a favor and forward them links to this or any of my CPS articles. It's not a matter of "point whoring" on my part, it's a matter of giving out desperately needed information. There are enough readers on this site that we CAN make a difference.

1,881 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think you overestimate the amount of readership of this site but I see your point. Like many things, CPS is a good idea that has gone far of the path. There are still good things they do I am sure, but there seems to be more and more of these horror stories.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

There was a success story here, albeit a small one.  A couple of parents, with no history of any abuse, made a mistake and allowed their children to be unsupervised one evening.  That was stupid, bu tthere was no pattern of neglect or abuse.

The children were taken away from the parents for a week, but a judge gave them back to the parents.  The parents still face charges as it was a bone headed stunt by them, but at least they have the children back in their care.

Small victories that seem to be the exception and not the rule.

Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

If not having utilities was creating other hazards, like dirty conditions, vermin infestation, food spoilage, or lack of heat in the winter, then yes, I can understand why the children were removed.

On the other hand, it is quite possible to do without and still maintain safety and hygeine. If there weren't they why haven't all Amish children been removed from their homes?

If they were removed SOLELY due to lack of utilities, then "pleh" on CPS. If, however, they were removed due to deteriorating conditions, that changes the picture.

Utilities WERE the primary reason, but I still don't think even in the situations you describe, the children should be necessarily removed.

First, what is "adequate" heat? In the 1800's, it was 55-60 degrees. We do not set the thermostat up to 68 degrees at our house, which is considered by some to be a mandatory minimum temperature. We disagree, and the rather low incidence of illness among ourselves and our children would seem to bear this out. This is what I mean by subjective criteria. To one social worker, 64 degrees might be adequate; to another, anything below 68 could be considered "neglectful"

As for the Amish, their children have been protected from removal under the first amendment. Homeless families have the benefit of homeless advocates to protect their rights, as under the standards used to justify the removal of children from certain families' homes, most homeless children would be subject to removal.

But going even further, what I found appalling about this judgement was the condition of involuntary servitude. The mother and father are both COURT ORDERED to go to work, the child support is set at $500 per month rather than a percentage of their salary, as is the case in most child support situations, and this is done with no real prospects of regaining their children (but, sadly enough, with the VERY REAL penalty of losing all access to their children entirely if they fail to comply). This is a gross injustice, and you would THINK you'd have attorneys lined up outside their door to take this case on. But, it's all about the Benjamins, and the ACLU doesn't touch child custody cases, and other attorneys can't make a name for themselves off of this case, which would have to be a pro bono case.

as for sgsmitty's comment, I don't overestimate the amount of users here. I PROPERLY estimate the power of exponential growth if even two readers forward the story to two others, and so forth. Since my numbers from OUTSIDE Joeuser range from 60-100 page views per day (how many of those are unique, I don't rightly know), and my numbers from within Joeuser are equally significant, it's reasonable to assume that there are plenty of readers to pass on this information.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, from what I read here is the deal:

Many think and feel, how ever just or unjust, that if you do not pressure the 'dead beat' parents to work and get good jobs (not just ones that barely pay the bill) that they will find a way to do so. As many here know, i was on public assisnace about a month a go (kicked off because I earn 100 dollars a week) and one person who worked with me gets paid the same amount i do. he has 2 kids and when they started taking money out of hi check, all he had to live on was.... 20 dollars a week.

THAT' RIGHT! 20 DOLLARS A WEEK.

Now here is where philosophies clash:
He should work harder in getting a better job
Since he is doing so bad with the 100 dollar a week job, he better find a way to support his kids better

Another way of looking at it:
If he can't feed himself, it might be hard for him to go to work everyday
oweing all this money mean perputual debt for someone who has no means of getting a beter job
School is out because he doesn't have time to work 2 jobs and then go to school (some people do it, but it is a health risk depending on your age and other factors)


I guess it depends on how you look at it. I'll admit if the parents food needs at being met by a social rprogram, as well as medical, then all they have to really consern themselves with is raising their kids. I agree that if there is no promise of keeping your children after compliance, it is unfair and wrong. I also agree that the parents being able to minimally take care of themselves is inportant as well so that there should be a rate baded on pay system. For thos who believe that then there is no incentive for the parents to get a better job, I would say that loosing you children is a prety good incentive. The cost per month would increase ofter a year to make an incentive to find work that pays better. The only problem with that is there has to be an opperunity to get a better paying job.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

cleanliness becomes an issue--toilets need flushing, children need to be bathed, clothes and dishes washed....

You can flush a toilet without RUNNING water. Just dump a gallon and a half of water into the tank, and flush away. Likewise, clothes and dishes can be washed and baths can be taken without RUNNING water. IN the case of this family, there was no question they had the water available. They walked to the park every day and filled several jugs that they hauled back to the house on a wagon.

But I've noticed the opposite tendency in you, you always, always seem to assume their actions weren't justified, and I think you even wrote an article some time ago listing quite a few cases that you found outrageous, but I saw justification in almost every one of them. (Like the woman who had left 3 small children, the oldest of which was only 9, alone in a hotel room while she went to work.)

My problem was not necessarily with the involvement, but with the action. In the cases I listed, the CPS workers removed children from the home, from loving parents who may have not raised their children in a way I would have, but did at least love their children, as their actions showed. I don't disagree that there should have been SOME intervention, but I disagree TREMENDOUSLY with the interventions that were done. I don't "assume" anything, but I KNOW that in each of these cases, the parents were not able to have legal representation in keeping their children, they were presumed guilty until proven innocent, and that CPS workers performed actions without recourse that would have been deemed unconstitutional in a CRIMINAL investigation (the lack of criminal charges against the caregivers in these cases speaks VOLUMES...if they didn't have enough for a grand jury to even INDICT, why do they have enough to keep the children from their homes).

I'm not saying this particular case was justified or not, I don't have all the facts.

Do you?

I have enough, and frankly, while I don't agree with the INITIAL CPS action, I can see where some merit is arguable. The problem I have, quite frankly, is that this family has complied with every demand of the court, the father has kept a job for over a year, and the state's NEW action is to force the mother into involuntary servitude (against the 13th amendment) with no promise of returning their children, or even of extended visitation rights. They NEVER had ANY intent of returning these children, as is becoming increasingly clear, no matter WHAT the parents do. Again, quite telling is the absence of ANY criminal charges against this family. Tell me, if you TRULY thought that a family was abusing/neglecting their children, wouldn't you want to see them behind bars?

IN this case, and many others, CPS has effectively kidnapped the children. As you well know, if your children are kidnapped, you will do anything to get them back.

Oh, I've been meaning to pass this along in case you want to get involved in a meaningful way. Why don't you consider becoming a CASA volunteer? (Court Appointed Special Advocate.) They train you at their cost, and volunteers are always needed.

Thanks for the link, but in this case I am actually well aware of the CASA system. They are the ones demanding that neighbors call them even if they have no evidence of abuse, but simply are suspicious of the way their neighbors are raising their child (no exaggeration....almost a direct quote from a CASA organizer). Since the vast majority of CPS cases involve children who are unwillingly removed from their parents' homes and want to be returned, I do not see where being an advocate "inside the system" would help.

I would rather (and am researching this) find a way where I could legally represent parents who have no access to legal counsel. I find it appalling that within our justice system such an action can be taken with NO legal representation mandated for the alleged abusers/neglectors.

While I appreciate your insight, as always, I will continue to reassert that my problem is NOT with removing children from an abusive/neglectful situation. My insistence, however, is based on the FACT that these parents have a RIGHT to their day in court; they have a RIGHT to face their accuser, and they have a RIGHT to a speedy and fair JURY trial to resolve their situation. The investigations should be done by TRAINED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, not some marginally employable loser with a philosophy degree acquired from an online correspondence course (ANYONE with a bachelor's degree in ANYTHING can become a CPS worker), and if the parents are guilty, charges should be pressed. You're right when you say that in many of these cases I don't have all the information; but the information that I DO have is that in ALL of these caes, the parents were denied their day in court, a right that Ted Bundy had and that a parent accused of abuse or neglect should CERTAINLY have.

What I DO have in the case I have detailed, is the fact that NO CRIMINAL COURT has EVER accused these parents of ANYTHING. And that tells me the court should be working to return these children home. Would you disagree?

 

 

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Joe,

Valid points, but even with his 20 dollars a week, this man has certain visitation rights. These parents don't.

The problem in this case does not lie solely with the $500 child support (although it IS well above what many noncustodial fathers have been ordered to pay), but with the fact that the mother is court ordered to work as well, and that full compliance will not guarantee the return of their children. As stated before, these parents are legally innocent; they have not even been criminally CHARGED with illegal actions, let alone convicted. And their children were removed over a year ago.

What I believe the court is trying to do here is to financially force the parents to sign away their parental rights. The 18 month window (supposedly the maximum time a child is supposed to be in foster care) is nearing, no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing has been proven against the parents, and the court will be put into a situation where it must choose to permanently remove the children or return them to their home. They truly seem to be grasping at straws, looking at any way they can avoid returning these children to their parents.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

YOU could be an advocate of returning a child to their rightful home, if you sincerely found it in their best interest to do so.

Yeah, but I have a big problem with "acting" in the course of my work. I would have to get past that MAJOR hurdle.

Another possibility HAD occured to me (and is one of the reasons I write under a pseudonym), that I could use a CASA position to gather information that could help me should I gain the credentials to legally represent families who are victims of CPS. So your idea's totally without merit. But to me it would be like pretending to be an Al Qaeda member to get info on terrorism. Very difficult, and very risky.

I will definitely take it under advisement, though, and consider if it's worth the risk.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

While I am generally against government assistance other than in dire cases, (and even then, only temporarily,) I would far rather see $1000 spent to buy an impoverished family a running car if that's their major impediment to being able to earn a living than $1000 per MONTH paid out to some foster parent who doesnt give a shit in the first place.

Well, we already provide student loans...why not economic improvement loans? If a family can prove that having a better car or more appropriate work clothes will improve their situation, why not provide a system that can get them what they need (and in some cases, that "need" may be job counselling...in the case enumerated here and elsewhere, I would say reasonably that there may be a need for family counselling once the children are returned, but the resources need to be available to provide it), and which they repay at interest based on their income.

It would certainly be a hell of a lot better than our current system.