# Neighbors calling CPS just to harrass us...



## aelial (Sep 27, 2007)

We are new (4 years) residents in a gentrifying neighborhood composed of mostly old-timers who've lived here all their lives and non-English speaking immigrants. We must be doing something to piss the neighbors off, because in the last 2.5 years we've had CPS set on us twice. The reports are obviously vindictive, not a concerned neighbor misinterpreting something. The latest incident was last night - a caseworker showed up and said that they got a call saying that our children are constantly outside naked in November, and that they were seen alone and naked in the car for hours at a time. (UPD: OK, I thought this was obvious, but apparently it needs to be stated - my kids have not been unattended in the car, clothed or otherwise; nor do they go outside naked in wintertime.)

The caseworker went through all the formalities, noted that our house is filled with clothes, books, food, and that everything is obviously OK, and left more or less satisfied with the situation. But I am on pins and needles because we don't vaccinate, which means they will be calling my pediatrician AGAIN to confirm that we are not religious nuts who deny our children healthcare. And she made me sign a release with my social security number to check against some city-wide mental health database, which really feels like an invasion of my privacy. And we co-sleep, which meant that I needed to explain about the family bed arrangement and attachment parenting theory, etc etc. As luck would have it, we did have the spare bed set up last night, so I just said that it is where my older child sleeps, but it was still unnerving. And worst of all, the children were actually both naked when she knocked at the door, because we were in the middle of finger-painting. So I am still not sure that I have heard the end of this. And of course, I don't know which of the neighbors called.

I feel extremely vulnerable to this kind of harrassment. My pediatrician is not 100% comfortable with us not vaccinating as it is, and if he starts receiving calls from CPS every month or two it could lead to a tense situation. And my kids ARE naked at home a lot of the time - not because I don't let them wear clothes, obviously, but try and explain about toddlers ripping their clothes off every chance they get to a early-20s college grad who just started in a social work job, and has no children of her own yet! Also we don't have health insurance at the moment, and pay for doctor visits out of pocket. I'm sure it's a situation that many families find themselves in, but combined with the no vaccinating and general lack of complaints I'm sure it makes us look like a cooky anti-medicine family. In short, while we are doing nothing wrong, I think we do enough things in an unusual way to make us look strange in the eyes of government agencies, and if the neighbors keep up their calls I am going to go crazy.

Has anyone been in this situation? What can I do? I don't even know which of the neighbors it was, and if I did I have no idea how to talk to them without stirring up even more conflict.


----------



## waiting2bemommy (Dec 2, 2007)

I would start chatting with one of my neighbors and say, "You know somebody called CPOS on me TWICE? they're not supposed to tell me who it is but it was so obvious, I mean, really....." let it hang in the air for a minute and then add, "She told me the next time CPS gets called out here on some bogus bulls*** we can go ahead and take police action and file a complaint against them. Around here you can get xyz months in jail for that, which would be pretty satisfying to me." and then don't bring it up again. If the neighborhood is an old timey as you say it is, then they all gossip, and this will spread like wildfire, enabling you to etiher a) live your life in peace because they're scared to call anymore or b)sniff out the snitch and handle the situation.

I have had CPS called on me too and it was a horrible experience, not helpful or peven pretending to want to be helpful AT ALL in any way shape or form. Therefore I have very strong feelings about this and I would not be above going after the person who sicced the gov't on me and my kids.


----------



## newbymom05 (Aug 13, 2005)

I just have to ask--were your kids really alone and naked in the car in Nov for extended periods of time? Because I'm all about AP and people tell me I'm pretty crunchy, but I would be concerned if I saw that too. Where I live, leaving your child unattended in the car, clothed or not, whatever the weather, is grounds for police intervention.

I don't think your neighbors are acting vindictively by reporting unattended toddlers. As far as your vaxing or not vaxing, your neighbors don't have any way of knowing that, nor do they know what goes on inside your home. If I were you, I'd just keep my kids clothed when visible to others outside, which IMHO is just common sense if you've ever checked your local predator database.

I'm sorry the CPS visit stressed you out, but it seems easy to prevent them in the future. Now if the neighbors made up the naked-unattended part, wow, that is vindictive.


----------



## aelial (Sep 27, 2007)

I thought it should have been obvious that my kids have never been unattended and naked in the car, or just unattended in the car, or naked outside in November. Does that really need to be stated specifically?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *newbymom05*
> 
> I just have to ask--were your kids really alone and naked in the car in Nov for extended periods of time? Because I'm all about AP and people tell me I'm pretty crunchy, but I would be concerned if I saw that too. Where I live, leaving your child unattended in the car, clothed or not, whatever the weather, is grounds for police intervention.
> 
> ...


----------



## Spring Lily (Sep 26, 2006)

I'm a little confused by this reasoning. It sounds like you haven't done anything to bother the neighbors and now they've called CPS twice. I'm not getting the reasoning behind the assumptions "we *must* be doing something to piss the neighbors off" and "the reports are *obviously vindictive*." Isn't it also possible that they are actually concerned?

Also, like the PP asked, is it true they were naked outside recently for a long period of time and unsupervised? Have they ever played in the car, unsupervised? If either of those are true, I wouldn't assume there is some neighborhood conspiracy, but maybe that they are concerned about the kids.

I can tell you that we have some neighbors that are perfectly nice, but one day their little boy was outside, inadequately dressed for the weather, for an hour, and ran into the street repeatedly. I kept walking him back and banging on the door but no one answered. So yes, I called the police. It was absolutely not personal at all, it was because I was worried and didn't know what was going on, or if someone was hurt and unable to get to the door or whatever. It was done out of caring. Isn't it possible your neighbors felt the same?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aelial*
> 
> We must be doing something to piss the neighbors off, because in the last 2.5 years we've had CPS set on us twice. The reports are obviously vindictive, not a concerned neighbor misinterpreting something.


----------



## aelial (Sep 27, 2007)

This is really blowing my mind. Of course my kids were not unsupervised in the car, or naked outdoors in winter. I wrote about the completely insane thing the neighbors acccused me of doing because it is so blatantly and obviously completely insane that it should be obvious to anyone that it is a lie told to CPS to get them to come out. I'm sorry that you have odd neighbors whose kids find themselves in such a predicament, but do you really think their parents read Mothering magazine and hang out on this forum???

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spring Lily*
> 
> I'm a little confused by this reasoning. It sounds like you haven't done anything to bother the neighbors and now they've called CPS twice. I'm not getting the reasoning behind the assumptions "we *must* be doing something to piss the neighbors off" and "the reports are *obviously vindictive*." Isn't it also possible that they are actually concerned?
> 
> ...


----------



## vegankelly (Feb 15, 2010)

Do NOT let CPS in your house.

Do NOT sign anything they give you.

IANAL, but CPS has no authority to enter your home, interview your kids, etc. WITHOUT A WARRANT. If they think your kids are abused, maybe let them *see* the kids so they know they are in no immediate danger and haven't been harmed. Especially if you live outside the norm (co-sleeping, extended BF, home school, non-vax, whatever), be ware.

People sometimes have nosy and vindictive neighbors, so be proactive in how you handle this next time.

Google "what to do when cps comes," or something like that. Most likely they will be called again.

So people don't freak out at me, yeah, CPS sometimes does good things like removing kids from abusive homes, but they also have been known to harass people for all kinds of "abuse" like BF, home schooling, etc. I also know people who were removed from their legitimately abusive homes as young adults and put into more abusive foster care situations. To be fair, I also know amazing parent-of-the-year caliber foster parents and kids who were in great foster homes.

Basically, you can't change your neighbors, so protect your family.


----------



## newbymom05 (Aug 13, 2005)

Your first post was unclear. "Vindictive" does not mean lying, you say that both kids were naked when CPS called, and that CPS wants to run you through their mental health database, and you seemed mainly concerned w/ not vaxing, so yeah, I asked if they were really unattended b/c it was unclear in your first post. No need to get defensive, just edit and/or explain. Based on the info you've sinced added, it's a totally different story from your first post, sorry I misunderstood the first one.


----------



## fruitfulmomma (Jun 8, 2002)

What vegankelly said. Stop letting CPS in. Without a warrant, they have no right in your home unless you give it to them. Use your fourth ammendment rights. Find a lawyer and let them do all communications.


----------



## waiting2bemommy (Dec 2, 2007)

I don't want to hijack the thread, but when CPS was called on me I tried this --I really DID have a lawyer to call, too-- and the CPS lady told me that if I i didn't let her in OR sign the paperwork that she would have to take custody of my ds on the spot. She threatened to call the cops if necessary to enforce it. And fwiw the entire thing ended up being dismissed as totally unwarranted/unfounded, but they DID call the police because of what I said, even thought I eventually relented and let her into the house. She said it was for "safety" which made no sense to me, as I was 3 months pregnant, extremely sick and not in the position to do any kind of physical anything. So even though I had heard this about them having no rights without a warrant I don't know hat I would count on it actually being effective in a real life situation.


----------



## Spring Lily (Sep 26, 2006)

I was not trying to offend you. In your first post you mentioned those things and never mentioned them not being true. Who knows what you do or do not allow your kids to do, regardless of what magazines you read or where you post. There is a broad range of APers; it's best not to assume things based on if they post here or not. Therefore, it might be a blatant lie to YOU but WE do not know you! I was thinking, maybe your kids snuck outside while you were in the shower and your neighbors saw that you didn't come out right away. These things happen and are normal but could be misinterpreted.

I don't know what the circumstances were, you didn't give enough information, and you said you did nothing to your neighbors but they were trying to get back at you (being "vindictive"), which just doesn't add up. so I just asked. No need to be upset about being unclear and someone asking you about it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aelial*
> 
> This is really blowing my mind. Of course my kids were not unsupervised in the car, or naked outdoors in winter. I wrote about the completely insane thing the neighbors acccused me of doing because it is so blatantly and obviously completely insane that it should be obvious to anyone that it is a lie told to CPS to get them to come out. I'm sorry that you have odd neighbors whose kids find themselves in such a predicament, but do you really think their parents read Mothering magazine and hang out on this forum???


----------



## fruitfulmomma (Jun 8, 2002)

Quote:


> I don't want to hijack the thread, but when CPS was called on me I tried this --I really DID have a lawyer to call, too-- and the CPS lady told me that if I i didn't let her in OR sign the paperwork that she would have to take custody of my ds on the spot. She threatened to call the cops if necessary to enforce it. And fwiw the entire thing ended up being dismissed as totally unwarranted/unfounded, but they DID call the police because of what I said, even thought I eventually relented and let her into the house. She said it was for "safety" which made no sense to me, as I was 3 months pregnant, extremely sick and not in the position to do any kind of physical anything. So even though I had heard this about them having no rights without a warrant I don't know hat I would count on it actually being effective in a real life situation.


A common scare tactic by CPS workers. They will lie to you in order to scare you into getting into your home.


----------



## waiting2bemommy (Dec 2, 2007)

ok but she really did call the police. I guess she must have told them that I was threatening to attack her maybe? I don't know. But I just don' see how else this could have played out. The police came out and everything.


----------



## aelial (Sep 27, 2007)

They don't want to run me specifically through the mental health database, they do it to every family they come out to investigate. Which I think is a disgusting breach of privacy, and seems to be a recent innovation since I don't remember anything of the kind the last time they came around (I hadn't done what I was accused of doing the first time CPS came at me either, in case this needs to be stated as well... sheesh).

I'm getting defensive because it never occurred to me that somebody on Mothering.com would think I actually leave my children alone in the car for hours. Your comment really took me by surprise.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *newbymom05*
> 
> Your first post was unclear. "Vindictive" does not mean lying, you say that both kids were naked when CPS called, and that CPS wants to run you through their mental health database, and you seemed mainly concerned w/ not vaxing, so yeah, I asked if they were really unattended b/c it was unclear in your first post. No need to get defensive, just edit and/or explain. Based on the info you've sinced added, it's a totally different story from your first post, sorry I misunderstood the first one.


----------



## aelial (Sep 27, 2007)

Regarding CPS and the fourth amendment:

As I wrote, this is the second time we've had this happen. The last time my older (and then only) child was 1.5 years old. When the CPS caseworker came out, I did exactly what some of you here are suggesting - ask for a warrant, and deny the caseworker access to my home when he failed to produce one. I was polite, and offered to talk to him on the porch. My son was with me, and plainly OK. The next day the cops were at my house, battering down my door, screaming. I didn't open the door for the cops either, and politely asked the officer if he had a warrant, and if I could have his name. The guy screamed that they were going to kick my door down and arrest me. I couldn't tell if this was a bluff, and got really scared, so I called a lawyer and jumped in a cab to see him as soon as the cops pulled out. When the lawyer called DHS (department of human services, as the agency is called here in Philly), he learned that they had ALREADY filed a request for a restraining order against me with a local judge. The lawyer said that in his experience, 8 times out of 10 these were granted over the $#@&! phone, and the children were removed into a foster home immediately pending investigation. So while I could, in fact, use the 4th amendment to deny government agencies access to my home, and once the case got to court the judge would likely rule in my favor, my child would be staying in a foster home while the court date was being arranged. I found a database with statistics of children being removed from the home pending a CPS investigation - Pennsylvania was one of the top three states in the country, with something like a ridiculous 75-80% of investigations in which children were removed pending investigation, and only 30% of investigations eventually finding abuse. It looked like the lawyer was telling the truth, so we decided to follow his suggestion and voluntarily make an appointment with DHS to come into the house and do what they needed to do, in return for having the restraining order request cancelled.

So it seems to me that the ability of CPS to carry through with their threats varies by locality, with some cities and states being more dangerous than others. Philadelphia, where I live, is one of the most removal-happy places in the country as far as I can tell


----------



## LROM (Sep 10, 2008)

There may be some differences between the states on what I'm about to say, but in the 5 or 6 states where I know the law re: this issue, it is absolutely NOT TRUE that CPS or the police need a warrant to see your kids and, if they deem it necessary, take them. You have to keep in mind that usually (*not* *always* as we know from many stories, but usually) the urgency of this kind of threat is because of the nature of what was reported.

Because of the nature of child abuse, even a report that initially doesn't sound like requires removal (I don't think naked in the yard or naked in the car immediately, in and of itself, warrants removal if shown to be true), once the ball is rolling with a report of something serious enough to investigate, a resistant parent who refuses to talk to the worker raises the concern and CPS DOES have the right to insist on seeing the child.

I'm not saying this is fair all the time, nor productive all the time, and I know a few instances personally where children were taken for very wrong reasons/judgements and it's damaging to all involved. But I am also pointing out that the law of many states does allow CPS to take custody of kids who are believed to be in "imminent danger" and the definition of what's "imminent danger" can vary greatly from state to state and even office to office.

While it is absolutely awful when CPS barges in and takes custody of kids for obviously insufficient or ridiculous reasons, I can tell you I can count on one hand the number of times parents have said there was no reason and, when you investigate, there wasn't some serious problem (i.e. actual abuse/neglect). That's why when the allegations are serious enough (not saying they are in this case, just generally) and the parent resists opening the door, in many states the law weighs on the side of the agency charged with protecting the children. Because if the parent is hiding because they know something is wrong, that worker may not have another chance to come back and get the child if the problem is serious enough. That is the scenario CPS is worried about.

Again, in this case, it sounds like the initial report is silly although is serious enough to need to be followed up on. Sounds like the workers realized quickly and appropriately that the kids were fine. I think it's very messed up that neighbors would blatantly make up stories about a family for any reason, but I also understand why CPS gets even more concerned if parents refuse to open the door or allow contact with the kids, even though I also get why in your situation you'd want to keep them out.


----------



## zombie (Dec 8, 2007)

Get some better curtains so your neighbors can't see your naked kids in the house.


----------



## alexsam (May 10, 2005)

Everything LROM said. Social workers see a lot of crazy, scary stuff. Having worked in the field, you never know what you will find when that door opens. You could have a lovely smiling mom in a nice house telling you how all is well and the door opens up to things you can't *unsee*. And when some little thing you are ready to "check out and cross off" turns into "get a warrant" 1.) There is not way I could see *not* getting a warrant/calling the police because the issue still stands and I have no additional information to discredit it. 2.) I get really nervous because I have *no* idea why I am being barred- Is it a boyfriend on the couch who has been skipping parole? Is is some other horrible thing? Or is it a concerned and educated parent exercising their rights? I don't know why, but it's my job to see the kids are safe, so I'm going to do what I need to for the door to open. 3.) Social workers have their own experiences that shape their ideas. So, you remember the child where you missed the signs. You remember the lovely mom you interviewed after "bogus" claims to find horrible things later. And it makes you promise to not let that happen again. So "get a warrant" sends up a million feelings that are not entirely related to what is going on with you (which, you don't really want).

In short, I could not *imagine* if someone said "get a warrant" that I would *not* do that and most likely, call the police (who CAN come in if there is reason to believe that the children are in danger).

So, while it may be within your rights, I would use that with great seriousness.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alexsam*
> 
> Everything LROM said. Social workers see a lot of crazy, scary stuff. Having worked in the field, you never know what you will find when that door opens. You could have a lovely smiling mom in a nice house telling you how all is well and the door opens up to things you can't *unsee*. And when some little thing you are ready to "check out and cross off" turns into "get a warrant" 1.) There is not way I could see *not* getting a warrant/calling the police because the issue still stands and I have no additional information to discredit it. 2.) I get really nervous because I have *no* idea why I am being barred- Is it a boyfriend on the couch who has been skipping parole? Is is some other horrible thing? Or is it a concerned and educated parent exercising their rights? I don't know why, but it's my job to see the kids are safe, so I'm going to do what I need to for the door to open. 3.) Social workers have their own experiences that shape their ideas. So, you remember the child where you missed the signs. You remember the lovely mom you interviewed after "bogus" claims to find horrible things later. And it makes you promise to not let that happen again. So "get a warrant" sends up a million feelings that are not entirely related to what is going on with you (which, you don't really want).
> 
> ...


But police have to have probably cause, and third party "Someone called and said ....." doesn't constitute probably cause. Yes, they would probably try to get a warrant, but that requires going in front of a judge and asking for one, and then you might get one, or you might not. The CPS call on me was about "she doesn't respond to the baby's cries when someone else is holding him" Ummm...I DO NOT think a judge would have granted a warrant based on that!


----------



## dakotablue (Jun 21, 2009)

Do this, seriously, my grandmother and her friends are like that. I really think you should deal with passive aggressive behavior this way. It would be very affective.

I seriously doubt that you are doing anything that would even begin to warrant a call, but I do agree that maybe invest in some better curtains, I HATE nosey neighbors. I'm fortunate that my crazy neighbor is actually anti police. I've been waiting for the call when CPS shows up from some bogus thing and I have to explain that we are approved foster parents. I've been careful to make sure I've gone to the ped just to have record of medical intervention even though we don't vax. I wouldn't have put it past my MIL (out of 'concern' of course) but she also doesn't yet know we aren't vaxing.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *waiting2bemommy*
> 
> I would start chatting with one of my neighbors and say, "You know somebody called CPOS on me TWICE? they're not supposed to tell me who it is but it was so obvious, I mean, really....." let it hang in the air for a minute and then add, "She told me the next time CPS gets called out here on some bogus bulls*** we can go ahead and take police action and file a complaint against them. Around here you can get xyz months in jail for that, which would be pretty satisfying to me." and then don't bring it up again. If the neighborhood is an old timey as you say it is, then they all gossip, and this will spread like wildfire, enabling you to etiher a) live your life in peace because they're scared to call anymore or b)sniff out the snitch and handle the situation.
> 
> I have had CPS called on me too and it was a horrible experience, not helpful or peven pretending to want to be helpful AT ALL in any way shape or form. Therefore I have very strong feelings about this and I would not be above going after the person who sicced the gov't on me and my kids.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Refusal to comply with a police request is often considered probable cause. That is the reason they can arrest you for drinking and driving if you refuse a sobriety test. It's the idea of "if you have nothing to hide then why refuse?"


----------



## alexsam (May 10, 2005)

Right... I'ts gotta be something where danger is involved.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Refusal to comply with a police request is often considered probable cause. That is the reason they can arrest you for drinking and driving if you refuse a sobriety test. It's the idea of "if you have nothing to hide then why refuse?"


Yeah - and that idea makes some sense when you're talking about a breathalyzer (although I have heard of false readings, so I can kind of get it). It doesn't make sense when you're talking about not wanting a total stranger, who has the power to potentially take your children away, into your house. I think CPS workers (at least the good ones, which I'm forced to accept probably exist) look at this as "I'm a nice, well meaning person, so they must be hiding something awful if they don't want me around" and overlook the fact that the parents know nothing about them, except that they (the CPS workers) have all the power, and can use it on the single most vulnerable point the parents have. Turn it around. All I know about a person is that they work for the government and they have the power to take away my kids...and that's all supposed to be reason to trust them in my home?


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Can they arrest if you refuse a sobriety test or a breathalyzer? I know that when we get a drivers license we sign away our right to refuse a breathalyzer, but a sobriety test is a different thing altogether.

And, for the police to show up at your house, and rely on a social worker, telling them what a person said (when they didn't even talk to that caller themselves), that does not amount to probably cause. Even if they deny the officer's request to enter the home. An arrest also does not allow the police to search your home, if you have denied them entrance - they may reasonably search your person, but not your home. Our 4th amendment right protecting us from unreasonable search and seizure doesn't allow that. It also wouldn't allow a third party to search our home - which would be the social worker. To enter, the social worker needs to speak with a judge to get a warrant allowing - a police officer is not allowed to make that decision.

Whether it happens or not is a different story, but it would not be an acceptable use of "power".

I hope that made sense. I'm exhausted.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


But someone who fails to stand on one foot or touch a finger to their nose is not by default drunk. Refusing a Breathalyzer is considered enough cause to arrest because the risk of letting someone who is drunk drive is considered to great a risk. The same mindset is going on with cops and CPS. The risk of a parent hiding serious abuse is considered too great a risk.

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


----------



## waiting2bemommy (Dec 2, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


exactly. it's a chance you're taking that has a lot of variables.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


 I'm a pretty stubborn individual and I don't like to back down (even when I should), but this is one of the things in my life that I am not willing to take a chance on. It's true that it's not an accaeptable use of power, but standing up to an apparent injustice might cost me my kids.

The whole thing confuses me. I've had a police officer come to my home to do a "welfare check" and he came into the house without knocking. I didn't know he was there until he knocked on my bedroom door. I tried to tell him I didn't want to open the door and he told me I HAD to and that he had already seen me through the window. This upset me even more because I was undressed, lying across my bed, and ds was in only underwear. It creeped me out that he had been looking at me unclothed through my window and then proceeded to let himself into the house through an unlocked door.

It seems to me that there is a HUGE disparity between what is supposed to happen and what actually does happen.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> But someone who fails to stand on one foot or touch a finger to their nose is not by default drunk. Refusing a Breathalyzer is considered enough cause to arrest because the risk of letting someone who is drunk drive is considered to great a risk. The same mindset is going on with cops and CPS. The risk of a parent hiding serious abuse is considered too great a risk.
> 
> In the end, the point is that cops can and do use refusal to comply as probable cause to enter a home.


But I'm not convinced that police officers are allowed to enter a home just b/c they think they have probable cause. I haven't taken Criminal Procedure, but I'll check with a friend to satisfy my own curiosity, but I'm almost certain that when officers have probable cause to arrest, they can only search the person and their immediate surroundings - which, would not necessarily include the home if they are standing outside it. And an officer would not be able to grant that authority to a third party - that would be an abuse of power. And officers do abuse their power in some situations, but thats a different thread.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

And then there is always the question - is this a battle that I can win, and if so, will I lose the war?

Having your kids taken from you, for any length of time, regardless of the circumstances, is terribly traumatic to the children. I think the bigger question is, what will protect your children in the immediate and long term? Being resistant to someone who has been ordered to investigate potential harm being done to your kids is not necessarily a good policy, when that person is mandated to make sure your kids are not being harmed by YOU.

Please note, I am not saying roll over and do everything they say. But refusing to let them in or requiring them to get a warrant to take it to the next level, WILL most likely result in the investigation being taken to the next level. Pick you battles, is my advice.

I liked the gossipy neighbor idea - very good at letting it be known that there will be consequences for bs behavior.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *waiting2bemommy*
> 
> I'm a pretty stubborn individual and I don't like to back down (even when I should), but this is one of the things in my life that I am not willing to take a chance on. It's true that it's not an accaeptable use of power, but standing up to an apparent injustice might cost me my kids.
> 
> ...


A welfare check is different b/c someone called the police concerned about you, asking them to check on you - that gives them probable cause and they are then required to make sure you are living and breathing - that requires talking to you. Yes, its a little creepy, but it is what it is (my mom has called the police to do welfare checks on my brothers - they don't answer the phone when they go off to college the first time, and then they learn that if they don't talk to my mom she will call the police!)

I'm not saying that people should deny CPS entrance to their home just based on principle - just explaining that they have the right to, and trying to shed some light on how that works.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


I get that. It is what it is. I simply completely disagree with it. There's really no good reason for a sober person to refuse to do a breathalyzer. There are good reasons why people don't want CPS in their homes.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


The reason a sober person might refuse a breathalyzer is the same reason that someone doesn't want CPS in their home when there is nothing going on, they consider it a violation of privacy.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Police are permitted to search a private property without a warrant if they have the reasonable belief of illegal activity. And yes, refusal to let them in and a CPS complain would be enough that they can argue probable cause. They can't just walk up to a random house and ask to enter and call it probable cause if you say no, but if CPS calls and says "we have this family that has been reported for suspected abuse/neglect and they won't let us in" and said family refuses the police request to enter the premises, that would be probable cause.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Also that. Police are operating under the assumption that something is wrong to begin with. Someone is hurt, or dead. So they have different rules to follow there. Though the first part is knocking, and if there is no answer announcing their presence as a police officer and stating they intend to enter the residence.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Random Disclaimer: I am in Canada and the course I took was Introduction to Canadian Law, so this is not necessarily the way it's done in the US.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> The reason a sober person might refuse a breathalyzer is the same reason that someone doesn't want CPS in their home when there is nothing going on, they consider it a violation of privacy.


I've heard that before. I don't get it. The only information revealed by a breathalyzer is your BAC. Since it is illegal to drive with a BAC above a certain amount (even if the provincial government seems a little iffy about what that amount actually is), there's good reason to gather information. In the case of CPS entering my home, there's a lot of information available to them, and it's not information they have any need to have. (And, this could be something really simple, like what colour my undies are, because I have clean laundry on the couch.) They're not looking at my BAC - they're looking at my life.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


And in the case of a complaint against you, your life is what they need to know about. Not the colour of your undies, but are you feeding your kids? Keeping them clean and dressed (or as clean and dressed as possible)? Are you beating them? Doing drugs or selling them from your living room while your kids watch TV? And just because you don't think a breathalyzer is invasive, it doesn't mean that other people don't. It's all about personal comfort. I personally would have no problem letting a social working take a walk through my house to make sure the kids are fine.


----------



## waiting2bemommy (Dec 2, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


 the problem is that one (BAC) is very cut and dry (either you're over the limit or not) while the other (CPS) is very much subjective and open to interpretation, which is quite possibly going to be colored by the individual worker's own bias or experiences. I don't have anything to hide, either, but that doesn't mean I would be comfortable with a CPS worker showing up and touring my home at this moment.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


This could very well be true. However, the officer would not be allowed to permit the CPS social worker to search the house or to do an investigation - different standards for police officers/CPS workers. The PO may be able to assess for immediate danger, and if there is none, write a report, but the social worker would still have to see a judge to get their own warrant.

And, Canadian laws are definitely different, although I don't know in what ways since I'm in the US!

And as far as breathalyzer's go, in the US if you have a drivers license you have signed away your right to refuse one - probably cause or not. In Canada that may not be true. If you refuse a breathalyzer in the US, you are not being arrested for drunk driving, but for refusing something you consented to when you signed your license (and since an unsigned license isn't valid....). I'm not sure exactly how it works, but its not fair, its an invasion of privacy, and its dumb. Our govt has decided to make drunk driving a priority however, and so it is what it is.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> And in the case of a complaint against you, your life is what they need to know about. Not the colour of your undies, but are you feeding your kids? Keeping them clean and dressed (or as clean and dressed as possible)? Are you beating them? Doing drugs or selling them from your living room while your kids watch TV? And just because you don't think a breathalyzer is invasive, it doesn't mean that other people don't. It's all about personal comfort. I personally would have no problem letting a social working take a walk through my house to make sure the kids are fine.


People can consider a breathalyzer invasive if they want to. The simple fact is that the only information that can be obtained from a breathalyzer is the information needed to determine if the law has been broken. That is not the case for a house visit from CPS.

I would definitely have a problem with a social worker coming into my house. I'd go along with it, because I've seen what happens when they get vindictive, but I would find it invasive, and they absolutely have access to information that has nothing to do with what they need to know. I'm aware that they wouldn't be there to find out what colour my undies are - that's kind of my point, actually. I don't like having strangers in my house. I especially don't like having strangers who could potentially take my kids away in my house. No - I've never seen them take kids away from "good" parents...but I've certainly seen them take kids from parents who were not abusive and not neglectful. They give me the creeps.

ETA: They can't tell if someone is selling drugs if there doesn't happen to be evidence at the time. They can't tell if you're beating your kids by touring your house. They can't tell if you're feeding your kids by touring your house (yes - I've seen the "fridge is empty" thing used as evidence that kids aren't being fed - it happened to be that woman's shopping day, and her kids are all visibly well fed...actually, probably overfed, but definitely not starving). They also can't tell if your kids are dressed adequately by touring your house. My kids are frequently naked in the house, which would only be an issue if htey went outside naked in the cold or something...which they don't, and which you also can't tell by coming into my home. Sure - there are things you can find only by doing a home visit - but most of what you've listed doesn't qualify.

The whole point is that they can consider a refusal to let them into the house to be "probable cause" that something abusive/neglectful is going on. But, it's not. Some people are afraid of CPS with good reason...including me.


----------



## chiromamma (Feb 24, 2003)

As a LLL Leader, I had to defend a divorced mother's right to nurse her 4 year old when the dad called CPS.

It went on for a long time. Was it CPS or the dad driving it? Dad felt the mom was using nursing to keep him from having equal custody...a fair enough stance. I've seen moms dominate the relationship with nurslings. I know the actual case worker I communicated with was open to being educated and tried her hardest to understand. Ultimately, the divorce court dealt with the issue...I somehow ended up involved the whole time. Uhg.

The point I'm trying to make is the case worker was faced with something she was unfamiliar with but she really had the kid's best interest as her main objective.

While the workers sometimes make mistakes and the departments are grossly underfunded, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt that they have child safety as their first priority.

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.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Sep 25, 2008)

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 (Sep 27, 2007)

Quote:


> 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 (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Sep 27, 2007)

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

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


----------



## chiromamma (Feb 24, 2003)

Quote:


> 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 (Sep 25, 2008)

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 (Feb 24, 2003)

Quote:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Sep 23, 2008)

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 (Sep 25, 2008)

Quote:


> 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 (Sep 25, 2008)

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?


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aelial*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


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 (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bella99*
> 
> Here are some example of what might used to show "imminent danger of serious harm".
> 
> ...


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 (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> 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 (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bella99*
> 
> Here are some example of what might used to show "imminent danger of serious harm".
> 
> ...


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 (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:
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 (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


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 (Sep 25, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


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 (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


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 (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


My post, or the other poster's comment about the 4th Amendment?


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Way back on the first page. This post here.

I wasn't arguing whether it was a good thing or not, just it is the way it is.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bella99*
> 
> 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.


You're right, it isn't the answer I want. My problem with CPS though, is that my worker was obviously very new, had probably just graduated from her MSW (was younger than I am I'm almost positive), and told me that I couldn't be alone with my child when HE ADMITTED PINNING ME TO THE FLOOR. Shouldn't that have been setting off red flags like CRAZY?????

I mean seriously, someone gave her the authority to tell me that I couldn't be alone with my child, when my ex admitted that he was being abusive, and then her supervisor AGREED WITH HER when we met with the supervisor - AFTER I explained everything. I couldn't tell her ANYTHING when she visited my home b/c my ex was THERE. And so I wasn't allowed to be alone with my child, I have my ex on TAPE threatening me with taking my child away from me, him telling me that I couldn't do anything with ds unless his mother AGREED (like, decide what to feed him, whether he can or cannot go for a walk, take him into the bedroom and shut the door to get some privacy from a stalker basically), and they STILL said that I couldn't be alone with him. My ex told them that b/c I had ppd I was a danger to my child - um....NOT TRUE.

After she spoke to my therapist she FINALLY said that I could be alone with my child, b/c my therapist told her that YES I was in an abusive relationship, that YES I was depressed - my abuser lived with me! DUH.

I believe that you are experienced enough, but my worker OBVIOUSLY wasn't. And my child was happy, obviously well fed (not fat, just big cheeks and healthy looking), he'd never even had a diaper rash, was walking at 10mo (more like running, but was DEFINITELY on target developmentally), he might have had a few bruises from falling on the hard wood but was just very very well taken care of. The fact that his ped even CALLED (based on false information given to him by my ex and my ex's mother, at an appointment I knew NOTHING about) was insane - there was NOTHING on my child to even SUGGEST neglect/abuse. NOTHING. My worker instead just believed every.single.thing.my.ex.said. When really, as soon as he said that he pinned me to the floor, she should have been giving me resources so that I could get out of my abusive situation, rather than put constraints on me about when/how I could be alone with my child.


----------



## DaughterOfKali (Jul 15, 2007)

I haven't read all of the replies but is it possible to move once cps closes the case and deems the allegations as unfounded? It doesn't sound like a neighborhood I would want to raise my children in.

Best of luck to you.


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

To refuse entry is not reason for probably cause.

When I had CPS show up at my door, their "reported offense" was neglect. That I let my children play unsupervised in my own front yard.

When the SW showed up at my door, she was livid that I would not let her in. I asked her for her reasons. I opened my door so she could visually see the inside of my house without stepping in. And I brought my children on the porch to say hi, so she could see them. She still insisted that she HAD to come in. I flat out told her no, not without a warrant.

She sat in our drive way and called the cops. When the police arrived, they talked for a while. He came to our door with her and asked if we would let her in. I told him no, not without a warrant. I explained the "incident", I opened my door for him to see my house, I showed him my children. I was polite and kind. He asked why all our windows were covered (apparently the CW had tried looking in all our windows before ringing our door bell, presumably to find evidence for probably cause) and I told him we had just moved in and had not even unpacked the curtains yet (which has since led me to keep all my windows covered completely). He said thank you and told her he could not enter without a warrant. She went mad! Literally. She ordered him to make us let her in our house. But he said that without a warrant he could not legally do that, and that there was no cause.

So, just refusal does not equal probable cause. From my experience, anyways.


----------



## klaus (Nov 28, 2010)

Is this how the story ended? We were in a very similar situation in PA. The cop was extremely rude and intimidating. Case worker claimed to have gone on to get a restraining order from a juvenile court judge to force us into cooperation. We talked to a lawyer, understood that this is a real danger, and settled to let the worker in. There didn't seem to be any other reasonable path to take at the time.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kidzaplenty*
> 
> To refuse entry is not reason for probably cause.
> 
> ...


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *klaus*
> 
> Is this how the story ended? We were in a very similar situation in PA. The cop was extremely rude and intimidating. Case worker claimed to have gone on to get a restraining order from a juvenile court judge to force us into cooperation. We talked to a lawyer, understood that this is a real danger, and settled to let the worker in. There didn't seem to be any other reasonable path to take at the time.
> 
> ...


The difference I think with Kidzaplenty is that she showed the police officer her kids, and allowed him to look in her home. He obviously saw that there was no immediate danger to anyone, and while the POLICE OFFICER could enter the home with probable cause (which depends on the officer), they CANNOT order that you allow anyone ELSE to enter (the Social Worker) without a court order.


----------



## Geist (Jan 27, 2010)

"probable cause" is definitely not created by refusing to let a CPS or Police officer into your house without a warrent. It just makes them more determined to get into your house because you're exercising your rights and they're probably not used to it. Most people don't know or don't think that they have the right to refuse entry or are told just to let them in because it will be easier on them (the parent or homeowner if they do). However, the fewer people actually assert their rights, the less police/CPS/government people anticipate it. So the more suspicious they are when you do. At any rate, if CPS were called on me, I would absolutely deny them entry into my house. I would open the door and talk with them, but would make it very clear that any entry into my home would depend on a warrant. An article I read a while back (but have been unable to find) also recommended having a plan set up in case CPS comes to your door and they recommended having a friend or a spouse or a relative willing to take your children over to their house in case the police are called out so that the child isn't taken away unnecessarily (especially in areas of the country where this is common. Then when a warrant is obtained, if the CPS worker/police ask where the child/ren is/are, simply mention that they had a prior arrangement at a friend's/relatives' house and leave it at that. Be friendly, but be guarded. The fact that the vast majority of CPS cases opened are unnecessary makes these precautions quite reasonable in my mind. Getting your kid out of the foster care system once he gets placed in there seems to be so impossible, I would hate to risk it.

As far as the neighbors are concerned, I would definitely do what a PP suggested and be passive aggressive against it. It would irritate me to no end to know that my own neighbors were trying to have my child taken from me for no good reason.


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *klaus*
> 
> Is this how the story ended? We were in a very similar situation in PA. The cop was extremely rude and intimidating. Case worker claimed to have gone on to get a restraining order from a juvenile court judge to force us into cooperation. We talked to a lawyer, understood that this is a real danger, and settled to let the worker in. There didn't seem to be any other reasonable path to take at the time.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> The difference I think with Kidzaplenty is that she showed the police officer her kids, and allowed him to look in her home. He obviously saw that there was no immediate danger to anyone, and while the POLICE OFFICER could enter the home with probable cause (which depends on the officer), they CANNOT order that you allow anyone ELSE to enter (the Social Worker) without a court order.


I guess I did not make it abundantly clear. The Officer was not allowed into my home either. Just allowed to stick his head in the door and look.

How this ended was at some future point I did allow a worker to walk into my living room. She was not allowed past the livingroom, which was the the entry into my home. She insisted that she had to interview my children privately, I told her that I would not allow that but that she could ask them questions with me there. She said she would be back. I had three other visits from CPS after this (regarding this investigation), none of them were allowed into my home or even to see my children (since they had already seen that they were fine). All said they would get in. All said that I had to let them in. All said they could get a warrant. I refused to sign their papers. I refused to sign their "plan of action" (I had done nothing wrong). I refused to sign even the paper they gave me saying I was refusing to sign their papers (a great item I might add). I finally got a letter a month or two later saying case was closed. I just refused to deal with them. Was VERY polite, but held my ground 100%.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> Way back on the first page. This post here.
> 
> ...


Gotcha. Yes - we were talking at cross purposes. I thought you were saying they had probable cause, in the sense that a refusal to let someone in was a justifiable reason to think they were hiding something...not just that it was a legal cause to search.


----------



## beenmum (Nov 29, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> 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.


I think I would avoid being confrontational. The CPS is the LAST group of people I am gonna throw attitude at. Why? B/c they have the irght to remove your child.

The workers go by the gold standard "People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing."

Nothing peeks their "Something is hinky" meter more then a parent who refuses them entry when they are there to ensure your childs safety.

I would love to say "They have no formed opinion about you prior to meeting you.". But thats not necessarily true. They drive up your road collecting subconscious data. You live in a nice upper class area...they are less likly to be invasive from the oneset. You live in a lower class area, they are more likily to be insistant.

However, they are there b/c they have been called to check on your childs welfare.

The very least thing you should do is refuse them. That isnt going to get you anywhere. TO them its like admitting guilt.

In their mind...they dont want to be there. Half the time the case is already closed in their mind (oh, its some nosey neighbour, or the kid probably fell off the bed and hit his head." )

They arent going in assuming its abuse. They dont want the headache of removing a kid. They dont like it. they want it to be nothing. They have 40 more visits to get through that week.

But the minute they bring their overworked butts up to that door...and you say "No way. Show me your warrent. Your not seeing or talking to my kid." Then you have just placed a bullseye on your and your kids heads.

B/c they ARE going to get in. And now they are goign in with the info that you had soemthing to hide.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beenmum*
> 
> B/c they ARE going to get in. And now they are goign in with the info that you had soemthing to hide.


But they DO NOT have the info that you have something to hide. They know that you refused entry - thats IT. In my case, my ex's mother HAD formed an opinion of me before she met me, b/c even though we lived in a very nice area, the CW spoke with my ex's mother before I even got HOME. I got home a few minutes later, with my ex. She already thought I was out of my mind crazy, b/c my ex's mother told her many many many lies about how nutso I was. Then my ex proceeded to tell her more. And then she believed him, and told me I couldn't be alone with my child, even though my child was THRIVING - very obviously thriving, and had nothing on him, or looked ANYTHING like an abused or neglected child.


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Super~Single~Mama*
> 
> And then she believed him, and told me I couldn't be alone with my child, even though my child was THRIVING - very obviously thriving, and had nothing on him, or looked ANYTHING like an abused or neglected child.


Children who are abused & neglected can look as if they're thriving. From all outward appearances, I looked like a wonderful child with a perfect life. My sociopathic mother could fool people easily t by saying & doing the right things. My life was a nightmare, but it didn't look that way. I think you're bringing your preconceptions of what an "abused and neglected child" looks like into the picture, and that clouds why you can't see that the social worker didn't just take you at your word because of how your child looks when she had 2 other adults with intimate knowledge of your life saying you were mentally unstable.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VisionaryMom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Umm... yeah, did you read my post upthread? M ex ADMITTED THAT HE PINNED ME TO THE FLOOR DURING AN ARGUMENT (the night before she came). That is PHYSICAL ABUSE OF ME. That should have set off HUGE red flags for HER - someone who is supposed to recognize ABUSE. Oh yeah, I'm not important. I'm only my sons MOTHER.

Oh yeah, and the my ex MOTHER threatened to call CPS on me b/c I wanted to take a BREAK - while SHE and my EX WATCHED MY SON. Seriously? does that sound like neglect ot you? making sure he was taken care of before taking a breather for myself? I'm sorry, but to say that b/c my son looked perfect, and that 2 adults (who were conspiring to get custody of my child away from me, and who took my baby to the Dr. without even TELLING me) were telling her things, and so it was believable and that she should trust them????? SORRY. NO EXCUSE for CPS to tell me I can't be alone with my kid, and to tell my ex that his family can STALK me and make ALL parenting decisions. NOPE.


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beenmum*
> 
> I think I would avoid being confrontational. The CPS is the LAST group of people I am gonna throw attitude at. Why? B/c they have the irght to remove your child.
> 
> ...


 See, this is not how I see it. In my experience, I should not have to open my life to a stranger in my door way, I don't care if they say they are there for the sake of my children. I have nothing to hide. Yet, that does not mean I have to hide nothing from them. It is my house, my children, my life. My family is safe, my children are safe, and the allegations had nothing to do with my house. I was not admitting guilt. And I had a bulls-eye on my head before she rang the door bell. I am a large, "religious" family, in a poor neighborhood, that does not vax, homebirths, homeschools, cosleeps, and had a disabled daughter due to an at-home accident some time before. I was a string of red flags. There was no way I was going to open my door to such an antagonistic person who was out to "get" me. And to be honest, even if she wasn't antagonistic, I am not sure I would have opened my door to her. She had not right into my house. And the allegations had NOTHING to do with my home. If they had, I would have "proved" them wrong by allowing a "look-see". But since they were solely allegations of me "neglecting" my children by allowing them to play "unsupervised" in MY FRONT YARD (mind you, there were six of them, the youngest was 18mth, but the oldest was 17), there was no reason for her to enter my home to "prove" my case. (My explanation, my children's confirmation of events, and the confirmation from the neighbor children were plenty of "proof" if she had been searching for it.)

Not letting them INTO my home is not the same as not letting them see or talk to my children and check on their welfare.

They are NOT going to get in my home without a warrant. There is no reason to open myself up to undue stress and scrutiny just because some busybody lied to a hot-line operator. And I am innocent until proven guilty.

BTW, the CPS workers in my area (where this incident happened) do NOT go by the gold standard "People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing". Instead, they go by their standard, "If I am here there is a reason and I am going to find it". I mean, even after my case got closed as unfounded, she sent another CPS worker to my door insisting that I HAD to participate in this voluntary program to help my family because I could use the help. Ummm. I. Don't. Think. So! She DESPERATELY wanted into our lives. And if I had agreed to this voluntary program, I would have been committed to allowing them bi-weekly visits for 18 months! Not to mention the "surprise" visits every month. That is what I was PRESSURED and THREATENED to get into VOLUNTARILY.

BTW, I was also talking to a lawyer while she was talking to the police insisting on entry. He specifically told us NOT to let her in. Even he could hear the antagonism in her voice and said she would find something whether there was anything to find or not.

Asserting my rights, in a very polite fassion does not make me look like I am hiding something. Even the police man that I did not allow into my house was very kind and did not feel that I was hiding something. He took my side and wished me a good day when he left.


----------



## beenmum (Nov 29, 2010)

I am a large, "religious" family, in a poor neighborhood, that does not vax, homebirths, homeschools, cosleeps, and had a disabled daughter due to an at-home accident some time before. I was a string of red flags

I actually have all the above myself. But 2 disabled kids.

It honestly can work against you. Esp when you are out of the norm of what society thinks. 99% of the time if there is nothing to find, then thats what theyw ill find. You are increasing yor odds of having then "find" soemthing that isnt there by obstructing an investigation.

I have worked for them. I was a foster parent. I know that in my area at least they are not looking to prove your guilty.

Do you honestly not think that if they truely wanted in that they couldnt get in?

That by denying them entry you were protecting your family? B/c I dont think that is good advice to others. 99% of the time *that* becomes the redflag.....not the original call.


----------



## beenmum (Nov 29, 2010)

Actually they do care if your being abused..

If there is any type of abuse in the house..including abuse against the mother then they will remove any children in the home.

It is a new protocal they set into motion in the late 1990's. The child doesnt have to be abused, just in the home where the abuse in occuring and they are removed.


----------



## waiting2bemommy (Dec 2, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beenmum*
> 
> Actually they do care if your being abused..
> 
> ...


not true either. sorry to say but I called 911/cps on numerous occasions when I was pregnant and my ex was abusing me. I was concerned for his younger btoher as well who was witnessing the violence and not being treated/cared for properly. Nothing came of it. I had to walk to a shelter myself to get any help.

later when I tried to work things out and moved in with him again with my 1 yo ds, he assaulted me and I called 911, and HE ADMITTED TO HITTING me and the police still felt that I was to blame and did not want to help me. not only did they not make any effort to take my child but I asked to be driven to a shelter and they told me to take my own self there if I wanted to leave.


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beenmum*
> 
> Do you honestly not think that if they truely wanted in that they couldnt get in?
> 
> That by denying them entry you were protecting your family? B/c I dont think that is good advice to others. 99% of the time *that* becomes the redflag.....not the original call.


I do believe that without probably cause, they will never be able to get into my house. And I have been right. They can't just dream up probable cause. And since there was nothing to base a warrant on, I don't think there would have been any judge that would reasonably issue a warrant based on any of the "facts" the CW had on my family.

Was I protecting my family when I denied them entry to my home? Absolutely! But, not only that, I was protecting my RIGHTS as an American citizen. I will not give those up to some stranger at my door on the threat that they will find something against me. I had done nothing wrong. I should not have to be treated like a criminal to prove it. I am used to red flags, too. I can handle them in a peaceful, and polite way. I think it is the way you stand up for your rights that marks you for a red flag, not standing up, in and of itself.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beenmum*
> 
> Actually they do care if your being abused..
> 
> ...


Except that in my case, my ex admitted to being physically abusive towards me the night before, and they gave HIM permission to further abuse me (by having his family stalk me, control my movements, etc). So I don't think thats true AT ALL. If they actually cared about children, the goal should be to get MOM and KIDS out of the house TOGETHER - b/c that would be the best scenario.


----------



## beenmum (Nov 29, 2010)

I strongly agree that their goal should be to remove both the mum and the child together. But in cases where the mum chooses not to leave, then the child shoudlnt have to remain there and be a witness to that behaviour.

I'm sorry you did not get the support you needed. Comming from a professional stand point that is unacceptable.

I'm in Ontario, so I dont know about the states CPS protocal. Just what we do up here. And that was a new mandate in the late 1990's to remove children from abusive relationships. It would shock you to know how many women stay in abusive relationships even when their kids have been removed. So the best thing to do is to remove both mum and child. But when the mum is not willing, the child needs to be protected.

I myself was in an abusive relationship. I have used CAS and have had ot used against me. It is not perfect. Far from it.


----------



## crunchy_mommy (Mar 29, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beenmum*
> It would shock you to know how many women stay in abusive relationships even when their kids have been removed. So the best thing to do is to remove both mum and child. But when the mum is not willing, the child needs to be protected.


The guy that abused me was removed from his home as a child because his mother refused to leave her abusive boyfriend.  And unfortunately I don't think being in foster care was much better seeing as he ended up abusing me.

(Sorry guess that's kind of random to the conversation, continue on!)


----------



## Irishmommy (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *crunchy_mommy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


Sounds like you blame foster care for your abuser's abuse, not the fact that he witnessed abuse before he was taken into care. That's a lot unfair to all the awesome foster parents out there.


----------



## crunchy_mommy (Mar 29, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Irishmommy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


No no... sorry I was typing quickly because DS was driving me nuts. I'm sure witnessing abuse & being abused (before going into foster care) was a big part of why he became abusive... and unfortunately he had a couple of really bad foster homes so that just made things worse. I know there are great foster parents out there & even some of the less great ones are likely better than being an abusive home, sorry if I offended anyone.


----------

