On Nov 12, 10:41=A0pm, gordonb.t8...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Gordon Burditt) wrote:
> >> As outlined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S.
800
> >> (1982),[1] qualified immunity is designed to ****eld government
> >> officials from actions "insofar as their conduct does not violate
> >> clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
> >> reasonable person would have known."
>
> >G > Do you think telling LIES is covered by agency policy?
>
> >DS > I don't know.
>
> I think it's fairly obvious that telling LIES is required in order
> for CPS to function, and it's mandated by policy.
>
> >G > Do you think they told the truth in all of their re****ts?
>
> >DS > I don't know.
>
> They probably managed to get little bits of truth in between the
> major lies. =A0Denying the existence of the state they work in would
> look a little silly.
>
> Incidentally, if CPS decides that someone is an unfit parent, when
> they aren't, in fact, any type of parent or guardian, do they need
> to identify the children in that person's front yard who were just
> dropped off by the school bus before grabbing them all and putting
> them in foster care? =A0This upset about a whole block of parents
> when their children didn't come home, except the "unfit parent" who
> had no children and no idea anyone thought he did. =A0I believe it
> took over a month for those parents to get their kids back. =A0All
> this happened because someone mistook a television or stereo turned
> up too loud with no adult at home during the day for an infant home
> alone. =A0Funny how none of the children taken was an infant, and
> the one who made the complaint yelled the most about losing her
> children for a month.
>
> When I was in junior high, way long time ago, I talked some with
> classmates who were apparently having family problems. =A0Although I
> didn't really know what it was at the time, the state's version of
> CPS was probably involved. =A0The kids (junior high age here) kept
> getting questioned about abuse, and they quickly found out the best
> way to make it stop: =A0accuse the one asking the questions (if it
> wasn't their parents). =A0Apparently the strategy was to blow their
> own credibility so badly no one would believe them, so no one would
> ask any more. =A0And according to the kids at the time, it worked.
>
> CPS worker: =A0Did anyone touch you down there?
> Kid: =A0Yes.
> CPS worker: =A0Who did that?
> Kid: =A0You did.
> CPS worker: =A0When did I do that?
> Kid: =A0You're doing it right now.
>
> Later, in open court:
>
> Judge: =A0I understand you said <CPS worker> touched you down there?
> Kid: =A0No, you are touching me down there. =A0Right now. =A0And with
you=
r
> =A0 =A0 =A0 other hand, you're doing my brother.
> Judge: =A0But he's in school across town!
> Kid: =A0You have really long arms.
I get the impression that CPS is most successful
at making bogus cases with kids who are old
enough to speak english but naive about
the ramifications of what they are saying
to a caseworker.
Once they are a little older and less naive,
they are too smart to fall for the caseworker
"confidence game" unless they think they can
manipulate the caseworker to their advantage.
Some adults (parents) also think they can
sweet talk their way out of trouble with CPS,
which is why too many actually do the WRONG
thing and let the caseworker come in "just to talk".
|
