> > 1. Dan Sullivan Nov 10, 5:49 pm
> > Newsgroups: alt.sup****t.child-protective-services
> > Subject: lostintranslation posted on fightCPS
> > LIT wrote
> > "I was at a legislative hearing yesterday that concentrated on
> > parental rights during CPS investigations in CT.
> > When it was my turn to testify, not only did I tell the committee
> > that
> > the court appointed attorneys, for the most part, just tell the
> > parents to do whatever cps wants them to, I introduced the Dec of
> > Facts form and the Corrections form to them. The committee looked
> > them
> > over and it was passed by a vote of all members unanimously to get
> > the
> > forms entered as official court forms. It was also suggested to
> > forward the decision and to introduce the forms for consideration on
> > a
> > federal level in Wa****ngton. I was invited to that hearing also which
> > will take place in Feb of 2007. I am very excited about this and just
> > felt the need to share with everyone here. There is also another
> > hearing with the same committee about the procedural process of CPS
> > investigations on November 21 in which I will also be present at."
>
> > 2. Greegor Nov 11, 6:52 am
> > Subject: Re: lostintranslation posted on fightCPS
> > So?
>
> > 3. Dan Sullivan Nov 11, 9:35 am
> > Read it again, grag.
>
> > 4. Greegor Nov 11, 1:35 pm
> > I read it carefully again. So what's your point Dan?
>
> > 5. Dan Sullivan Nov 11, 1:43 pm
> > The Declaration of Facts form and Corrections form are going to be
> > OFFICIAL Court forms in Connecticut.
> > Did you miss that bit of information, grag?
>
> > ===============================
> > end of recap reply follows
> > ===============================
>
G > Why would you even remotely think I didn't get that?
DS > Because your an idiot.
G > I have my doubts about it solving the problems though.
G > They certainly will help, both parents and their attorneys.
With the currrent state of ""public defender"" attorneys,
I think it would take much more than some puny form.
G > For one thing, now that they're official forms,
G > will they be something that should only be
G > filled out by the accused parents ATTORNEY?
DS > I hope the parents take advantage of the forms.
The form already existed.
It's been in the CPSWATCH arsenal of
do***ents for a decade at least.
Why would making the Declaration of Facts
form OFFICIAL make any damned difference?
What makes this so earth shattering now?
> > I've seen how CPS takes good rules and ignores
> > them or turns them backwards.
>
> They are COURT forms, not CPS forms.
>
> > A few years ago they were ordered to TRAIN
> > their idiot caseworkers on how to respect
> > CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
>
> That's CPS, not the Courts.
>
> See, I said you were an idiot.
DS > You don't know the difference between a Judge in Family Court and
a
DS > case worker at CPS.
It is not I who blur the distinction I assure you.
Who will be handing out this OFFICIAL FORM, Dan??
> > The TRAINING was twisted to be sessions
> > on how to CON accused parents OUT of
> > their constitutional rights.
>
> > Like how once a parent lets them into their
> > home, they have forfeit their 4th amendment
> > right against a search and seizure and CPS
> > saves the trouble of having to obtain a
> > court order which they can't get without
> > sufficient cause.
>
> > Remember that video you commented
> > about, where a caseworker pretended
> > that lack of cooperation justified
> > a court order and intrusion?
G > By the way, did you notice the recent high
G > court decision that the caseworker would
G > need the permission of BOTH parents
G > that live there, not just one?
DS > Which "high court" decision?
Look it up, Dan!
DS > And permission for what?
Entry and search of home.
Interrogation of children.
G > If either objects, they must cease immediately.
DS > Cease what?
Cease entry into the house based on ONE
parent while the other is not present or objects.
It's a 4th amendment protection against
unreasonable search and seizure, Dan!
Not im****tant enough for you to acknowledge?
DS > You're an idiot, as I said, grag.
G > Did you catch that one, Dan? Was it an epiphany for you?
DS > No, I've known you were an idiot for YEARS!
EVADING the question eh?
You're the fake Family Rights expert, right?
How many of those "Can we come in and talk?"
searches of homes and interrogations of kids
would be stopped if either parent realizes that
it's smarter NOT to open up and forfeit 4th amendment protections?
Could this perhaps also be applied to interviewing kids at school?
|
