Neighbors calling CPS just to harrass us... - Page 3

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by chiromamma 

I think as AP parents, we have been conditioned to have this distrust of CPS simply because what we do is out of the mainstream. We also hear the horror stories that are the exception...family bed families separated, non-vax kids taken away.

Yes, these things happen and need to be stopped. But they are not the norm.

Children being harmed or dying at the hands of their caregivers because no one wanted to be the nosey neighbor is far more common.

I would much prefer to invite a CPS case worker into my home and tell them about some of less than mainstream practices than refuse entry and start a frickin nightmare for my family.

It's not out of capitulation but confidence in what I do as a parent and my trust that these are well meaning folks who want to make a difference in the world.

FWIW, my distrust of CPS has nothing to do with being an AP parent (I bed shared, etc. with my oldest and it never even crossed my mind that this could be an issue). It comes from what I've seen with cases where they've been involved. And, I don't give them the benefit of the doubt. Unless they give me good reason to believe otherwise, I assume that CPS workers are going into the situation with the bias that parents aren't important, except in negative ways, and that whatever they do themselves is benign, even when it's clearly not. I used to think they had the best interests of the children at heart, and I'm still willing to believe that's what they think...but I don't believe they're qualified to know what's in the best interests of the children, except in really, really, severe cases.

[bella99]

FWIW, something like 2 out of 3 CPS investigations are unfounded.  And in the cases that are found to be indicated, only come with a mandate for preventive services and sometimes not even that.  

Even less are the number of calls made to the hotlines that are actually accepted for investigation.

In NY, CPS workers have the right to remove children based on "imminent danger of serious harm" and can do so without a court order, but to keep the kids in care, they need to get a court order and need to submit evidence in court.  You may have the right to refuse entry into your home, but not to refuse allow the workers to see your children and speak with them (even if its in the doorway or outside).  Because the court sees that the right of a child to be safe from abuse and neglect, supersedes any right the parents have.

[aelial]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

In the end, the point is that cops can and do use refusal to comply as probable cause to enter a home.

So ultimately we have 4th amendment rights until we try to use them. That's a lovely catch-22.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by bella99 

FWIW, something like 2 out of 3 CPS investigations are unfounded.  And in the cases that are found to be indicated, only come with a mandate for preventive services and sometimes not even that.  

Even less are the number of calls made to the hotlines that are actually accepted for investigation.

In NY, CPS workers have the right to remove children based on "imminent danger of serious harm" and can do so without a court order, but to keep the kids in care, they need to get a court order and need to submit evidence in court.  You may have the right to refuse entry into your home, but not to refuse allow the workers to see your children and speak with them (even if its in the doorway or outside).  Because the court sees that the right of a child to be safe from abuse and neglect, supersedes any right the parents have.

Can I ask where you got this information?  The statistics seem like they may be right, but I'd like to see a source.  I'd also like to know where the information about NYS came from - it doesn't sound right to me, which isn't to say you're wrong, I just want to see the source - particularly the law that allows social workers to speak to/remove children without a court order.

[aelial]

You can see statistics on the Department of Health and Human Services web site.
 

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

Originally Posted by bella99 

FWIW, something like 2 out of 3 CPS investigations are unfounded.  And in the cases that are found to be indicated, only come with a mandate for preventive services and sometimes not even that.  

Even less are the number of calls made to the hotlines that are actually accepted for investigation.

In NY, CPS workers have the right to remove children based on "imminent danger of serious harm" and can do so without a court order, but to keep the kids in care, they need to get a court order and need to submit evidence in court.  You may have the right to refuse entry into your home, but not to refuse allow the workers to see your children and speak with them (even if its in the doorway or outside).  Because the court sees that the right of a child to be safe from abuse and neglect, supersedes any right the parents have.

Can I ask where you got this information?  The statistics seem like they may be right, but I'd like to see a source.  I'd also like to know where the information about NYS came from - it doesn't sound right to me, which isn't to say you're wrong, I just want to see the source - particularly the law that allows social workers to speak to/remove children without a court order.

[chiromamma]

Originally Posted by bella99 

Even less are the number of calls made to the hotlines that are actually accepted for investigation.

In NY, CPS workers have the right to remove children based on "imminent danger of serious harm" and can do so without a court order, but to keep the kids in care, they need to get a court order and need to submit evidence in court.  You may have the right to refuse entry into your home, but not to refuse allow the workers to see your children and speak with them (even if its in the doorway or outside).  Because the court sees that the right of a child to be safe from abuse and neglect, supersedes any right the parents have.

So I don't see a problem with the right of a child to be safe superseding the privacy rights of the adult.

I work with a lady who had to call CPS on her own daughter because the daughter was using meth and leaving her 18 month old child to freeze in a car. CPS was the only channel this grandma could use to insure the safety of her granddaughter. She got custody. Her daughter is in recovery and  this adorable child is thriving under grandma's care.

In this case, a child's safety superseding a parent's right to privacy...you bet.

Again, I know of horror stories that became reality for amazing parents because of CPS.

Heck, I had my own minor situation...DS2 had his first febrile seizure...it was a tetany seizure and not convulsive so we didn't recognize it. We went to the ER because he stopped breathing and was turning blue. Kid isn't vaxed. Never saw an MD. After speaking with us and realizing our choices are well informed, the ER doc is cool. But he gets uptight when we refuse the tylenol. He calls in a social worker and my DH (God bless his brain)  explains the uselessness of tylenol once the seizure has passed. We agreed to hang in the ER for an extra 1/2 hour and take the babe's temp again. No hassle. My experience has been that if one is informed and educated about why the kids are...(naked, unvaxed, in a big family bed, unschooled, or just plain grubby) and conveys that to a social worker while acknowledging the intent of the inquiry, things go well.

When one is defensive and immediately distrusting...as in any situation in life, things go south.

[bella99]

I actually work in NYS Social Services, not for the state, but for a private contract agency.   Those numbers came from a training, so I don't have a link or anything.  It was a 3-hour mandated reported training for social services professionals where we reviewed recent changes to the laws that affected us specifically (vs say a doctor or teacher)  But in 2008, I believe there were approx. 600,000 calls made to the NYS Central Registry.  Over 400,000 were not even accepted for investigation and aside from the tally, there's no record of the calls or what or who they were about.

Of the remaining 150,000 to 200,000 calls accepted for investigation, considerably less than half were indicated. (I can probably get you the actual numbers, but you'd have to wait until Monday when I get back to my office).

But as an example, there is a family I work with, with one kid in foster care, and several others remaining at home with the bio-parents.  There have been sooo many calls this year from various sources (from myself included) regarding the children remaining in the home.  Two have been indicated, 4 or 5 have been unfounded, and there are *5* current calls that have been merged together into one investigation.  Based on the two indicated reports there is currently court mandated preventive services, but the children have not been removed, although there is an underlying feeling that something very wrong is going on inside the house, there just isn't proof or enough of it for removal.

Regarding the removal, yes, that's true, and again, it's based on going through a 4-week training to be a caseworker in NY (whether for the state or private agency).  Like I said, if a child is considered to be in "imminent danger of serious harm" (the legal terminology), the CPS worker has the right to remove them without a court order.  It's considered an emergency removal, and they would of course have to involve the police.  But if it's a weekday, the case goes to court the following day, if it's a weekend, the first available business day (unless its a larger county with an on-call judge), and based on the evidence the workers have to provide, the judge decides whether the child remains in care.  They key really is that a judge *must* be in "imminent danger of serious harm", and while that is subjective to the CW to some extent, there has been training provided to them to decipher what is and isn't imminent danger based on a couple of factors.

[chiromamma]

Originally Posted by bella99 

I actually work in NYS Social Services, not for the state, but for a private contract agency.   Those numbers came from a training, so I don't have a link or anything.  It was a 3-hour mandated reported training for social services professionals where we reviewed recent changes to the laws that affected us specifically (vs say a doctor or teacher)  But in 2008, I believe there were approx. 600,000 calls made to the NYS Central Registry.  Over 400,000 were not even accepted for investigation and aside from the tally, there's no record of the calls or what or who they were about.

Of the remaining 150,000 to 200,000 calls accepted for investigation, considerably less than half were indicated. (I can probably get you the actual numbers, but you'd have to wait until Monday when I get back to my office).

But as an example, there is a family I work with, with one kid in foster care, and several others remaining at home with the bio-parents.  There have been sooo many calls this year from various sources (from myself included) regarding the children remaining in the home.  Two have been indicated, 4 or 5 have been unfounded, and there are *5* current calls that have been merged together into one investigation.  Based on the two indicated reports there is currently court mandated preventive services, but the children have not been removed, although there is an underlying feeling that something very wrong is going on inside the house, there just isn't proof or enough of it for removal.

What is proof enough? I am not wanting to be confrontational...but if there have been that many calls...what is the proof needed  that the kids might be safer elsewhere? A dead kid?

Does a call from a school or HCP get more weight than a neighbor or relative?
 

[Super~Single~Mama]

Ok bella, I'll believe the numbers - they seem to make sense.

Where though, is the law that states that CPS can remove a child from the home without a court order?  That is a law that is just asking to be abused.  Before I beleive that, I need to see it and read it for myself.

ETA - what are the factors that you have been given to use to determine what is "imminent danger of serious harm"??  I'd like to know, just in case CPS gets called on me again so that I can throw it in the CW's face that she's completely wrong.

The social worker who visited my home made comments to try and imply that she was going to remove my ds - when she had absolutely NO basis for doing so - my ex ADMITTED TO HER that he pinned me to the floor in an argument the night before.  So, I don't think CPS should have that right, they were going to support my ex getting custody when the ADMITTED TO BEING ABUSIVE.  Unbelievable.  Red flags should have been EXPLODING her brain when she was in my home - however, she was telling ME that I couldn't be alone with my ds, and that my ex could have his family STALK me (which he did for almost a week after that until I made his mother give me her house key and leave - after CPS got their heads screwed on straight and pulled that instruction.).  They also NEVER sent me the letter stating that I was under investigation - which by law I'm supposed to receive.  My ENTIRE experience was completely ridiculous - and in the end they supported me and wrote a great evaluation of me for the court.  However, had they removed my son the effects would have been DEVASTATING and I would have sued.  For everything possible.  B/c they had NO basis in law or fact.

[bella99]

What is proof enough? I am not wanting to be confrontational...but if there have been that many calls...what is the proof needed  that the kids might be safer elsewhere? A dead kid?

Does a call from a school or HCP get more weight than a neighbor or relative?
 

The answer to this is... I don't know.  I know the people working with this family providing the preventive services, I've been working with them for three years with one of the children, although I don't see the other children too often (twice a month maybe?).  And I know the workers working with the family aren't being negligent in their duties, and yet, it's proof that the system isn't working, not in this case.  Although keep in mind, that an unfounded report can not be used as evidence or proof after the investigation has been closed (not in NY).  There's also probably a number of reasons why some of the reports were unfounded but I don't feel comfortable providing anymore details this way. (Feel free to PM me if you want to know why a report might end up unfounded even if there's a feeling that something is going on).

And no, a call from a school or HCP doesn't necessarily carry more weight (probably depends on the person who answers the phone at the hotline).  They do have to identify themselves as a mandated reporter, though.  Social services workers in NY are allowed/mandated to report hearsay, but that's the only difference.

[bella99]

Here are some example of what might used to show "imminent danger of serious harm".

-an infant/toddler/special needs child left alone and unsupervised for an extended period of time (older child...not so much), especially if the parent still isn't around when CPS shows up.

-same as above in a home that is *extremely* unsanitary or hazardous

-any age child who has obvious and/or serious injuries, where leaving them with their parent or caregiver would likely mean more serious injuries (think obvious physical abuse)

-any severely malnourished child (unless of course the parent has medical documentation)

-parents are so intoxicated they can't reasonably take care of the child

-parent is currently violent or out of control

-infant/toddler with a positive tox screen

In our the caseworker training, we had to watch a lot of slides of malnourished children, xrays, and bruises/abrasions to see the difference between normal childhood injuries and what was more likely to be caused by abuse.

If a worker walks into a situation where a child is obviously being abused or neglected and leaving them there alone with the parent could result in serious injury/illness/death, the worker *has* to remove the child.  The worker would need to have law enforcement with them, but not a judge's court order.  The police can assist a worker in removing a child without a court order.  Yes, there is some degree of subjectivity and lots of time I am sure that workers aren't sure if they are doing the right thing, but this is the reason for a judge having the final say.  Workers are also supposed to ask if there are any family members that the child can go to instead of removal to foster care.

I'm not talking about your example, because that seems like a bad worker, but imagine a situation in a county that has no on-call judge, and a worker walks into a situation on a friday night, where a child has been *obviously* abused by their parent, and where leaving them alone would likely mean that their parent would cause more harm out of retribution for the call.  Do you think the worker should simply wait until Monday before going to the judge?  

Edited by bella99 - 11/27/10 at 3:17pm

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by aelial 

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

In the end, the point is that cops can and do use refusal to comply as probable cause to enter a home.

So ultimately we have 4th amendment rights until we try to use them. That's a lovely catch-22.

Uh, that is very... Well I'm not sure I can say what it is... Believe it or not Canadians have rights too, including the right to be protected against illegal search and seizure. But you know what? There is still a thing called probably cause, even in the US.
 

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by bella99 

Here are some example of what might used to show "imminent danger of serious harm".

-an infant/toddler/special needs child left alone and unsupervised for an extended period of time (older child...not so much), especially if the parent still isn't around when CPS shows up.

-same as above in a home that is *extremely* unsanitary or hazardous

-any age child who has obvious and/or serious injuries, where leaving them with their parent or caregiver would likely mean more serious injuries (think obvious physical abuse)

-any severely malnourished child (unless of course the parent has medical documentation)

-parents are so intoxicated they can't reasonably take care of the child

-parent is currently violent or out of control

-infant/toddler with a positive tox screen

I suspect the rules are similar here. However, I've been privy to two separate incidents in which the children were apprehended (okay - one of them wasn't technically an apprehension - they were allowed to go to the grandmother's house, but if they hadn't , they were going to be apprehended, and the weren't allowed to go home until things were resolved). I was present when one set of chlidren were removed, and talking to the mom on the phone while the workers were there in the other case. In neither of those cases were any of the above points even close to being the case. In both cases, the chlidren were traumatized by the involvement of CPS, and both sets of kids (one set are now adults) have shown long-term effects from what happened. The rules weren't being followed...but if the CPS worker says, "the mother was drunk" and family members say, "no, she wasn't", who's going to be believed?

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

Uh, that is very... Well I'm not sure I can say what it is... Believe it or not Canadians have rights too, including the right to be protected against illegal search and seizure. But you know what? There is still a thing called probably cause, even in the US.

True. And, in a legalistic sense, maybe "I don't want you in my home" counts as probable cause. In an ethical sense, it doesn't. It's not probable cause to believe anything is going on. Followed to its logical conclusion, a police officer or CPS worker could show up at anybody's house, say, "we believe there's such-and-such going on and we want to come in and investigate", and then go get a warrant when the homeowner refused. That's a joke.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by bella99 

Here are some example of what might used to show "imminent danger of serious harm".

-an infant/toddler/special needs child left alone and unsupervised for an extended period of time (older child...not so much), especially if the parent still isn't around when CPS shows up.

-same as above in a home that is *extremely* unsanitary or hazardous

-any age child who has obvious and/or serious injuries, where leaving them with their parent or caregiver would likely mean more serious injuries (think obvious physical abuse)

-any severely malnourished child (unless of course the parent has medical documentation)

-parents are so intoxicated they can't reasonably take care of the child

-parent is currently violent or out of control

-infant/toddler with a positive tox screen

In our the caseworker training, we had to watch a lot of slides of malnourished children, xrays, and bruises/abrasions to see the difference between normal childhood injuries and what was more likely to be caused by abuse.

If a worker walks into a situation where a child is obviously being abused or neglected and leaving them there alone with the parent could result in serious injury/illness/death, the worker *has* to remove the child.  The worker would need to have law enforcement with them, but not a judge's court order.  The police can assist a worker in removing a child without a court order.  Yes, there is some degree of subjectivity and lots of time I am sure that workers aren't sure if they are doing the right thing, but this is the reason for a judge having the final say.  Workers are also supposed to ask if there are any family members that the child can go to instead of removal to foster care.

I'm not talking about your example, because that seems like a bad worker, but imagine a situation in a county that has no on-call judge, and a worker walks into a situation on a friday night, where a child has been *obviously* abused by their parent, and where leaving them alone would likely mean that their parent would cause more harm out of retribution for the call.  Do you think the worker should simply wait until Monday before going to the judge?  

I know that you aren't talking about *my* experience, but bad workers are more than they are fewer yk?  Overworked, underpaid, in generally pretty high turnover jobs = recipe for children to be removed when they shouldn't be.

And, none of the factors above are truly factors which would indicate that the parent is the source of abuse, I mean, its great to think that it will always be "obvious" - but what do you look for to show that?  What would be "extremely unsanitary"?  What are obviously serious injuries that would mean a child would be more likely to get worse injuries if left with the parent longer?  There are serious injuries that can be gotten without any abuse present, and not all bruises point to abuse either (my ds had an almost permanent bruise on his forehead for about 6months b/c he would walk into *everything* and he was just the right height to have a bruise there).  And the tox screen I'm guessing would be a call from a hospital or something?  Workers aren't doing that themselves right?

I know I'm asking lots of questions, but I'm honestly curious what the threshold is, b/c it all seems very subjective.

[Irishmommy]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

Where though, is the law that states that CPS can remove a child from the home without a court order?  That is a law that is just asking to be abused.  Before I beleive that, I need to see it and read it for myself.

In Ontario at least, that's the case.  The SW does an investigation (home visit, whatever), calls the supervisor, reports on the situation, makes a recommendation.  It's the supervisor who says yay or nay to aprehending the child.  They then have 48 or 72 hours (can't remember) to go before a judge and present their case.

We had a placement of two kids one evening.  They were home the next afternoon, without even going to court.  It was a legitimate apprehension, on the information provided, but more stuff came up the next day, and the kids went home.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride 

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

Uh, that is very... Well I'm not sure I can say what it is... Believe it or not Canadians have rights too, including the right to be protected against illegal search and seizure. But you know what? There is still a thing called probably cause, even in the US.

True. And, in a legalistic sense, maybe "I don't want you in my home" counts as probable cause. In an ethical sense, it doesn't. It's not probable cause to believe anything is going on. Followed to its logical conclusion, a police officer or CPS worker could show up at anybody's house, say, "we believe there's such-and-such going on and we want to come in and investigate", and then go get a warrant when the homeowner refused. That's a joke.

Unfortunately legal and ethical are often not the same thing. I happen to hate the idea of "if you have nothing to hide then where is the problem?" just because it's not how things really are. But if it is legally probable cause, than means they can legally search your home.

[bella99]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

ju

I know that you aren't talking about *my* experience, but bad workers are more than they are fewer yk?  Overworked, underpaid, in generally pretty high turnover jobs = recipe for children to be removed when they shouldn't be.

And, none of the factors above are truly factors which would indicate that the parent is the source of abuse, I mean, its great to think that it will always be "obvious" - but what do you look for to show that?  What would be "extremely unsanitary"?  What are obviously serious injuries that would mean a child would be more likely to get worse injuries if left with the parent longer?  There are serious injuries that can be gotten without any abuse present, and not all bruises point to abuse either (my ds had an almost permanent bruise on his forehead for about 6months b/c he would walk into *everything* and he was just the right height to have a bruise there).  And the tox screen I'm guessing would be a call from a hospital or something?  Workers aren't doing that themselves right?

I know I'm asking lots of questions, but I'm honestly curious what the threshold is, b/c it all seems very subjective.

Well I don't think that bad workers are more common than good workers, but I do think there are enough of them to be a problem. Unfortunately, it's kind of the same as every other field.  And it's certainly one of the more overworked and underpaid fields (especially taking into account the kind of work it is).  Mistakes are obviously being made, and sometimes children are removed when they shouldn't be, but there are problem more cases where children *should* have been removed and weren't.  The purpose of the courts is to make workers *prove* to the court the safety of the child is best served by being in foster care (note: in NY the standard in family court is lower than criminal court, it is not beyond a reasonable doubt, but I do not know about other states).  It doesn't always work, either way, and I know that.  I wish it was a foolproof system where the children that needed help always got it and the folks who couldn't mind their own business didn't have the power to disrupt another family's life, but it doesn't work that way.

And FWIW, even children who are removed for very valid reasons and remain in care, the act of being removed is still very traumatic.  I had a trainer who had worked in CPS investigations and trainings for almost 30 years tell a brand new worker, when they asked how to make it better for a kid during removal say "You can't.  Right or wrong, you're the one who took them from their parents.  Nothing you say can make that better".

And no, there's no way to know for sure that the injuries are caused by their parents.  But like I said, although it isn't foolproof, workers are forced to look at lots of pictures of different injuries showing the difference between what a normal injury is vs one that might be caused by someone intentionally.  Plus, someone's got to make a call to the hotline and it wouldn't just be that a kid had an injury, they would have to have details about how the injury happened.  So there would have to be some information going in giving enough details to force an investigation about whether or not a parent and/or caretaker was causing injury.  

Unsanitary would be human/animal fecal matter in the home, garbage lying around the home, rotten or spoiled food easily accessible, broken/missing windows, no utilities, leaking gas, etc.  All of that *without* any attempt to resolve the issues.  So no, it wouldn't be on a first visit that the above would be cause for removal, but if a few days later or a week later, if no attempt had been made to resolve those issues, there might be an attempt to remove children (not an older child, but maybe an infant/toddler/special needs child).

And I guess I am not sure how to answer your question about how to know if the injury is serious enough or even if the child will be hurt worse.  Keep in mind that children and family members are interviewed (many times kids are interviewed at school), so a worker should have some idea who caused the injuries and should know what they are.  A  lot of parents who are abusing their children, are more likely to inflict more harm *after* a CPS worker makes a visit to the house.  I think part of it is just having worked in the field long enough to be able to know based on interviews and seeing a child if their injuries are caused by just being a kid or if there is something else going on.  I am sure that's not the answer you want and probably seems vague, but there are just things you keep a look out for when working with families in this way.  

And yes, it is subjective, I've mentioned that several times.  Law enforcement is subjective too, as is the court system.  Because no matter how we'd prefer otherwise, these are fun by humans who can't help but inject their own feelings/judgements/experiences into things.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

Originally Posted by Storm Bride 

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

Uh, that is very... Well I'm not sure I can say what it is... Believe it or not Canadians have rights too, including the right to be protected against illegal search and seizure. But you know what? There is still a thing called probably cause, even in the US.

True. And, in a legalistic sense, maybe "I don't want you in my home" counts as probable cause. In an ethical sense, it doesn't. It's not probable cause to believe anything is going on. Followed to its logical conclusion, a police officer or CPS worker could show up at anybody's house, say, "we believe there's such-and-such going on and we want to come in and investigate", and then go get a warrant when the homeowner refused. That's a joke.

Unfortunately legal and ethical are often not the same thing. I happen to hate the idea of "if you have nothing to hide then where is the problem?" just because it's not how things really are. But if it is legally probable cause, than means they can legally search your home.

I'm not arguing that. I never was. I just think it's completely asinine, and does nothing to protect anybody...and can subject both parents and children to a lot of unnecessary stress.
 

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride 

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

Originally Posted by Storm Bride 

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

Uh, that is very... Well I'm not sure I can say what it is... Believe it or not Canadians have rights too, including the right to be protected against illegal search and seizure. But you know what? There is still a thing called probably cause, even in the US.

True. And, in a legalistic sense, maybe "I don't want you in my home" counts as probable cause. In an ethical sense, it doesn't. It's not probable cause to believe anything is going on. Followed to its logical conclusion, a police officer or CPS worker could show up at anybody's house, say, "we believe there's such-and-such going on and we want to come in and investigate", and then go get a warrant when the homeowner refused. That's a joke.

Unfortunately legal and ethical are often not the same thing. I happen to hate the idea of "if you have nothing to hide then where is the problem?" just because it's not how things really are. But if it is legally probable cause, than means they can legally search your home.

I'm not arguing that. I never was. I just think it's completely asinine, and does nothing to protect anybody...and can subject both parents and children to a lot of unnecessary stress.
 

I think you an I are having different arguments then, 'cause I'm going off the post I originally replied too which said the refusal is not considered probable cause from a legal stand point.