dharmagrl dharmagrl

It's NOT just your fight.

▼

It's NOT just your fight.

from JoeUser Forums

Guilty until proven innocent, I see.  I see no reason to continue this conversation with someone who has such CLEAR comtempt for the Constitution.
End of quote

I've been blacklisted, or else I'd respond to this on the relevant thread.

When a person becomes a parent, they have an obligation to protect that child from whatevere they can.  They have a responsibility to place the welfare of that child before ANYTHING else.  ANYTHING.  Ture, there are some thing parents CANNOT protect their children from....but there are some things that ARE preventable. The security of the family unit should come before any political posturing a person wants to make. It should come before making a legal stance.  To jeopardize that is....well, it smacks of using children as pawns in a game of 'who's right'.  I'm sorry if people think that's harsh, but I think that refusing to do whatever it takes to keep your children living at home with you is a bit bloody harsh as well.

As for being guilty until proven innocent.....unfortunately, that's the way some government agencies work, CPS being one of them.   The police are the same way.  If a person is reportedly using drugs, for example, and is given the opportunity to prove their innocence by submitting a urine sample...well, why wouldn't they want to do that?  PROVE your innocence, SHOW that you have nothing to hide FIRST....worry about the legalities and constitutionality AFTER you've been exonerated.

I've had a run-in with CPS.  I pissed off some people in my old neighborhood, people who barely knew me and my family but who took umbridge to my personality and the way I do things.  They did an underhanded, cowardly thing, and they called CPS.  Numerous times.  It started with an allegation of my locking my children in the house alone, then when that was proven to be untrue they said that my house was filthy, my kids were always hungry, my son was wandering the streets with a butcher knife, attacking people, and finally that I was operating a house of prostitution, having sex with strangers in front of my kids.  In all, I believe that 5 or 6 complaints were made over the period of a year (and those are just the ones I know about).

When I was informed of these allegations, my first response was "what do I need to do to prove that this simply isn't true?".  It wasn't "this is unconstitutional and I'm not going to do it, I'm going to make a stand and prove my point at any cost"....my first concern was protecting my children and doing whatever it took to keep my family together. I let them in my home, they looked around at the unmade beds, the dishes in the sink, the laundry being folded on the couch...they spoke to my kids IN MY PRESENCE, and they went away satisfied that the allegations were completely unfounded and unsubstatiated.

To me, if a person has nothing to hide, they should first prove their innocence, THEN fight the legalities.  Keeping the family unit together and the children in the home should be the first priority, NOT proving a point. 

When it comes to fighting with DSS, it's NOT just the parent's fight.  There are kids involved, and they DESERVE to be protected.

Ww cannot protect our children from EVERYTHING.....but we have an OBLIGATION to protect them from what we can.

misc
13,240 views 38 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

Not explicitly or in so many words. I can see where those innocous words can be taken as a pointing finger. If I was in Gideon's place, I would (quite likely) take them as an accusation, as well.

Well, a LOT of other people have expressed sentiments similar to mine, but I don't see any of THEM being accused of what I stand accused of.  So, why me?  Because I came out and said what everyone else is thinking?

If this were about his kids and his family, I'd be more apt to cut him some slack.

Yep.

To me he isn't speaking like someone in need, worried about his state. He's speaking like someone who is politicizing a rotten situation and making it more rotten in the process

Yep again.  This could be just about keeping his kids out of the foster care system.  This could be about getting DSS out of his hair and proving to those in the community who hate him that he's not doing anything wrong. 

The DSS machine will chew him up, take his kids, then spit him out.  It's a LOT harder to get your kids BACK once they're in the system, and he knows that.  It's going to be MUCH easier to prevent their being removed from the home.  MUCH easier.

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Because I came out and said what everyone else is thinking?
--Dharmagrl


Unfortunately, that's quite likely true. Doesn't excuse it, though.

Ever play "Whack-a-mole"? First one out of the hole gets nailed ... And this time, you happened to be the first, fastest, and brightest one out of the hole.

This could be about getting DSS out of his hair and proving to those in the community who hate him that he's not doing anything wrong.

The DSS machine will chew him up, take his kids, then spit him out. It's a LOT harder to get your kids BACK once they're in the system, and he knows that. It's going to be MUCH easier to prevent their being removed from the home. MUCH easier.

This appears to be close to the truth, here. At least, according to what I've read over of Gideon's latest article. If he fights, and forces the issue about the court order, then the burden of proof is that much higher (due to criminal proceedings vs civil proceedings). It'll be that much harder for the children to be removed in the first place. Also, the state public defender's office has to step forward and provide counsol.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Unfortunately, that's quite likely true. Doesn't excuse it, though


Nope, it doesn't. Had I said "You're hiding something, I don't believe that this is all over your constitutional rights", then I'd apologize. But, I didn't say that.

Gideon, if you read this, I'm sorry that you felt that I was saying you're guilty. It wasn't meant that way, and I'm sorry that you took it as such. I'm trying to show you how your actions are going to be recieved, dude.....

I have some advice for you from a member of the legal profession, but it's not going to be what you want to hear. let me know if you want it anyway.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
KNOW Gid loves his kids, and I KNOW he's a good man, father, and husband. I'm simply saying that I think he's going about fighting this the wrong way. CPS want inside that house. His bringing food to the door to show the town marshal isn't going to cut it with them...and they are a much, much bigger entity than Gideon is. They WILL get access to the house, one way or another. My fear is that what could have been taken care of with a home visit and a little assistance will end up with the kids being removed and criminal charges being brought. That's not going to serve anybody involved any good at all.


She does have a "VERY" valid point here Gid. "If" CPS wants into your house, one way or another they "will" get in! And they will do it no matter what your wishes are. I agree with you and would probably do it the same way you are. However valid points are being raised here.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

Once they obtain that (and I'm sure they will)

doubtful. An anonymous report can't be considered "probable cause".

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

and are able to demonstrate the fact that Gids homeschooling is adequate,

Actually, no. CPS has no regulatory in this area in the state of Texas whatsoever. And, to the investigator's credit, she acknowledged that at the outset.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

OK, I didn't get to see this for several days and I want to clarify something.

Dharma was the ONLY person I blacklisted this and ONLY for one reason...and it was not cowardice. While I respect dharma greatly, she is as opinionated as I am, and any attempt to continue discourse would have only resulted in a shouting match. It was never intended to be a permanent blacklist, simply a "cooling off" period. As much for myself as for her.

I haven't lost my head over this, and I'm NOT in a panic. Quite the opposite, actually, even though the hurried typing of my words through my limited access time might not have conveyed that. I KNOW what I'm doing, and I KNOW where I stand.

Both dharma and baker clipped the portion of the sentence where I stated an OPINION (NOT fact) on my blog about the actions that some might take in retaliation for my standing up for my rights. Oddly enough, given the fact that it was taken out of context and ignored the larger article entirely, they actually PROVED my point. If I saw that listed, without seeing its context, I'd be pissed, too (for those who didn't read the ENTIRE article, please read the entire article before judging). Now, to be fair, I did the same to dharma regarding her response on my thread, and it wasn't right then, either (hence the reason I felt a "cooling off" period was a good idea). But you don't correct a wrong with a wrong.

A few days have, of course, lapsed since this article has been written, and that, too, must be taken into context. But I remain firm in my convictions over this, and am not using my children as pawns, but am rather trying to preserve rights that are dear to me and, I hope, still extant when they are parenting their OWN children.

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

Gid's picked one he can't win here.

See, saying I "can't win" is, on your part, acknowledging the wrongness of the system. If you truly believe I "can't win" when all I am asserting are my Constitutional rights, then the system NEEDS to be fixed. NOW.

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

If this were a Gideon issue, I'd tend to humanize it more, but this is apparently a Libertarian issue.

It IS a Gideon issue, Baker. It was a "Gideon issue" when in the 1980's I stood on the courthouse square to protest our actions in Nicaragua and the (now renamed) School of the Americas, it was a "Gideon issue" when I went to the state capitol to assert the rights of homeschoolers, it was a "Gideon issue" when I filed a complaint against an officer who had executed an improper search of my vehicle.

This is not me standing behind one select issue, Baker. This is only part of a lifetime of activism. While you may disagree with me, please don't accuse me of whoring myself out to the party.

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

I have some advice for you from a member of the legal profession, but it's not going to be what you want to hear. let me know if you want it anyway.

I got it, and respect it, but it's not consistent with advice given from other members of the legal profession, HSLDA included.

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

"If" CPS wants into your house, one way or another they "will" get in! And they will do it no matter what your wishes are.

And I have stated many times that I have no desire to contest a search warrant that is legally obtained. But a search warrant specifies the parameters of a search rather than just being a generic excuse to snoop, as a home visit is.

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
but it's not consistent with advice given from other members of the legal profession, HSLDA included.


That's fine. I was simply trying to help.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Understood, dharma, and appreciated, seriously