RE: What you don't know can hurt you (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Life] >> Parenting



Message

peculiar_lady2 -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/13/2008 12:57:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga

Well, we all know that malted milk is of the devil. And your Milk Duds, too. If you don't that, what's wrong with you???

LOL



Consecrated2God -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/13/2008 8:44:44 AM)

I've never heard of hard lemonade. I've heard of hard cider, so I'd probably know it was alcoholic, though. I also thought that a malt beverage was kind of like a malted milk. [&:]



pbaribeault -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/13/2008 5:52:13 PM)

It seems to me that it got sorted out in fairly short order. There were no charges, and the boy was home 2 days later. Not a fun 2 days, but not the end of the world either. I can see why things that appear to be serious (intentionally serving alcohol to a child) have to be investigated, and a couple of days seems reasonable to me.



sen10tious -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/13/2008 8:17:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pbaribeault

It seems to me that it got sorted out in fairly short order. There were no charges, and the boy was home 2 days later. Not a fun 2 days, but not the end of the world either. I can see why things that appear to be serious (intentionally serving alcohol to a child) have to be investigated, and a couple of days seems reasonable to me.


The boy was home two nights (third day) later, but only because his Dad moved out to a hotel!

quote:


...and a couple of days seems reasonable to me.

CPS is unceasing in their whining about how they have too much work to do, how severely understaffed they are, how their caseloads are overwhelming….

I never understood that until now! But I guess if you call "By that Monday, April 7, when Ratte and his wife returned for a meeting with Latricia Jones, the CPS caseworker assigned to their case, no one in the family had been able to talk to Leo for a day and a half. [...] Finally, at a second hearing three days later, Graves dismissed the complaint and permitted Ratte to move home," being reasonable, then — and that was from a Saturday ballgame until the following Thursday for the family to be reunited at home—if it takes CPS that long to sort this out, then ... little wonder that their caseloads are overwhelming.

I think taxpayers ought to be allowed to sue for misuse of public funds.



pbaribeault -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/13/2008 8:35:31 PM)

I don't consider it wasted time or funds to thoroughly check into an incident like this. If they didn't take the time to check, any old yokel could just say, "You mean that's a beer? I thought it was malted like malted milk!"

It wouldn't be right to say, "Well, sir, I can see that you are a well respected professor and couldn't possibly be abusive. We just won't bother going through our mandated diligent steps to make sure your son is safe in your presence. Professors just get off investigation-free with us. We trust things on first sight and really prefer to jump jump to conclusions. It tends to keep our workload down and cost less that way. Now, if you had been a yokel..."

How long should it take someone to track down and thoroughly interview to about a dozen people who know the family well, document your findings, book and attend the 2 mandatory court dates... for all the dozen cases on their plate that week? Yeah, I find 2 days for an initial return and 5 to clear it up completely very reasonable.

It seems to me that they went out of their way to work very quickly and to accommodate him going back at least to his home before the father was completely cleared.

And, I, personally, am not in favour of allowing a family under legitimate investigation for possible child abuse to talk to the child in question during the investigation, or to know where he is. How would you feel about real abusers being able to do that? How would the foster family feel about a real abuser knowing their location?



PrincessDonna -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/13/2008 8:43:52 PM)

I would be livid if my child were removed from my care for even one hour based on one incident that hadn't even been investigated yet. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

For a child to be removed from his family and placed with strangers for any amount of time for this incident was ridiculous and very possibly traumatic for the child.



Roberta_ -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/13/2008 8:45:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PrincessDonna

For a child to be removed from his family and placed with strangers for any amount of time for this incident was ridiculous and very possibly traumatic for the child.


I agree!



pbaribeault -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/13/2008 8:48:18 PM)

I guess the children are presumed innocent until the concerns are proven unfounded.

Are you all seriously in favour of "Sue" (a fictional parent) being accused of beating her 18 month old baby daily to be able to keep the baby with her until the authorities "prove" that she did it, press charges and complete the trial? When, exactly is the right time to protect a child? I think it's fair to protect them when a serious allegation is made, not when the charge is proven.



PrincessDonna -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/13/2008 8:54:43 PM)

I tell you, as a parent who has HAD serious allegations made not once, not twice, but three times and been cleared each and every time of any wrongdoing, I do not think CPS has any business removing a child based on a single non-life-threatening incident without first investigating at least the most basic of things. In fact, I will not even allow my children to be questioned without myself or another adult I and they trust present. Those things are upsetting to kids, especially when no wrong has been done. BTW, it was my stepson's mother that reported us all three times, all following times when she didn't get her way. We had done nothing at all wrong, yet this last time, the CPS worker tried to take my oldest out of class and question him without notifying us at all. The only reason she was unsuccessful is that she didn't know he doesn't go to public school. This latest investigation took 2.5 months. Should MY children have been removed from my care that long, because after all...they were still investigating?

I also know my stepson's mother was followed, watched, and investigated for almost a YEAR before her kids were removed from her. The reason they were finally removed was one of her older kids went to school and told the nurse Mom had fed them glass. So...they wait while KNOWING children are in danger, yet charge right in over an isolated incident at the ballpark?

Yeah...my feelings toward CPS are personal. I don't deny it. Too many times I have seen them mess up innocent people's lives and those who don't deserve to get to keep their kids walk away unscathed.

ETA...if this child NEEDED to be removed, he should have been placed with his aunts, and not strangers. There was no reason for the way this was done.



creationtalk -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/13/2008 9:07:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: peculiar_lady2

quote:

Okay, so I have a hard time believing the guy never noticed hard lemonade in the grocery store, because even if you don't watch TV, you must go shopping occasionally, right? But...if he didn't know, he didn't know.

I have never heard of or seen "hard lemonaid" before this thread. In our grocery stores the alcoholic beverages are in a section/isle I never really have a reason to go down...and the odd time I have cut through that area I have never stopped to investigate what is or is not there.
anyway....just wanted to point that out.


Same here.



zoebob -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/13/2008 9:28:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pbaribeault

I guess the children are presumed innocent until the concerns are proven unfounded.

Are you all seriously in favour of "Sue" (a fictional parent) being accused of beating her 18 month old baby daily to be able to keep the baby with her until the authorities "prove" that she did it, press charges and complete the trial? When, exactly is the right time to protect a child? I think it's fair to protect them when a serious allegation is made, not when the charge is proven.


Beating a baby could be life threatening and if that is true then baby probably has bruises and sign of injury.

This is very different from an incident at the ballpark that is not life threatening and there is at least a reasonable explanation for.

I cannot imagine what it would do to my children to be yanked from my custody and stuck with strangers for that long...especially 2 of them. It would take years to undo that damage.



thisistheday -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/14/2008 1:01:52 AM)

I would expect that a child not be removed from the home so quickly unless he/she was in clear imminent danger. Such as a child in the emergency room with serious injuries not consistent with accidental causes.

No one in my family had heard of Mike's hard lemonade. I'm pretty sure they don't sell it at our local grocery store, and I never go to that part of the store at Wal-Mart. My 16yo thought it sounded like it had liquor in it; my 13yo thought that hard meant it was frozen. But then the sign didn't have the word "hard" in it.

Dee



Sunnymom -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/14/2008 6:43:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pbaribeault

It seems to me that it got sorted out in fairly short order. There were no charges, and the boy was home 2 days later. Not a fun 2 days, but not the end of the world either. I can see why things that appear to be serious (intentionally serving alcohol to a child) have to be investigated, and a couple of days seems reasonable to me.

I have a boy that age- 2 days would not seem reasonable to him.

Removal from the home should only occur when the child is in danger. The hospital visit in this case ruled out bodily harm, and if they still had doubts, they could have allowed the child to stay with his aunts.

CPS isn't about protecting kids anymore. It has become about protecting one's backside with boatloads of procedures and paperwork; and the fact that folks can abuse the system with anonymous reports and frivolous lawsuits inhibits the real and necessary efforts to protect children from abuse and neglect.

I think in this case there was an underlying assumption that the dad must be lying because of course EVERYONE in America knows what hard lemonade is- and here at little ol' CW we have proven that assumption wrong. It was a stupid assumption, and a child spent two days separated from his mom, dad, and family, and judging from abuse stats on foster care he was actually placed in harm's way by being in the care of the state because folks don't take time to THINK anymore.



sen10tious -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/14/2008 9:10:31 AM)

pbaribeault, this child was never in a life threatening situation. In fact, within a few hours (not days) there was medical evidence from a hospital that he was not even drunk. CPS was way over the top and wasteful of public funds.

quote:

I think in this case there was an underlying assumption that the dad must be lying because of course EVERYONE in America knows what hard lemonade is-
This may be cynical, but I think it suggests that cops & CPS workers drink a lot. There are stats about drinking, suicide, and divorce rates for these occupations; and they are not happy people.


quote:

ORIGINAL FROM THE OP: Sunnymom


What are some changes that could be implemented to prevent at least some of the more ridiculous abuses that occur in the system?


Yes, I have two suggestions to remedy this.

The first probably sounds more like a Townhall.com policy discussion than a parenting topic.
CPS workers need to have taken one hidey-hole away and another power added. The hidey-hole is their sovereign immunity. Our form of government requires checks an balances. When it gives public workers sovereign immunity, it removes a check and results in imbalance. A CPS worker ought to be just as responsible for the decisions they make on the job as a public school certified teacher is for theirs. Instead, they are more like the "brotherhood" of cops who also have immunity and cover for each other. Teachers might do a little bit of circling the wagons too, but over all, they want the bad eggs out of their profession a lot sooner. Go back and read the excuses in the article linked in the OP. You will find that they are copping to "procedure" and not taking any responsibility for having a brain.

CPS workers also ought to be able to have charges brought against people who make false and frivolous accusations. They need a bit of power that will enable them to stop making excuses of "it's the law, I had to treat a lie as if it might be the truth!" If they know it is a lie, they should not treat it like it "might" be the truth; they should charge that person with fraud. They would have to be totally retrained to accept that people who knowingly lie about abuse that never happened are child abusers, (and family abusers, parent abusers, and CPS abusers.) People who make false reports ought to be at very high risk of being charged for doing it.

The second suggestion to remedy it would be to exploit the system's weak link and make a lot of anonymous reports about children of people close to high officials; their friends, relatives, and most trusted employees. When this CPS stuff starts happening to people they are close to, maybe they will get mad enough to act.



IonMoon -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/14/2008 9:35:17 AM)

I agree that this was ridiculous... but I am really surprised that people don't know what "hard" lemonade. I don't drink and I know!

I find it hard to believe someone could go to a booth and buy an alcoholic drink and not know it. Do they check ID? At our local sporting events, etc. the alcoholic drinks are sold at different booths than pop, etc.

Without being there, I can't make a judgement to how someone could do something that seems pretty stupid- but I can see it happening.

Hint: Any drink with "hard" in the name is alcoholic- it is right in the dictionary definition!

My bil once poured all the leftover, half-finished beers into a bottle and put it in the fridge after a party (alcoholics don't like to dump beer!). Well... he stuck it in an apple juice bottle. The next the babysitter (who had a cold and couldn't smell a thing) called my ds to tell her my niece was acting strange... yeah I bet she was after a baby bottle of beer! Stupid, yes. Negligent, no.

All parents make a stupid mistake or two (or more!), but if there is not a pattern and people learn from their mistakes, no action should be taken.

Tara P



Sunnymom -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/14/2008 9:49:47 AM)

quote:

I agree that this was ridiculous... but I am really surprised that people don't know what "hard" lemonade. I don't drink and I know!

Sometimes it's the situation- when I was working in an office and would go out to lunch with friends, they'd order a Lynchburg Lemonade or Long Island Ice Tea, and I'd say "That sounds good" and order one, and someone told me what they were, because they knew I didn't drink alcohol. I didn't even turn to the drink menu, because I always order tea or lemonade.

If the man saw the sign that read "Mike's Lemonade", ordered one, and just handed the bottle over to his son without looking at it (who would?) then it is definitely within the realm of possibility that this was just an innocent mistake. Assuming the father was getting the kid drunk in public is a much less likely scenario than that with which the guard and then CPS was presented.



pbaribeault -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/14/2008 9:51:54 AM)

IF

IF

IF

They truly believed it was possible that the father had intentionally served his child alcohol...

THEN

It follows that the father might be likely to do so again.
It also follows that the kind of father that would intentionally do this in the first place might be the kind that would not be smart enough to stop at one.

A 100lb woman achieves blood alcohol poisoning at 8 drinks. A 90lb woman achieves it at 6. If I work that mathematically backwards to a 50lb, 7 year old boy... There is reason to believe one beer could be fatal.

I see real danger in saying that the people on the scene should have realized it was 'clearly an accident' and therefore skipped the procedures designed to protect children while investigation occurs. Do you really want CPS/Police to have the authority to just not bother investigating anything they just feel like is not worth investigating?



Consecrated2God -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/14/2008 9:54:46 AM)

quote:

Do you really want CPS/Police to have the authority to just not bother investigating anything they just feel like is not worth investigating?


Do you think they really investigate everything? My SIL reported a mother for beating her child with a piece of lumber, and they told her that they don't investigate anything unless they've had three reports! This was in Indianapolis.



Sunnymom -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/14/2008 9:59:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pbaribeault

IF

IF

IF

They truly believed it was possible that the father had intentionally served his child alcohol...

THEN

It follows that the father might be likely to do so again.
It also follows that the kind of father that would intentionally do this in the first place might be the kind that would not be smart enough to stop at one.

A 100lb woman achieves blood alcohol poisoning at 8 drinks. A 90lb woman achieves it at 6. If I work that mathematically backwards to a 50lb, 7 year old boy... There is reason to believe one beer could be fatal.

I see real danger in saying that the people on the scene should have realized it was 'clearly an accident' and therefore skipped the procedures designed to protect children while investigation occurs. Do you really want CPS/Police to have the authority to just not bother investigating anything they just feel like is not worth investigating?

They could have given the father the benefit of the doubt, taken the child to the hospital, proven no harm had been done, given the child to his aunts, and verified the father's story without traumatizing the child and his family.

CPS is not very consistent in their application of their policies, (as Lisa just pointed out) and there is the fact that statistically children are more likely to be abused IN THE SYSTEM than in the home. What do we do about that? The answer to suspected abuse or neglect is NOT to always remove the child.



sen10tious -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/14/2008 11:51:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pbaribeault

IF

IF

IF

They truly believed it was possible that the father had intentionally served his child alcohol...

THEN

It follows that the father might be likely to do so again.
It also follows that the kind of father that would intentionally do this in the first place might be the kind that would not be smart enough to stop at one.

A 100lb woman achieves blood alcohol poisoning at 8 drinks. A 90lb woman achieves it at 6. If I work that mathematically backwards to a 50lb, 7 year old boy... There is reason to believe one beer could be fatal.



The article said, "But an ER resident who drew Leo's blood less than 90 minutes after he and his father were escorted from their seats detected no trace of alcohol. 'Completely normal appearing,' the resident wrote in his report, '... he is cleared to go home.'" There was no longer any reason to "believe" that it was anywhere near fatal and THEY ALL KNEW IT AT THAT POINT.

THAT piece of evidence makes all of CPS's following actions flagrantly abusive. They could have sent the child home and followed up the next day with sane interviews; but instead they chose to isolate the child from everyone he knew and allow him to cry himself to sleep. The obstinate CPS workers who are clueless as to when an investigation should be closed or downgraded are the real child abusers here.



stampinlady -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/14/2008 1:17:14 PM)

quote:

But, back to the OP, I think CPS overreacted to the situation. A one-time incident due to ignorance is just that.


I agree. We use to make our own "Lemonoca's" when I was a party girl and they were really good. Isn't there some legeslation going on now to stop advertising those fruity drinks for fear teens are gonna want them? I thought I heard this somewhere.



Covaan_Meshuga -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/14/2008 1:32:05 PM)

You -- a party girl?

Uh, ah, ah, bwahahahahahaha!

Oh.

You were?



pbaribeault -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/14/2008 2:01:20 PM)

There was no reason to believe that the one drink at the ball game had harmed him. They all knew that the child had gotten through a dangerous situation without damage.

However, I maintain that there was reason to make sure that the child was never served another drink that might kill him next time. I think that required thoroughly assessing the family to confirm the father's claim that he didn't know what he had done... before he was allowed to freedom to repeat what they were concerned might be an intentional act of child intoxication.

Where would we be if CPS just believed everybody who said, "I didn't mean to." and looked trustworthy when they were saying it?



Consecrated2God -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/14/2008 2:05:54 PM)

quote:

Where would we be if CPS just believed everybody who said, "I didn't mean to." and looked trustworthy when they were saying it?


They already do. They investigate the cases they want to investigate and don't investigate the ones that look like too much trouble, or are doing things they don't think are a big deal, or that they don't have time for, or whatever reason they want to give. They pick and choose all the time. They don't investigate every single case that is reported.



Sideways -> RE: What you don't know can hurt you (7/14/2008 2:07:22 PM)

CPS is definitely inconsistent. Friends of mine immigrated from Ireland and now run a small business. Next to their shop is a Karate Dojo. An entire class saw an older man throw down and strangle a little girl. He was not her father, grandfather or anything like that (I think he was the grandparent's friend). The authorities told the witnesses that they could nothing because no one had actually seen him strike the girl (just choking her on the ground). They said "It could just be his way of disciplining her."

CPS only agreed to follow the little girl to her home when the man became aggressive towards the police. No one knows if they actually did anything after that.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI