4 ms·

They came up with that plan because the grandparents DID live nearby.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> They came up with that plan because the grandparents DID live nearby. Yes, these kind of ”no unsupervised time, but children remain with parents” agreements are one alternative that CPS sometimes gives, where what they see as suitable supervisers are available, to putting the children in temporary foster care during an investigation. They are justified in exactly the same cases where what they are an alternative to would be justified.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Putting children in a foster home is a higher legal barrier than a voluntary "Safety plan." Phrasing this as alternative is disingenuous. It's safe to assume if that legal barrier was actually met they would have put them in a foster home as staying with the parents would be too unsafe. The parents got bluffed by tyrants. Personally I would never open the door to, nor sign any document, nor speak with CPS outside of court proceedings. Let them gather whatever evidence they need with a warrant and enforce any order by mechanism of the judge rather than agreeing to whatever pompous authoritarian bullshit is spewed out by some 3rd-rate bureaucrat in a "voluntary safety plan." >”no unsupervised time, but children remain with parents” agreements are one alternative that CPS sometimes gives, IANAL but I don't think anyone but a judge can give that order, and I would certainly bet my freedom and even my life on that.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    But are judges better? https://www.yahoo.com/news/atlanta-judge-chews-lawyer-missed-231256232.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/atlanta-judge-chews-lawyer-missed...
    - notch656a 4y ago
      I'm not saying they're better, but would you rather just let it end with CPS and not get a hearing? To get a kid taken basically is going to require your consent or the holes lining up in the swiss cheese. I want as many layers in that swiss cheese as possible if the allegations against me are false. Stuff like due process is what our forefathers died to at least ostensibly give us.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        The interesting part is that CPS determined there was no abuse in this case. So yes, in this case it would have been better to end with CPS. Unfortunately, due process is whatever the judge say it is.
        notch656a 4y ago
        I'm not so sure. It appears the parents capitulated to two weeks of "safety plan" to CPS when there was no abuse at all. I don't see much functional difference between "CPS found no abuse and stopped there" and "CPS found no probable cause of abuse, then brought it to judge who said WTF with the safety plan without probable cause of abuse" other than the latter shut down the whole safety plan BS. CPS is basically the adversary in the court proceedings so I see the judge more as an additional layer in the swiss cheese rather than a replacement layer in the swiss cheese, which your previous statement seems to allude towards.
        giantg2 4y ago
        Did you read TFA? Nothing you are saying is matching up with the information. CPS is not the adversary in this case, nor did they bring it to a judge. The parents agreed to the surveillance plan. Unless they go to a judge for an order mandating it, it's voluntary. It's likely the lawyer recommended they go along with it. This is like the 5th time you've commented on my stuff while missing major information from the article, or simply going off on some random tangent.
        notch656a 4y ago

> They came up with that plan because the grandparents DID live nearby. Yes, these kind of ”no unsupervised time, but children remain with parents” agreements are one alternative that CPS sometimes gives, where what they see as suitable supervisers are available, to putting the children in temporary foster care during an investigation. They are justified in exactly the same cases where what they are an alternative to would be justified.

notch656a 4y ago
Putting children in a foster home is a higher legal barrier than a voluntary "Safety plan." Phrasing this as alternative is disingenuous. It's safe to assume if that legal barrier was actually met they would have put them in a foster home as staying with the parents would be too unsafe. The parents got bluffed by tyrants. Personally I would never open the door to, nor sign any document, nor speak with CPS outside of court proceedings. Let them gather whatever evidence they need with a warrant and enforce any order by mechanism of the judge rather than agreeing to whatever pompous authoritarian bullshit is spewed out by some 3rd-rate bureaucrat in a "voluntary safety plan." >”no unsupervised time, but children remain with parents” agreements are one alternative that CPS sometimes gives, IANAL but I don't think anyone but a judge can give that order, and I would certainly bet my freedom and even my life on that.
- giantg2 4y ago
  But are judges better? https://www.yahoo.com/news/atlanta-judge-chews-lawyer-missed-231256232.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/atlanta-judge-chews-lawyer-missed...
  - notch656a 4y ago
    I'm not saying they're better, but would you rather just let it end with CPS and not get a hearing? To get a kid taken basically is going to require your consent or the holes lining up in the swiss cheese. I want as many layers in that swiss cheese as possible if the allegations against me are false. Stuff like due process is what our forefathers died to at least ostensibly give us.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      The interesting part is that CPS determined there was no abuse in this case. So yes, in this case it would have been better to end with CPS. Unfortunately, due process is whatever the judge say it is.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        I'm not so sure. It appears the parents capitulated to two weeks of "safety plan" to CPS when there was no abuse at all. I don't see much functional difference between "CPS found no abuse and stopped there" and "CPS found no probable cause of abuse, then brought it to judge who said WTF with the safety plan without probable cause of abuse" other than the latter shut down the whole safety plan BS. CPS is basically the adversary in the court proceedings so I see the judge more as an additional layer in the swiss cheese rather than a replacement layer in the swiss cheese, which your previous statement seems to allude towards.
        giantg2 4y ago
        Did you read TFA? Nothing you are saying is matching up with the information. CPS is not the adversary in this case, nor did they bring it to a judge. The parents agreed to the surveillance plan. Unless they go to a judge for an order mandating it, it's voluntary. It's likely the lawyer recommended they go along with it. This is like the 5th time you've commented on my stuff while missing major information from the article, or simply going off on some random tangent.
        notch656a 4y ago