There was a success story here, albeit a small one.  A couple of parents, with no history of any abuse, made a mistake and allowed their children to be unsupervised one evening.  That was stupid, bu tthere was no pattern of neglect or abuse.

The children were taken away from the parents for a week, but a judge gave them back to the parents.  The parents still face charges as it was a bone headed stunt by them, but at least they have the children back in their care.

Small victories that seem to be the exception and not the rule.

Utilities WERE the primary reason, but I still don't think even in the situations you describe, the children should be necessarily removed.

First, what is "adequate" heat? In the 1800's, it was 55-60 degrees. We do not set the thermostat up to 68 degrees at our house, which is considered by some to be a mandatory minimum temperature. We disagree, and the rather low incidence of illness among ourselves and our children would seem to bear this out. This is what I mean by subjective criteria. To one social worker, 64 degrees might be adequate; to another, anything below 68 could be considered "neglectful"

As for the Amish, their children have been protected from removal under the first amendment. Homeless families have the benefit of homeless advocates to protect their rights, as under the standards used to justify the removal of children from certain families' homes, most homeless children would be subject to removal.

But going even further, what I found appalling about this judgement was the condition of involuntary servitude. The mother and father are both COURT ORDERED to go to work, the child support is set at $500 per month rather than a percentage of their salary, as is the case in most child support situations, and this is done with no real prospects of regaining their children (but, sadly enough, with the VERY REAL penalty of losing all access to their children entirely if they fail to comply). This is a gross injustice, and you would THINK you'd have attorneys lined up outside their door to take this case on. But, it's all about the Benjamins, and the ACLU doesn't touch child custody cases, and other attorneys can't make a name for themselves off of this case, which would have to be a pro bono case.

as for sgsmitty's comment, I don't overestimate the amount of users here. I PROPERLY estimate the power of exponential growth if even two readers forward the story to two others, and so forth. Since my numbers from OUTSIDE Joeuser range from 60-100 page views per day (how many of those are unique, I don't rightly know), and my numbers from within Joeuser are equally significant, it's reasonable to assume that there are plenty of readers to pass on this information.

You can flush a toilet without RUNNING water. Just dump a gallon and a half of water into the tank, and flush away. Likewise, clothes and dishes can be washed and baths can be taken without RUNNING water. IN the case of this family, there was no question they had the water available. They walked to the park every day and filled several jugs that they hauled back to the house on a wagon.

My problem was not necessarily with the involvement, but with the action. In the cases I listed, the CPS workers removed children from the home, from loving parents who may have not raised their children in a way I would have, but did at least love their children, as their actions showed. I don't disagree that there should have been SOME intervention, but I disagree TREMENDOUSLY with the interventions that were done. I don't "assume" anything, but I KNOW that in each of these cases, the parents were not able to have legal representation in keeping their children, they were presumed guilty until proven innocent, and that CPS workers performed actions without recourse that would have been deemed unconstitutional in a CRIMINAL investigation (the lack of criminal charges against the caregivers in these cases speaks VOLUMES...if they didn't have enough for a grand jury to even INDICT, why do they have enough to keep the children from their homes).

I have enough, and frankly, while I don't agree with the INITIAL CPS action, I can see where some merit is arguable. The problem I have, quite frankly, is that this family has complied with every demand of the court, the father has kept a job for over a year, and the state's NEW action is to force the mother into involuntary servitude (against the 13th amendment) with no promise of returning their children, or even of extended visitation rights. They NEVER had ANY intent of returning these children, as is becoming increasingly clear, no matter WHAT the parents do. Again, quite telling is the absence of ANY criminal charges against this family. Tell me, if you TRULY thought that a family was abusing/neglecting their children, wouldn't you want to see them behind bars?

IN this case, and many others, CPS has effectively kidnapped the children. As you well know, if your children are kidnapped, you will do anything to get them back.

Thanks for the link, but in this case I am actually well aware of the CASA system. They are the ones demanding that neighbors call them even if they have no evidence of abuse, but simply are suspicious of the way their neighbors are raising their child (no exaggeration....almost a direct quote from a CASA organizer). Since the vast majority of CPS cases involve children who are unwillingly removed from their parents' homes and want to be returned, I do not see where being an advocate "inside the system" would help.

I would rather (and am researching this) find a way where I could legally represent parents who have no access to legal counsel. I find it appalling that within our justice system such an action can be taken with NO legal representation mandated for the alleged abusers/neglectors.

While I appreciate your insight, as always, I will continue to reassert that my problem is NOT with removing children from an abusive/neglectful situation. My insistence, however, is based on the FACT that these parents have a RIGHT to their day in court; they have a RIGHT to face their accuser, and they have a RIGHT to a speedy and fair JURY trial to resolve their situation. The investigations should be done by TRAINED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, not some marginally employable loser with a philosophy degree acquired from an online correspondence course (ANYONE with a bachelor's degree in ANYTHING can become a CPS worker), and if the parents are guilty, charges should be pressed. You're right when you say that in many of these cases I don't have all the information; but the information that I DO have is that in ALL of these caes, the parents were denied their day in court, a right that Ted Bundy had and that a parent accused of abuse or neglect should CERTAINLY have.

What I DO have in the case I have detailed, is the fact that NO CRIMINAL COURT has EVER accused these parents of ANYTHING. And that tells me the court should be working to return these children home. Would you disagree?

Joe,

Valid points, but even with his 20 dollars a week, this man has certain visitation rights. These parents don't.

The problem in this case does not lie solely with the $500 child support (although it IS well above what many noncustodial fathers have been ordered to pay), but with the fact that the mother is court ordered to work as well, and that full compliance will not guarantee the return of their children. As stated before, these parents are legally innocent; they have not even been criminally CHARGED with illegal actions, let alone convicted. And their children were removed over a year ago.

What I believe the court is trying to do here is to financially force the parents to sign away their parental rights. The 18 month window (supposedly the maximum time a child is supposed to be in foster care) is nearing, no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing has been proven against the parents, and the court will be put into a situation where it must choose to permanently remove the children or return them to their home. They truly seem to be grasping at straws, looking at any way they can avoid returning these children to their parents.

Yeah, but I have a big problem with "acting" in the course of my work. I would have to get past that MAJOR hurdle.

Another possibility HAD occured to me (and is one of the reasons I write under a pseudonym), that I could use a CASA position to gather information that could help me should I gain the credentials to legally represent families who are victims of CPS. So your idea's totally without merit. But to me it would be like pretending to be an Al Qaeda member to get info on terrorism. Very difficult, and very risky.

I will definitely take it under advisement, though, and consider if it's worth the risk.

Well, we already provide student loans...why not economic improvement loans? If a family can prove that having a better car or more appropriate work clothes will improve their situation, why not provide a system that can get them what they need (and in some cases, that "need" may be job counselling...in the case enumerated here and elsewhere, I would say reasonably that there may be a need for family counselling once the children are returned, but the resources need to be available to provide it), and which they repay at interest based on their income.

It would certainly be a hell of a lot better than our current system.