Our pedi turned us to the Child Protective Services - Page 3

[prothyraia]

Originally Posted by velochic

Your story is different and it goes beyond CPS, it is a matter of someone committing perjury and needs to involve prosecution as the pp said. CPS as a whole is not to be blamed for one (or more) dishonest person. As a whole, I think they are just over-worked people who are trying their best to protect kids who are TRULY at risk.

There's paranoia and then there's caution. I think it's fine to say that CPS is a system, made up of people- who, like all people, are usually caring but failable and yes, sometimes evil- that has the power to remove your children from your care. If I'm interacting with someone who has the authority to have my children taken away from me, the power differential is just so huge that mistrust is normal and (imo) healthy. I may be 99.9% sure that they have the best interests of my child and my family at heart, but that teeny tiny chance that they don't is enough that I want to be aware of my legal rights and minimize contact (and thus the opportunity for exaggeration, lying, etc.).

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by prothyraia

There's paranoia and then there's caution. I think it's fine to say that CPS is a system, made up of people- who, like all people, are usually caring but failable and yes, sometimes evil- that has the power to remove your children from your care. If I'm interacting with someone who has the authority to have my children taken away from me, the power differential is just so huge that mistrust is normal and (imo) healthy. I may be 99.9% sure that they have the best interests of my child and my family at heart, but that teeny tiny chance that they don't is enough that I want to be aware of my legal rights and minimize contact (and thus the opportunity for exaggeration, lying, etc.).

Yes, this is the attitude I was trying to get across -- that, yeah, most people are trustworthy, but when your kids are at stake it's just a good idea to take precautions to protect your family.

As well as the slight possibility that a caseworker is evil -- there's also the possibility that they're just very mainstream in their views, to the point where seeing things like one huge family bed and no other beds, or a nursing 5yo, or knowing that you don't vax, MIGHT just push them down that slippery slope of thinking that they need to find some way to protect your kids from you ...

I even think that the relative who called me in, "probably" really felt that we were in need of outside interventin ... 'cause I'm just pretty much doing the opposite of what she did when she was raising her kids. And for some people, to feel good about what they're doing means they "have" to think anyone doing the opposite is wrong.

Then again, I do think the need to exert control over others, IS kind of heading down that slippery slope toward becoming an evil person, but that's a whole nuther thread, LOL ...

[Smithie]

"If I'm interacting with someone who has the authority to have my children taken away from me, the power differential is just so huge that mistrust is normal and (imo) healthy. I may be 99.9% sure that they have the best interests of my child and my family at heart, but that teeny tiny chance that they don't is enough that I want to be aware of my legal rights and minimize contact."

Ditto. In your shoes, OP, I'd get a note from a new doctor ASAP, stating that your child is fine, and then wait to see what happens. It may well be that when you refused to meet, they decided to drop the whole thing. It may be that they are planning to show up on your doorstep unannounced - in which case you'll have a handy note to give them! Or it may be that they'll call again, and you can set up an appointment to drop off the note at their office.

I'm opposed to letting anybody into my house without a warrant. CPS, law enforcement, whoever. I think it's bad for society in general to foster the attitude among cops and social workers that they are entitled to enter somebody's residence in order to investigate them without specific permission from the court. But you have to take it on a case-by-case basis - if a particular authority figure was clearly having a meltdown about talking with me on the porch instead of in the living room, I might let them in to forestall potentially major hassles in the future.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by Smithie

But you have to take it on a case-by-case basis - if a particular authority figure was clearly having a meltdown about talking with me on the porch instead of in the living room, I might let them in to forestall potentially major hassles in the future.

That's kind of how I see it, too.

In my own case, the caseworker wasn't having a meltdown on my porch. She had actually asked, when I answered the door, if I would rather talk with her on the porch. So we started out on the porch.

Then when she said that to complete her assessment, she needed to see the house and the girls, I just had a good feeling about her, so I brought her in.

It's hard to say exactly what I'd do if it came up again -- but the more I've learned, the more I've realized that bringing them in without a third person to witness is kinda chancy.

[khaoskat]

I can attest to the fact that CPS workers lie in court all the time, or better yet, they make material ommitions from their testimony.

Pros: Did you serve legal rights notice on the parents?
CPS: Yes, yesterday.

(The material ommision here is that she waited until after 6 pm the night before to deliver said legal rights notices.)

Here is another example:

CPS: Mom's attorney cancelled our home visit scheduled for 1/8. Mom's attorney never called to reschedule.
CPS: Dad did not get visitation at all that weekend. he showed up at Mom's at 5:45 and left at 6:10, he went to the police station, when he returned home Mom's car was gone.

Material ommissions here:
1) yes, mom's attorney cancelled the home visit after the attorney informed the CPS worker about the visitation issue, and the CPS worker started yelling at Mom's attorney. Mom's attorney gave CPS mom's side of what happened. CPS worker refused to believe it with the comment "Yea, I am sure Dad will tell a different story". Mom's attorney wanted to be present at the meeting, so s/he could protect his/her client and also know what the true issues in the case were.
2) CPS worker, even though this phone conversation happened on 1/4, demanded that the only available dates to make up said visit were on 1/12 or 1/13. CPS worker also demand that the meeting could only go forward if the Guardian Ad Litum were present, as she was a required participant.
3) CPS worker failed to mention that the "Fair Board" (their internal complaint place) was involved after the conversation on 1/4, because Mom's attorney wasn't going to allow his/her client or her/himself to be treated that way by the caseworker. The FB rep was attempting to work out a meeting between caseworker, attorney, supervisor, mom and FB rep to discuss the issues CPS had concerns about.
4) CPS worker told mom's attorney s/he could only discuss the case with the prosecutor and not with the CPS worker, and refused to discuss anything but visitation issues with Mom's attorney, when there were bigger issues of medical needs to be addressed.

Result - child removed traumatically from mom's custody without notice

[mammal_mama]

[velochic]

Originally Posted by khaoskat

I can attest to the fact that CPS workers lie in court all the time, or better yet, they make material ommitions from their testimony.

Pros: Did you serve legal rights notice on the parents?
CPS: Yes, yesterday.

(The material ommision here is that she waited until after 6 pm the night before to deliver said legal rights notices.)

Here is another example:

CPS: Mom's attorney cancelled our home visit scheduled for 1/8. Mom's attorney never called to reschedule.
CPS: Dad did not get visitation at all that weekend. he showed up at Mom's at 5:45 and left at 6:10, he went to the police station, when he returned home Mom's car was gone.

Material ommissions here:
1) yes, mom's attorney cancelled the home visit after the attorney informed the CPS worker about the visitation issue, and the CPS worker started yelling at Mom's attorney. Mom's attorney gave CPS mom's side of what happened. CPS worker refused to believe it with the comment "Yea, I am sure Dad will tell a different story". Mom's attorney wanted to be present at the meeting, so s/he could protect his/her client and also know what the true issues in the case were.
2) CPS worker, even though this phone conversation happened on 1/4, demanded that the only available dates to make up said visit were on 1/12 or 1/13. CPS worker also demand that the meeting could only go forward if the Guardian Ad Litum were present, as she was a required participant.
3) CPS worker failed to mention that the "Fair Board" (their internal complaint place) was involved after the conversation on 1/4, because Mom's attorney wasn't going to allow his/her client or her/himself to be treated that way by the caseworker. The FB rep was attempting to work out a meeting between caseworker, attorney, supervisor, mom and FB rep to discuss the issues CPS had concerns about.
4) CPS worker told mom's attorney s/he could only discuss the case with the prosecutor and not with the CPS worker, and refused to discuss anything but visitation issues with Mom's attorney, when there were bigger issues of medical needs to be addressed.

Result - child removed traumatically from mom's custody without notice

This is HUGELY different, though, than children being taken away because your immaculate house had a candy wrapper and a soda can in the living room!!

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by velochic

This is HUGELY different, though, than children being taken away because your immaculate house had a candy wrapper and a soda can in the living room!!

But either way, it's hugely traumatic to the child and the parents.

Reasonable caution is not the same thing as paranioa.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by TinkerBelle

Just curious. Was it ever proven that she lied? Because if it was, she should have been prosecuted and jailed.

No, it wasn't. She lied in court about having heard one of the kids announce that his testimony was lies. The parents didn't know what he'd actually said, so they couldn't counter her. (I was there when the son supposedly said that, and he said no such thing.) Why would she even be questioned? It was her word against that of a 'weird' family under investigation, and when the parents tried to get the judge to listen after talking to their son (the hearing was over at that point), he didn't, as it just looked as though they'd been getting their stories straight.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by velochic

And it's stories like the above that causes the paranoia. When people spread rumors that people almost lost their children because of a candy wrapper and soda can in another room of the otherwise immaculate house *and NO other reason*, that's one of the reasons that cause paranoia. And paquerette didn't say that anyone lied in court.

Your story is different and it goes beyond CPS, it is a matter of someone committing perjury and needs to involve prosecution as the pp said. CPS as a whole is not to be blamed for one (or more) dishonest person. As a whole, I think they are just over-worked people who are trying their best to protect kids who are TRULY at risk.

Who is going to prosecute? You get a family that's already under investigation, has a "weird" lifestyle (not AP/NFL - just "weird"), and a respected social worker. Who's going to be listened to? How do you prove a conversation happened the way the family and their friends (ie. me) say it did, when the social worker says she overhead otherwise?

Sure. It goes beyond CPS to the individual worker, but that individual worker has more power than the parent. When someone with the power to take my children away doesn't like me, that's scary. I realize there are people here who have the view that if one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to be afraid of. That is not my experience, and it would be pretty silly for me to judge any situation based on the philosophy of other people, when that philosophy goes counter to everything I've personally experienced.

I've had two people hit my van in the past year. They gave false insurance information to the police. If they had told the truth, that they were uninsured, they would have been arrested. They are free, no charges against them and we had to pay for the repairs (at least the deductible). They were dishonest, we paid the price... but I still believe in the car insurance system.

I don't believe in the car insurance system, overall. I know they've made a big difference in certain situations, but I don't believe it's an effective system. It's different here - no competition. If I get hit/hit someone, they have the same insurance company I do...but I don't know if that's better or worse. In any case, you're talking about the two people who hit your car...not about any agent lying or faking something. That's not a reasonable analogy.

I don't expect anybody here to change their views on CPS, because someone (me) on an internet forum has had experiences that don't fit their view. I'm also not going to change my views, based on every experience (almost all second-hand) that I've had with them, because people on an internet forum say, "oh, the people I work with are wonderful".

[velochic]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

I don't expect anybody here to change their views on CPS, because someone (me) on an internet forum has had experiences that don't fit their view. I'm also not going to change my views, based on every experience (almost all second-hand) that I've had with them, because people on an internet forum say, "oh, the people I work with are wonderful".

My only views of CPS come from what I read here and what has happened in my niece's life over the past year. They have done everything in their power to help her keep her children. I'm not going to change my views based on second-hand experience, either. Because we are an integral part of their lives and I know FIRST-HAND her experience. She was certainly not investigated for "having a candy wrapper and soda can" in an "otherwise immaculate home". Can nobody else see the ridiculousness of this statement and the damage that these types of statements do?

[mammal_mama]

velochic, here in Kansas City where I live, what I hear about our Child Protective Services is pretty similar to what you are saying, in that they seem to do everything in their power to keep families together.

So, if we happened to get reported again and got another visit, I don't think there's more than a very-extremely remote, sliver-of-a possibility that our kids could get taken. I mean, there would be no reason, but I guess there would still be that remote possibility that the caseworker might not "click" with us or what-have-you.

However, it doesn't seem completely out-of-the-ballpark, to be concerned that if they got more calls on us, they might decide that they needed to open a case, do a full-on investigation, and stay in our lives for a while ... just because we're not perfect and we have our own little issues and they could probably find some reason to say that we could benefit from their involvment.

And, maybe some folks really would love someone dropping in and checking on them and helping them get more organized or whatever. But for me, even though I could sure stand to be more organized, it would just be so stressful to have to deal with people who have the power to take my kids away (even though, yeah, they prob'ly wouldn't want to) dropping in and intervening in our lives.

So I'd just rather not.

When I talk about taking precautions, I'm really more focused on protecting our privacy and reducing the likelihood of "interventions" -- not the unlikely scenario of someone snatching our kids 'cause of a candy wrapper on the floor.

To me, privacy and personal freedom are just such wonderful things, they are worth protecting. I realize some kids are being abused and neglected -- but our kids aren't, so we'd rather deal with our less-than-perfect home on our own, thankyouverymuch.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by velochic

My only views of CPS come from what I read here and what has happened in my niece's life over the past year. They have done everything in their power to help her keep her children. I'm not going to change my views based on second-hand experience, either. Because we are an integral part of their lives and I know FIRST-HAND her experience. She was certainly not investigated for "having a candy wrapper and soda can" in an "otherwise immaculate home". Can nobody else see the ridiculousness of this statement and the damage that these types of statements do?

Defining first-hand the way you are, I've been involved first hand in two separate CPS investigations. I was using "second hand", because I was not the parent (or child, for that matter) under investigation.

I've seen them completely destroy two families, with no improvement whatsoever for any of the seven children involved. In one case, I'd be willing to put money that the kids are worse off for the involvement. So, you're just saying the same thing I am. We've both had our own experiences, and it would be kind of stupid to ignore our own in favour of what other people have seen/experienced.

I don't see the ridiculousness, because I wasn't there, and I don't know that parent, and I don't know that social worker, and I don't know what went into the report. I can tell you that in the case of at least one social worker I've interacted with a few times (the one who lied in the above case - she was also a friend's worker when I was in high school), what happened to one's family and one's children depended on whether she liked you or not, and whether she approved of you or not, and what kind of home you kept or what kind of parent you were had nothing to do with it at all. If she didn't like someone, I could see her turning a candy wrapper and a soda can into squalor with the magic of words. (I know one woman who ended up under investigation, because her house was a diasaster area - which it was - but the report had no pictures attached at all. The decision to intervene was made based on what the worker said he saw in the home. If he'd made it up, nobody could have proved otherwise.)

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

And, maybe some folks really would love someone dropping in and checking on them and helping them get more organized or whatever. But for me, even though I could sure stand to be more organized, it would just be so stressful to have to deal with people who have the power to take my kids away (even though, yeah, they prob'ly wouldn't want to) dropping in and intervening in our lives.

This.

[Thandiwe]

Does anyone else see the "strangeness" that a doctor who it sounds like has never even seen this child made a medical consult over the phone? Every doctor I've ever known would not even touch a medical consult on a child they haven't seen. Heck, my doc who we have used for years and we love/know/trust is hesitant to do this. Either the doctor is acting somewhat negligently (although asking for a visit isn't really negligent, just caring, imho) or there was a random call into a docs office stating a small child was bitten by a dog, the family didn't want to go to the hospital, and then the visit was cancelled. As someone who has worked in the mental health field, I know that there is standard protocol to follow on emergency situations. I believe the doctor did her job. If there was nothing founded, I would just go to the meeting and lay things on the table. As a foster mom, watching facts being hidden from CPS only left the situation more questionable and suspicious.

Just my opinion. Kind of wondering about an update from OP, too.