DCS at my door because no vax? (posted at CT tribe too)

[mamamille]

So long story short- my dd got bit by a cat, took her into a walk in clinic, and had the dr on call get aggressive and hysterical about a) not vax and b) not allowing her to vax that moment. She also called my ped (respected and well established) and yelled at her through the phone about the harm and risk we were all taking with my child. So I basically took the script and ran.

Now 4 days later- I come home to a note from DCS saying there was a complaint made about me and to call them and I am sort of flipping out. I should mention that I am 18 weeks pregnant, my dh has been away for 10 days in India, and this cat bite infection worried the h out of me... and we might be moving for the 7th time in 2 years, in 2 weeks... needless to say my nerves are shot...

So anyone have any advice, words of commiseration, pearls of wisdom, knowledge of CT laws? And please can someone tell me that they won't take her? as this is my deep rooted fear starting when I was pregnant with her, not DCS per se but someone taking her without my control...
Thanks so much

[Fyrestorm]

Not only in your state...but in the same town!

I'm sorry about your DD and your situation. I know this is incredibly stressful. There is no law that you have to vaccinate and they can't use that as an excuse to take a child.

Do not let them into your home without a warrant.

Here is a link to a site talking about how to protect yourself from CPS

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

[mamamille]

Fyrestorrm- both social worker friends that I talked to said it wasn't a big deal and that I should let them in and talk to them... that being defensive might just cause suspicion...
Do you know anyone with a no vax neglect case?

[Fyrestorm]

I wouldn't...you have rights...I might allow them to see the child to prove that they are not in imminent danger, but they would not be allowed past the front door or allowed to speak to the child.

Let me see if I can dig up some info. I recently had to wipe my hard drive and lost all my bookmarks...give me a few mts.

[mamamille]

thank you- I just sitting down to dinner so no hurry!

[Emmeline II]

It is not neglect to knowledgeably not vaccinate. If it comes to it you have your regular ped to back you up.

Connecticut

Child Abuse and Neglect

Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, see the Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect: Summary of State Laws (PDF - 665 KB) publication.
Physical Abuse
Citation: Gen. Stat. § 46b-120

Effective January 1, 2010The term abused means that a child or youth:

• Has been inflicted with physical injury or injuries by other than accidental means
• Has injuries that are at variance with the history given of them
• Is in a condition that is the result of maltreatment, that includes, but is not limited to, malnutrition, sexual molestation or exploitation, deprivation of necessities, emotional maltreatment, or cruel punishment

Neglect
Citation: Gen. Stat. § 46b-120

Effective January 1, 2010A child or youth may be found neglected who:

• Has been abandoned
• Is being denied proper care and attention physically, educationally, emotionally, or morally
• Is being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances, or associations injurious to the well-being of the child or youth
• Has been abused

A child or youth may be found uncared for who is homeless or whose home cannot provide the specialized care that the physical, emotional, or mental condition of the child requires.

Sexual Abuse/Exploitation
Citation: Gen. Stat. § 46b-120

The term abuse includes sexual molestation or exploitation.

Emotional Abuse
Citation: Gen. Stat. § 46b-120

The term abuse includes emotional maltreatment.

Abandonment
Citation: Gen. Stat. § 46b-120

A child or youth may be found neglected who has been abandoned.

Standards for Reporting
Citation: Gen. Stat. § 17a-101a

A report is required when there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been abused or neglected.

Persons Responsible for the Child
Citation: Gen. Stat. § 46b-120

Responsible persons include the child's parents or guardian.

Exceptions
Citation: Gen. Stat. § 46b-120

The treatment of any child by an accredited Christian Science practitioner, in lieu of treatment by a licensed practitioner of the healing arts, shall not of itself constitute neglect or maltreatment.




(Back to Top)
Immunity for Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, see the Immunity for Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect: Summary of State Laws (PDF - 174 KB) publication.
Citation: Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 17a-101e(b) (LexisNexis through 2008 Supp.)
Statute:
Any person, institution, or agency that in good faith makes, or in good faith does not make, a report shall be immune from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred or imposed and shall have the same immunity with respect to any judicial proceeding that results from such report provided such person did not perpetrate or cause such abuse or neglect.


__________________________________________________
For those worried about CPS being called for not vaxing and other non-mainstream practices:

Child Abuse and Neglect Statues
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwi...tate/index.cfm

Quote:
http://sayingnotovaccines.blogspot.c...regarding.html
The Arizona State Court of Appeals has slapped down efforts by Child Protective Services to have a youngster in foster care immunized over a parent's objections....

Potentially more sweeping, the judge said the laws that allow the state to take temporary custody of a child specifically spell out what powers and responsibilities that includes. These range from the right of physical custody and the right to discipline the child to the requirement to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care. Eckerstrom said anything not on that list remains the right of the biological parent.

Find a Lawyer referral under "Services"
http://www.falseallegation.org/services.htm

Parents Guide to Dealing With CPS

http://www.familyrightsassociation.c...parents_guide/
Fighting Child Protective Services False Accusations
http://www.fightcps.com/

CPS Watch -- Legal Forms
http://web.archive.org/web/200306021...ms/default.asp

[mamamille]

ah Emmeline- thank you for that- I so appreciate your effort!

[junipermoon]

I just had my unvaccinated 22 month old at the er for a cut about a week ago--worrying about tetanus b/c it was on glass in dirt in farm country--and was concerned about cps being called but the doctor (not the nurse) was really gentle about it. and didn't give the TIG; said it was low risk. sorry you didn't have a good experience.

I probably would let them in, for the reason you stated--suspicion. But I would probably have a lawyer present if possible. I don't think it would run you very much. But mind you I am not an expert.

hugs to you.

[Fraurloth]

I have to agree with Fyrestorm, you should never allow anyone into your home and because they're government agents I would trust them even LESS. When the census people came by my house, I refused to open the door. I told him four people lived in the house and that's all he was getting.

Ask them what kind of business they want to do and let them know that they need to set up an appointment with you next time. Politely inform them that trespassers will be removed from the property regardless of who they work for.

[Marnica]

I also agree with Fyrestorm. There is no way I would let those people in my house. I work for the government in CT. No way no way Id let them in!

The call was obviously made by that deranged clinic doctor. The burden is on them to find probable cause that your child is in imminent danger. Since there is none, what can they do? I know they have to follow up on all calls that they get. They are supposed to investigate the callers first. I wonder if the doc made an anonymous call or left her name?

Whole situation sucks! Im sooooo sorry this is happening!

[MountainMamaGC]

Tell them you were advised by your lawyer not to let them in without a warrant. You can be pleasant about it. Tell them you can meet them for an appointment on their property or talk to them on the phone.

These people are not your friends no matter how nice they seem.

[elizawill]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm

I wouldn't...you have rights...I might allow them to see the child to prove that they are not in imminent danger, but they would not be allowed past the front door or allowed to speak to the child.

[JERENAUD]

Originally Posted by mamamille

Fyrestorrm- both social worker friends that I talked to said it wasn't a big deal and that I should let them in and talk to them... that being defensive might just cause suspicion...
Do you know anyone with a no vax neglect case?

I worked in child protection in ON. Their laws are bound to be different than yours, but I imagine that the same overall set up applies. I always tried to convince people to just let me in and get it over with; made my job a lot easier. HOWEVER, those who refused access almost always 'got away with it' because it was difficult to get a court order. The burden of proof was on us, and the judge wasn't satisfied with 'an anonymous caller stated that the child was at risk', and of course it was difficult to obtain proof of risk without actually seeing the home and child.

There's always the risk of the complaint changing once the worker is allowed in. I've been out on calls where the malicious complaint was that the family had no food, for example. Because they had food, the family had no problem letting me in. However, once inside I couldn't really ignore the crack pipe, the allegations of physical abuse, the safety concerns, etc. So while the initial complaint was unfounded, other things were then 'fair game'. Some workers go looking for things like this, some try to ignore all but the biggest problems. I'm not suggesting that you live in an unsafe environment, but just that opening the door invites them to observe everything, and a particular worker may take issue with something.

As much as I want to believe the line about getting things over with when there's no problem, I unfortunately don't trust the system enough to do that. If ever someone shows up on my door, I will be requiring a warrant.

Erica

[CrazyCatLady]

Letting them in is NOT a good idea. I speak from way too much personal experience on this.

Speak with them at the door, let them see your kid at the door, be polite, be friendly. Say very little because they are writing it all down and can really twist things (recording conversations can be a good idea, but it can also piss them off and escalate things and it may not be usable in court anyways, so ymmv). I would not sign anything giving them permission to speak to your child's doctor, their school, etc. They might get really huffy, make threats...and then usually they disappear because they have nothing to go on anyways. Not vaxing is not child abuse/neglect except for in some very specific situations.

And just as a reminder, showing up with the police does NOT equal a warrant. I doubt your case will ever get to this point, because few ever do. But you don't have to let anybody in with out a warrant if you don't want to. Including the police.

[mamamille]

update

Thanks everyone for your imput and support. I talked to the social worker on the phone. Since he was very upfront with who made the call and on what grounds, I basically told him the shortest version- that she had an infection, that I wanted to get it treated, that i wasn't surprised that the dr made the call by proof of her unprofessional manner, and that within 24 hours my dd saw her ped, and the day after that, and we have an appointment next week. He said that he would follow up with my dd's ped and that he just needed to see my dd, as in lay his eyes on her. So I told him that since my husband was out of town, that I didn't feel comfortable in letting him into my house, but that we could chat on the porch.
He came over, and was basically very neutral about it. He explained the process, and why he was there. He said I was in my right to refuse the vax, and when he saw my dd's arm- he was like "that's it?" When I asked him about the home visit, he said he was obligated to have one but that this was it, and my dd was her sparkling self, so I knew she would interview well. He didn't ask to speak to her alone, or ask to see inside the house. I told him about the dr's inappropriate behavior and that she had called my dr and was completely unprofessional. And I told him that my dd was a really low risk, indoor cat, yadda, yadda, and he seemed sympathetic. He made mention that he hates leaving those pieces of paper, because he knows how alarmed parents get, and he zoomed out of there.
Anyway, it's not over til it's over and I don't want to be too optimistic, but I think that we should be ok. My dh and I have to go in next week for? I don't know, a continuation of the process? but that he was there simply to see if the report was substantiated... which it isn't... so... I'll keep you posted.
Good God! What was with this week? So glad it's over!
peace to you all!
Camille

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

Sounds like things went well. I hope the meeting will be the end of it.

[CrazyCatLady]

You seem pretty comfortable with how things are turning out and that's good. But I just wanted to add that you don't have to go to any meeting if you don't want to. It's completely voluntary and imo pretty unnecessary at this point. You could easily say no or just not show up.

And if you do go, I'd leave your dc with a sitter. I wouldn't bring them.

[peainthepod]

[junipermoon]

oh I am so glad. I was worried for you. Best of luck with the rest of the process.

[Turquesa]

Mamaville, I'm wondering if the SW told you that you were within your rights not to vax, why is he wanting to see you again? Was the actual charge based on you not vaxing? Or did the doctor come up with something else?

It seems odd to me that states would dispatch a SW for every family that wasn't vax-compliant. Mark my words, they can't afford it! Most states are laying off SWs like mad.