THSC article on CPS taking kids...

[staceyobu]

Has anyone heard of this?  Tutt family where a judge took 7 kids away because the mom must be crazy if she wanted to stay home with that many kids.

[Mergath]

The article sounds pretty biased to me.  And the author admits in the comments that they have no sources for any of this except for "those who were in the courtroom and closely involved in the case," which I'm assuming means the family or friends of the family.  I'm guessing there's more going on than is stated in the article.  

[readinmom]

Read the article...

 

I hope that people come to their senses next week with the new hearing.  Although there are two sides to the case, it does appear that rights have been violated here.  So sad for the children. 

[Catwoman]

Can someone post a link to the article?

 

I will admit that, even without reading the article, I strongly suspect that there is another side of this story that is not being presented, as I can't imagine that CPS would remove children from a happy, loving, and functional home environment solely because the mom chose to be at home with her children.

[staceyobu]

http://www.thsc.org/judge-removes-children-illegally.html

[LucyStoner]

Reading between the lines of this very biased source, I see concerning things they seem to skim over.  Google turns up no credible news source of any persuasion. Even news outlets with a very conservative bent seem to be avoiding the story.  I take that to mean that when contacted, reporters are likely not able to verify the family's version of events and have had to steer clear of the story.  

[itsheresomewhere]

Reading some of the comments says that they had CPS involvement before and not for being a foster home.

[mamaraby]

When pressed for futher details on the situation the moderator(?)/blogger(?) basically says they have none. From the post "The affidavit filed by CPS is not a public document but attorney for the Tutt’s states that it does not contain evidence required by the Family Code to justify removal." Well, of course their attorney is going to say that, but that's not enough to warrant the sort of hyped up response the post is asking for. There are too few details and too many things in the story that either don't make sense or are suspicious.

[Catwoman]

http://www.thsc.org/judge-removes-children-illegally.html

Thanks!

 

Now that I have read the entirely one-sided and completely biased article, I am more convinced than ever that there is another side to the story.

 

Aside from this being an ideal story for the media (if it were true and verifiable,) it would also be the perfect case for an organization like the HSLDA (because they LOVE controversy and publicity,) yet no one seems to be getting involved at all.

 

The story doesn't ring true to me at all. It would be nice to hear the opposing position, as I think it would clear up a lot of the inconsistency and add many important details that have been conveniently left out of the article we read.

[Catherine]

The article states that their children were removed from their home.  Their *foster* children were removed from the home.  It also indicates that the incident that brought them to attention involved an autistic 4 yo who "wandered away" from the house and was pursued by an 8 yo, who attempted to notify the parents that the 4 yo wandered away.

 

Although there are no doubt details that we are not privy to, I don't consider the judge's decision completely unreasonable given the above facts.  IMO no autistic 4 yo should be unsupervised long enough to wander more than a block away from home.  I guess that can happen, and I do not have an autistic child, so perhaps my ideas are unreasonable.  But give the above facts, AND the fact that 12 children were in the household at the time, I don't think the judge's decision was unreasonable. 

[LucyStoner]

Also, it said the autistic boy was in soiled pants.  If that is what the pro-family piece says, I really can't imagine it was just that.  

 

 

[MistyMountain]

I don't know about this case personally but I do believe that it could be a case of kids taken that shouldn't have. I used to think that only kids in horrible situations were taken from their families but I know of 3 local cases where that was not the case where kids were removed. One of the cases was a close friend of mine.

 

I think it is different in different locations on what gets kids removed. When I moved here I heard that we had just as many children removed as the state of New Jersey which has over 8 times the population we do. When I heard that I thought yikes there is so much abuse going on here. Now that I heard a lot of local stories on why kids get taken away I don't believe that is the case. I think they take kids in situations where it isn't warranted sometimes. If the story as written is true then I feel bad for the family. I think it is possible for the story to be true. None of the people I know of had people to help them or an organization to help get their kids back. I also think that it is possible that the story is one sided and details were left out.

 

I used to believe that CPS only took kids in extreme cases and actually didn't even act in enough cases. I now know that there are real stories out there where kids were taken from loving homes for reasons where the parents were providing for them. In some areas some kids that should have at least been removed temporarily were not and some probably have a good balance.

[NASDAQ]

There's some concerning stuff about this.

 

I don't understand how the numbers add up. They have twelve children in the home, but seven were removed -- so five were left with them? But three biological children are living independently, so who are the other three that were left? The adopted ones?

 

They've got twelve children. Two biological, two adopted, one in the process of adoption. So that means that the foster kids were removed, right?

 

The rules for foster kids are different than for biological kids. It's entirely reasonable that CPS doesn't want those kids home schooled. Or doesn't want them twelve-to-a-house. Or thinks that the Tutts are able to supervise a four-year-old autistic child, given that he got away for quite some time.

 

I will say that I wonder about people who have five biological children and accumulate an additional five children in a fairly short span of time.

[garddwr]

If it was foster children removed, I think the action was reasonable. Foster families should be held to higher standards than natural families. If a child is removed from their own home because of abuse or neglect, there needs to be some assurance that the home they are going to is a better situation than the one they are being removed from. I would expect CPS (or its equivalent) to be quicker to remove children from a foster placement than from a permanent family situation.

 

ETA: I was wrong, the family's biological and adopted children were removed.

[TeacherZee]

I am sceptical that this is the whole story. I am left wondering about the authors understanding of Child Protection, when he is "outraged" that the police officer called CPS. I am pretty sure police officers are mandatory reporters. I am a mandatory reporter myself and I would report someone if I found things looking like they were described in the article.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Wow, the difference of this discussion on here versus our local homeschool group on FB!  Amazing!  

 

I would not want to throw this family under the bus because I think CPS and judges make mistakes sometimes.  There are also legally justified reasons for removing the kids that I think should NOT happen.  I kinda think that may have been what happened here. 

 

• 1) CPS worker and then she and her supervisor had to agree there was enough of a legally justified reason for the family based services/safety plan
• 2) The family felt they had done "close enough" to what was asked but had done none of what a non-foster family would have been required to do. I can also see the worker needing to find out whether what they did was enough or if they needed to do services just like anyone else. ****(note below)
• 3) A broken safety plan is enough to legally justify removal though honestly, I do believe this should change.  Fact is that removal is extremely traumatizing and the trauma of removal should be weighed against the risk, not just that the family didn't jump through the right hoops.
• 4) The adversary hearing (often called a 14-day hearing whether it happens at 3 or 14 or 90 days) is to give CPS and the family a REASONABLE opportunity to show whether or not removal was warranted.  I have never heard of 12 hours (or anywhere close to that).
• 5) Developmental and educational level is informally and formally assessed by investigators, caseworkers, foster parents, ECI, the school, a psychologist, GALs, CASAs, agency workers, etc.  Now, any experienced person knows that children in transition do not evaluate as well as they will when they calm down both due to trauma as well as control.  However, it is the only information available as you are trying to meet the children's needs.  And it is difficult to say at first what is organic versus what is caused by family circumstances versus what is caused by the trauma/control surrounding the removal.  Those things *would* be used as part of the whole picture. 

 

*****NOTE:  Many regular parents try to do things their own way rather than as the service plan is written.  The children I currently have, their mother feels she shouldn't have to submit to a psych eval because she had some sort of evaluation for therapy and medication management privately in the past.  Well, except the service plan doesn't say that they will accept one done in the past. It says it needs to be done. And there are different things looked for on one CPS asks for.  Additionally, the form we, as foster parents, have filled out "showing" physical and mental fitness to foster is NOWHERE CLOSE to a psych eval!  I cannot believe anyone would think they would be comparable.  I wouldn't even expect the letter my psychologist wrote on my behalf (because I had had psychological services prior to fostering) would be "good enough" for a regular investigation and *it* actually recommends me as a foster parent, not just says I'm mentally healthy. But really, a family with five cases over the past few years would have done all the services recently also and still has to do them again. Why would a foster parent be different?

 

Anyway, *my* main concern is the adopted children.  They have been through who knows how much in their family of origin, in the system, gaining permanency, etc to be put into limbo again.  I know my own children could not handle that AT ALL and what that would mean for them (medication, being split up, moving foster homes, inappropriate - including self destructive, even dangerous - behaviors, etc).  I really hope these kids are in an extremely empathetic, kind, understanding, experienced foster home.  And I really hope the truth of the situation as well as the best solution available works out Tuesday.  I wish ALL family members peace.  

 

I hope the family is innocent.  I hope there was a misunderstanding.  I hope that the children can return home and if necessary the family can try again regarding working services and having supervision.  At the same time, I can certainly see why they wouldn't do this as they don't do it with other families.  And yet, this is where I think it would be good if they could use their brains rather than  follow protocol as removing kids for breaking a service plan is not always the best option even though the safety plan does make it clear that that is the consequence.

 

Sorry to ramble. 

 

[kwg]

Unless there is more to the story, it sounds outrageous to me.   

 

ETA; is it their children or foster children?  Seems like the issue boils down to education? Am I reading that right? And the judge wants something that is "state certified"?

 

 

 

[Pamela H in Texas]

kwg, they had bio, adopted, and fostered children. 

 

kwg, I doubt it was originally about education.  In fact, it is outrageous if it "boils down to education" now considering Texas homeschool law.  The judge (or lawyer or anyone else) doesn't have the right to want something "state certified" or anything else like that.  

 

I would GUESS that educational choice (and the consequences of that) are being used as proof of one area of neglect in a list of things, including a 4yo wandering, an 8yo being the one going after him, the condition of the yard/house, the 4yo being soiled, etc.  Any one of those things probably is only mildly concerning as "stuff happens."  However, you add multiple children being significantly developmentally and/or academically delayed on top of a list of things (and we don't know what all is in that list, just what was reported by the family) then school choice MAY be a consideration, at least while the family is under CPS supervision or CPS has physical/legal custody.

 

The above only being if CPS's case is legal and true anyway.  Obviously, none of this applies if the CPS investigator or FBSS worker or judge or GAL or whatever was jumping the gun, judging based on personal opinion rather than guidelines of the state, etc.  

 

 

[garddwr]

Don't most states require children in the foster care system to be enrolled in public school? Is Texas different? Or does it make a difference that the children were placed through a private agency not the state?

 

[Word Nerd]

I'm not so naive and idealistic that I think CPS workers and judges never screw up, violate people's rights, or make life-changing decisions for the wrong reasons. I don't doubt that what happened as described in the post is possible. However, THSC is the only source of information on the case thus far and is hardly unbiased. More information is needed.

[City Mouse]

It is my understanding (I could be wrong) that removal of a foster child from a foster family can be done at any time. I keep tring to do the math, and it appears to me that the foster children were taken away- a group of siblings and one infant. I don't have any problem with CPS removing the foster kids.

 

From reading stuff the this family has posted on the internet prior to this happening, I have concerns that this family is "collecting" these kids, and I don't have a problem with them not being given any more foster kids.

[mamaraby]

From reading stuff the this family has posted on the internet prior to this happening, I have concerns that this family is "collecting" these kids, and I don't have a problem with them not being given any more foster kids.

This would be my concern here as well and that doesn't mean that it applies to all large families or all adoptive families or even all people who foster or adopt multiple children. That being said, there is a certain subset of homeschooling families and a certain subset of Chrisitian homeschooling families specifically where it's awfully close to child hoarding. Much like folks who hoard animals, they really do believe that they are doing the most loving thing possible by "rescuing" the child(ren) when the reality is quite different. That's the vibe this story gives me with the information provided.

 

The post tries to hype up outrage with a generalized "homeschooling under attack" and neglects to provide the evidence to warrant the outrage/generalization.

[garddwr]

 

 

Anyway, *my* main concern is the adopted children.  They have been through who knows how much in their family of origin, in the system, gaining permanency, etc to be put into limbo again.  I know my own children could not handle that AT ALL and what that would mean for them (medication, being split up, moving foster homes, inappropriate - including self destructive, even dangerous - behaviors, etc).  I really hope these kids are in an extremely empathetic, kind, understanding, experienced foster home.  And I really hope the truth of the situation as well as the best solution available works out Tuesday.  I wish ALL family members peace.  

 

I hope the family is innocent.  I hope there was a misunderstanding.  I hope that the children can return home and if necessary the family can try again regarding working services and having supervision.  At the same time, I can certainly see why they wouldn't do this as they don't do it with other families.  And yet, this is where I think it would be good if they could use their brains rather than  follow protocol as removing kids for breaking a service plan is not always the best option even though the safety plan does make it clear that that is the consequence.

 

Sorry to ramble. 

Pamela, from the article it sounds like it is the foster children who were removed from the home. There were either twelve or thirteen children in the home, including two biological and three adopted. If seven children were removed, I am guessing that the biological and adopted children were the ones not removed.

 

I am sure this is a stressful time for all the children involved. If the removal was not in line with the relevant laws and the best interests of the children I hope that will all come out in the next hearing and that those involved will not misuse their authority in the future. I hate to see kids caught in the middle. I can't see that we know enough to really judge the merits of this case, so I will wait and see what the legal process determines.

 

ETA looks like my assumption was wrong, more information below.

[garddwr]

I found the following description of events on a facebook page "Support the Tutts" this changes my opinion significantly. I had assumed from the article that it was foster children who were removed from the home. Apparently it is the family's own children who were removed, the foster children were there on temporary placement and had already moved on when these events took place. 

Unless the events as described are egregiously erroneous or leaving out very significant issues, I now believe the actions of CPS and the judge are, in fact, illegal. I cannot see from the information given that the children were at any immediate risk such as would warrant removal from the home. 

 

I'll be interested to see what comes of this.

 

 That is the rule for a CPS licensed foster family. Their rule for CPS group homes is higher. Each county has different rules on this. The Tutt were not a CPS foster family at the time of this incident, however. They had children placed with them short term by a non profit ministry that works with at risk families and directly with CPS. At the time the CPS caseworker first came (Sept. 21) there were 13 children in the home ranging from 18 months to 14 years. The CPS worker did nothing to remove any of them from the home and, as you see in the article, stated "there is no problem here." All 13 children were left in place by the CPS caseworker. During the natural course of things, common with short term care placements, the sibling group was returned to their mother, and the other child who had been placed there as a kinship placement by CPS of Tarrant County was moved into CPS foster care. The additional children moving on was in no way related to the incident of September 21st and happened in stages over the following weeks. The caseworker returned to the home on the 31st of October and was fully aware there were only 7 children in the home. The children in the home were the Tutt's children, 2 bio, 3 adopted, 2 in the process of private adoption. None of the 6 "additional" children in the home were there inappropriately or without legal paperwork and were there with full CPS awareness. Even if the number of the children had been excessive, that does not meet the Texas Family Code definition for imminent threat of harm required for a removal such as the one that occurred. CPS would simply have removed the excess children and left the Tutt children in place.

 

 

 

[Catwoman]

I found the following description of events on a facebook page "Support the Tutts" this changes my opinion significantly. I had assumed from the article that it was foster children who were removed from the home. Apparently it is the family's own children who were removed, the foster children were there on temporary placement and had already moved on when these events took place.

Unless the events as described are egregiously erroneous or leaving out very significant issues, I now believe the actions of CPS and the judge are, in fact, illegal. I cannot see from the information given that the children were at any immediate risk such as would warrant removal from the home.

 

I'll be interested to see what comes of this.

 

That is the rule for a CPS licensed foster family. Their rule for CPS group homes is higher. Each county has different rules on this. The Tutt were not a CPS foster family at the time of this incident, however. They had children placed with them short term by a non profit ministry that works with at risk families and directly with CPS. At the time the CPS caseworker first came (Sept. 21) there were 13 children in the home ranging from 18 months to 14 years. The CPS worker did nothing to remove any of them from the home and, as you see in the article, stated "there is no problem here." All 13 children were left in place by the CPS caseworker. During the natural course of things, common with short term care placements, the sibling group was returned to their mother, and the other child who had been placed there as a kinship placement by CPS of Tarrant County was moved into CPS foster care. The additional children moving on was in no way related to the incident of September 21st and happened in stages over the following weeks. The caseworker returned to the home on the 31st of October and was fully aware there were only 7 children in the home. The children in the home were the Tutt's children, 2 bio, 3 adopted, 2 in the process of private adoption. None of the 6 "additional" children in the home were there inappropriately or without legal paperwork and were there with full CPS awareness. Even if the number of the children had been excessive, that does not meet the Texas Family Code definition for imminent threat of harm required for a removal such as the one that occurred. CPS would simply have removed the excess children and left the Tutt children in place.

But again, this is totally biased information in favor of the family. Of course a "Support the Tutts" FB page is going to present them in the best possible light.

 

I still think there is far more to this story than the Tutt family and their supporters would like us to believe.

[garddwr]

But again, this is totally biased information in favor of the family. Of course a "Support the Tutts" FB page is going to present them in the best possible light.

 

I still think there is far more to this story than the Tutt family and their supporters would like us to believe.

It is, which is why I leave open the possibility that there is significant missing information that would justify removing the children.

 

ETA I quoted this as a source of information that negates my prior assumption that it was foster children who were removed from the home. I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information it provides regarding which children were removed.

[swellmomma]

I am seeing comments that it was the foster kids that were removed from the home, but it wasn't it was their own.  At the time of the investigation there was 13 kids in the home: a family group of 5 kids which included the autistic child placed by a private agency, an infant placed by CPS when they already had 12 kids in the home, plus 2 biological children, 3 adopted children and 2 undergoing the adoption process. The 3 oldest bio kids are grown and living on their own.  The foster baby and family group were put into new placements, and would have been anyway even if this investigation closed and the rest of the kids remained.  The judge ordered their own kids (bio/adopted/in process) kids be removed.  They homeschooled their own kids, foster kids were in school.  Their own kids were found to be delayed academically, but with 2 of them adopted and 2 in process it is likely they had academic delays before they even became family members.  With the autistic boy situation, it sounds like the boy wandered away, 8 yr old followed, the rest got the parents, dad went to find them and turned the wrong way.  It doesn't even sound like they were gone for long.  Now is it alright? no, but as the mother of a runner I will say it only takes a second.  I would sit down to pee and ds would be out the door and long gone, even with locks/latches/alarms on doors he would be gone. He got brought home several times by police, thankfully they understood that it wasn't a neglect situation, the kid just ran every chance he got.  I would go to pull dinner out of the oven and he would be gone etc.  Heck once he jumped out a second floor window (at age 5) and took off running across the lawn while I went to strap his infant brother into the baby swing.  With kids that run it only takes 30 seconds of your attention on something else.  As for number of children in the home, CPS placed child #12 there shortly before all this happened, if they really had a problem with so many kids there why place the baby with them?

I will not jump right onto the support of the family bandwagon but I am not willing to necessarily assume CPS was right.  I have had my own battle with them several years ago.  For a year I fought with them, while they threatened to take my kids if I didn't put them into public school.  The worker told me repeatedly if I did that they would close the file and walk away, but until then they didn't feel confident in doing so because no one could properly homeschool kids with learning issues, least of a single parent.  I had to do the psych eval etc.  The CW in the city claimed my eval "proved" I wasn't suited to homeschool etc, when we moved here and got a new CW she claimed my eval "proved" I was the ideal one to homeschool.  Same eval, same results page, one took it to be negative, the other positive.  Traits like preferring a strict schedule, one too to mean I was incapable of being flexible, the other took to mean I would give solid structure etc.  I can completely see a judge looking at the report from the eval and putting his/her own spin on the interpretation of the results.  The worker in the city was 100% against homeschooling and put her own agenda forward even though she not only verbally but also put in writing that their was no abuse or neglect in the home.  So I do believe that kids can and are removed simply because someone decided their own agenda was more important than the actual children they are supposedly "saving"  BUT I also think those cases are fairly rare and when it comes to removal (as opposed to simply CPS being involved and forcing safety plans etc) typically there is valid reasons for concerns to be there.

With this family until more information is released I am withholding judgement BUT I will say that just a few weeks before all of this CPS found this family fit and home environment suitable to place the infant with them, so I am not understanding how in just a few weeks suddenly the parents are deemed unfit, and the mother crazy.  And why didn't the father have to have the psych eval too? The focus just on the mom does lead me to think there is some biases or hidden agendas in play but I do suppose it is possible that in the few weeks since the infants placement they suddenly trashed the house, got more pets (one of the comments was about excessive pets), went crazy, etc.  If this family never had the infant placement I would actually likely have doubted the story more, but that placement makes me wonder, because CPS felt they were fine just a short time before and I don't see how they could suddenly turn around and claim they are so unfit by CPS now kwim.  There is a lot more to this story on both sides imo, and we may never really know the truth, but I am starting to doubt the validity of the removal based on my own experience and the placement of that infant just a few weeks before this all happened.

[Mergath]

In the comments of the article, the author also mentions that the family did try to get HSLDA to help, and they declined.  If even the HSLDA has officially declined this one, I'm guessing there's definitely much more going on than is stated in the article.

 

ETA: Also in the comments, someone said the following.  Obviously there's no way to verify the accuracy of this, but it would explain a lot.

 

This is not Ms. Tutt’s first run-in with CPS. Others have been concerned with the state of disarray of her home (lots of indoor animals that are not house broken, lots of clutter and disorganization) and the fact that her husband is known to go extended periods of time with no employment. Ms. Tutt wants everyone to believe she is being persecuted for homeschooling when really there are huge underlying issues for why her children were removed.

 

[Laurie4b]

Having a child with autism escape is pretty common. Kids with autism will just take off and that includes the littlest ones. (And if you think about news stories in which a child wandered off while camping, etc, a significant percentage of those are kids with autism.)  So, I see absolutely nothing CPS-worthy in having a kid with autism on the lam with older child with him and others going to get the parents. The poop issue also isn't that uncommon. See this: http://www.autism-help.org/behavior-soiling-encopresis.htm  If the child was in foster care and in transition this is even more likely.

 

This actually sounds like a functional family, where the other kids know what to do to help.

 

So while we may not know the whole story, a 4 year old with autism who ran off and is soiled with other children knowing what to do to help does not contain any red flags for me.

 

[maize]

In the comments of the article, the author also mentions that the family did try to get HSLDA to help, and they declined. If even the HSLDA has officially declined this one, I'm guessing there's definitely much more going on than is stated in the article.

 

ETA: Also in the comments, someone said the following. Obviously there's no way to verify the accuracy of this, but it would explain a lot.

 

This is not Ms. Tutt’s first run-in with CPS. Others have been concerned with the state of disarray of her home (lots of indoor animals that are not house broken, lots of clutter and disorganization) and the fact that her husband is known to go extended periods of time with no employment. Ms. Tutt wants everyone to believe she is being persecuted for homeschooling when really there are huge underlying issues for why her children were removed.

Obviously we can't know anything about pets and disorganization, though as others have pointed out the fact that CPS placed an infant with the family recently doesn't seem to support the idea that conditions in the home were horrific enough to warrant removal of the children. And as for the husband having periods of unemployment...um, since when are children taken away if their parent is unemployed???

 

Were conditions in the home/family ideal? I'm sure they weren't. The question is, were the children in some kind of imminent danger that we just don't know about and the removal made in full accordance with the law, or was the removal carried out illegally by people with an agenda? That presumably is the question that will be settled on appeal, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

[NASDAQ]

The problem with these cases is that, as reasonable people, we don't want to pry into this family's business. But their business gets made our business, and I at least end up wondering about comments such as "they have animals and the house is filthy," because it all does seem to add up to a family that is accumulating high needs children very quickly and perhaps not managing as well as would be ideal. And perhaps the home schooling is worsening that. Social workers as a whole do have their biases.

 

I wish these things didn't go around though, because while CPS workers do make some bad decisions, this really shouldn't be an on-going worry for the average home schooling family. The probability of Jane Average Home Schooling Family getting children removed by CPS is vanishingly rare, and doesn't justify the elevated level of worry in the home school community. And that worry is ramped up by this type of story.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Just some information that some people may not know just because they aren't part of the system (and then some state/region specific stuff too): 

 

When CPS came after the officer called them, it was determined that the issues within the family warranted services. In general, most services are very similar for most cases with only an addition here or there based on individual circumstances (for example, one service provided for my children's parents was for someone to come teach the bio mom how to clean toilets, floors, etc. Those are case specific services while a psych eval for each parent and parenting classes are given to parents of most cases).

Just a clarification also. An assessment is not made of a family each time a child is placed. And CPS is not going to do a home study on an already licensed family. They simply see if there is a bed and it is okay to place kids. Then they do it.

 

Also, it seems people want to make a differentiation of the private agency. In Texas, fostercare can go contracted agencies or through CPS directly. The state is slowly working on moving to privatization. Most foster parents are using an agency. There are over 100 fostercare contracted agencies in region 3, the region the Tutts live within. Regardless of how a person is licensed, central processing (part of CPS) approves or disapproves placement (pretty much accepting the judgment of the agency). Cps officially places my kids. My agency provides oversight as per their contract with the state.

Oh, one last thing. Most people think: CPS, period. Fact is that the CPS workers visiting foster kids are not the same as those doing regular investigations. And investigations of foster families isn't even done by regular CPS (when it is done for foster kids). RCCL (licensing) does investigations of foster parents.  Most CPS workers have NO clue what the standards we must meet are where RCCL knows them all. Most agency workers don't know the licensing standards either (though because of circumstances, most in our agency have gotten pretty good about the basics). And if you have a regular CPS investigation, you get a licensing one too. Regular CPS investigators determine the need for family based services. Chances are that will impact their ability to foster or adopt as they now have a child abuse/neglect record even if they get their kids back (again, the safety plan was determined necessary originally). My agency would have closed us immediately had our CPS investigation not been ruled out.

Anyway, it just is so complicated. The article tries to boil it down, but I fear they have boiled out a lot of stuff that did hold water. Something took 12 hours to discuss at the last hearing.

[Laurie4b]

The article states that their children were removed from their home.  Their *foster* children were removed from the home.  It also indicates that the incident that brought them to attention involved an autistic 4 yo who "wandered away" from the house and was pursued by an 8 yo, who attempted to notify the parents that the 4 yo wandered away.

 

Although there are no doubt details that we are not privy to, I don't consider the judge's decision completely unreasonable given the above facts.  IMO no autistic 4 yo should be unsupervised long enough to wander more than a block away from home.  I guess that can happen, and I do not have an autistic child, so perhaps my ideas are unreasonable.  But give the above facts, AND the fact that 12 children were in the household at the time, I don't think the judge's decision was unreasonable. 

 

I posted already, but wanted to respond to this. Kids with autism have a very high probability of having problems with running off, etc. Some of them attempt it multiple times a day. It's a common problem and not in itself indication that there was anything wrong with the supervision, especially given 11 other kids in the home and one an infant.

Apparently 5 kids were a sibling group (not sure if the child with autism was in this group or one of the bio or adopted kids) who were there temporarily, as was the infant. Those kids had all been moved out of the home because they weren't meant to be permanent placements. The kids taken were all the bio, adopted, and in-process-of-private adoption kids.

One could say there is a problem with the agency who placed 5 kids in a home with 6 kids, but on the other hand, there are few families willing to take 5 kids even temporarily to keep a sibling group together. The fact that CPS placed an infant there with all the other kids there is rather remarkable.

[Mom2OandE]

I read the other day, and I will try to locate the source, that HSLDA declined because they were not members.

 

As a former foster parent I've had children placed with me over our max number when it was approved by supervisors or a judge.

[Mergath]

I read the other day, and I will try to locate the source, that HSLDA declined because they were not members.

 

As a former foster parent I've had children placed with me over our max number when it was approved by supervisors or a judge.

 

The HSLDA has taken other cases where the family weren't members, though.  Like that German family, or whatever it was.  I'm pretty sure they weren't members.  If the case will generate enough publicity (and therefore enough donations) HSLDA doesn't seem to care if they're members or not.

[Mergath]

Obviously we can't know anything about pets and disorganization, though as others have pointed out the fact that CPS placed an infant with the family recently doesn't seem to support the idea that conditions in the home were horrific enough to warrant removal of the children. And as for the husband having periods of unemployment...um, since when are children taken away if their parent is unemployed???

 

Were conditions in the home/family ideal? I'm sure they weren't. The question is, were the children in some kind of imminent danger that we just don't know about and the removal made in full accordance with the law, or was the removal carried out illegally by people with an agenda? That presumably is the question that will be settled on appeal, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

 

I guess everyone has their own standards of what's acceptable.  I personally think that living in a home filled with animal feces should warrant CPS getting involved, if that was in fact the case.  (And if they did place an infant into a situation like that, the worker who okayed it should be fired.)  And obviously, the unemployment itself isn't a reason, but if there isn't enough money for them to properly feed and clothe such a large number of children, well, I imagine that would come into play if there are other factors, as well.

 

Until more information comes out though, it's all hypothetical.  

[Pamela H in Texas]

I have a REAL issue with anyone judging the number of children these people (or any people) have.  I stated this when we discussed the social worker and her husband who had the boy chained outside with a chicken around his neck.  The number of children, even if they have significant special needs, is not something one can judge by itself.  Just like with ANY other family, there are MANY factors to consider:

 

Each individual parent

The parental unit

Each individual child

Each parent-child relationship

Each child-child relationship

Each set of children-child(ren) relationship

The family as a whole

The circumstances the family lives within (money, home, animals, situational issues, safety precautions, etc)

 

This includes the needs, the strengths, the weaknesses, the personalities, the training, the dynamics, etc.  There is just SO much.

The number of children and special needs of those children simply don't give you enough information.

And in foster families, that can change based on the placement.  This month, the family has X number of kids with Y issues.  Next month, the number of kids may change, the issues may change.... or maybe those things are similar but the specific personalities or dynamics are changed somehow.  Sometimes nine kids is easier than six.  And regardless, nine kids at Mrs. D's isn't the same as nine kids as Mrs. H's.

[Pamela H in Texas]

I also believe HSLDA would have taken it if it truly was about religious persecution and homeschooling regardless of membership status as it would be relevant for them.  

 

What I think will happen:

 

1) Tuesday, the kids will be sent home.  The parents will have or won't have services and supervision.

 

2) Tuesday, the kids will remain in fostercare until services are worked (this may include moving to kinship caregivers at some point, something Texas is EXTRA big on doing at this time) or TPR is granted.

 

Either way, I doubt we'll learn much about the truth of the situation.  If number one happens, there may be some murmurings about how it must have been true.  If number two happens, we may hear some more bemoaning of the charges. Either way, I seriously doubt we will hear anything close to the FULL truth.  

 

[Momling]

As a foster parent, I can say that the state has no interest in taking children away from stable, safe homes. Families have to have multiple issues of sexual or physical abuse, drug or alcohol usage, extreme neglect. If nothing else, it's not like there are a ton of foster homes available... and really that's not the way child protective services work.  They really, really try to keep families intact unless there is obvious safety issues. There is so much paperwork and so many meetings and hearings and ways that a family can get their kids back unless they just don't want to follow the rules. If a rogue case worker oversteps his/her role and takes a child from a family, there is oversight in the system to make certain it is legal and appropriate... case worker supervisers, CASA workers, judges, citizen review boards.  It's a huge bureaucracy full of multiple layers of protection,  but it's set up with the purpose of protecting kids. I don't always like working with the system, but I can say with 100% assurance that they do not take children away from stable homes.   My guess is that there are a lot of other issues with this family and they just don't want to tell their friends and family what's actually going on.

[poppy]

Andy: Hello. I'm Andy Dufresne.
Red: The wife-killin' banker.
Andy: How do you know that?
Red: I keep my ear to the ground. Why'd you do it?
Andy: I didn't, since you ask.
Red: Hell, you're gonna fit right in, then. Everyone's innocent in here, don't you know that? Heywood! What are you in for, boy?
Heywood: Didn't do it!

 

 

I know they aren't charged with a crime. I'm just saying, when I read that tale of complete innocence on their part, I was reminded of that movie scene. Them crying out about the injustice of it all and having NO news source or advocacy group to come anywhere near this story is very telling, IMO.  I am thinking of the story about the state taking over a child's custody at Boston Chidren's Hospital in contrast.

 

For the children's sake, I hope that their story is somewhere close to the truth, but  I sincerely doubt it. 

[Pamela H in Texas]

My daughter did bring up another concern that I think it worth considering.  It would be one of the main ways I think this sort of tragedy could happen to innocent adoptive parents.  

 

RAD

 

(or one of a few other such dxes)

 

<sigh>  I don't even think I want to say more.  Fact is that things could get blown out of proportion QUICKLY with the lies, exaggerations, delusional perceptions, mommy shopping silliness, etc of things like RAD....

 

ETA:  Of course, one safety is that there were so many children there.  Obviously, they wouldn't all tell the same lies in the same ways even if they all had developmental issues, RAD, etc that made them do those things.  

[LMV]

Don't most states require children in the foster care system to be enrolled in public school? Is Texas different? Or does it make a difference that the children were placed through a private agency not the state?

 

In our state this depends on whether you are fostering but have also been granted guardianship.  If you have guardianship then you also have the ability to make decisions regarding health care and education.  I do think, at least in our area, that the decisions you make in these are bit more closely monitored  than if you were a biological or adoptive parent but I'm not completely convinced that is bad.  We've never run into a situation where our decisions weren't ultimately respected.  Not all foster parents are granted guardianship and the CP/FS recommendation does seem to carry a lot of weight with judges.  It is commonly granted in foster adopt scenarios and often granted in therapeutic/treatment foster care.  It is also not an immediate process but if you are in one of those groups and CP/FS is in favor it can happen reasonably quickly.  Last year our foster daughter was abandoned in our home after a medical respite placement.  We agreed to keep her as emergency placement while CP/FS investigated.  We then agreed to transition into a medically fragile treatment placement and went through the guardianship process.  She was abandoned on Veteran's Day and we had guardianship well before Christmas.  The caseworker transported her to her old school until Christmas break when we officially withdrew her to homeschool (with some adjunctive participation in a charter gifted and talented program through our local elementary school).

[mamaraby]

And in foster families, that can change based on the placement. This month, the family has X number of kids with Y issues. Next month, the number of kids may change, the issues may change.... or maybe those things are similar but the specific personalities or dynamics are changed somehow. Sometimes nine kids is easier than six. And regardless, nine kids at Mrs. D's isn't the same as nine kids as Mrs. H's.

I don't see anyone here disagreeing with this nor judging anyone for the number of children they have. This still doesn't exclude the possibility for a child collecting/hoarding situation. Simply put there just isn't near enough information from outside sources to corroborate the family's version of events.

[LMV]

My daughter did bring up another concern that I think it worth considering.  It would be one of the main ways I think this sort of tragedy could happen to innocent adoptive parents.  

 

RAD

 

(or one of a few other such dxes)

 

<sigh>  I don't even think I want to say more.  Fact is that things could get blown out of proportion QUICKLY with the lies, exaggerations, delusional perceptions, mommy shopping silliness, etc of things like RAD....

 

This makes me sad.  I suspect a family in our church is going through some of this without any CP/FS involvement.  I really didn't pick up on this initially because our church is in many ways a bit of it's own extended family (ie. there are people in that church who love my kids just because they are children of God in their church---and for most kids I think this is great) and because the child is still young so it's a bit developmentally appropriate to not really have a filter (and thus some kids innocently spill some family secrets unintentionally as a result).  To further complicate this child is roughly the same age as foster DD5 so some of what my DH thinks is a bit too much glomming onto our family may really just be wanting to hang with her friend (except the more we look at this we're not sure she is really wanting to be foster DD5's friend).  Today DH turned down her not subtle attempt to invite herself home after church to play because this is all starting to make him uncomfortable (especially on a Sunday when I worked an ED day shift and thus sent him to church alone with five kids).  When he took a moment at home to explain to foster DD5 that he would let her have a friend to play on a day when both he and mommy would be home she said that would be fine but it would be even better if it was a friend other than little possibly RAD girl from church. 

[RanchGirl]

The fact that the judge and guardian ad litem are citing made up homeschool oversight authority is concerning to me.  From my limited understanding of this situation, it seems that it should be either:

 

(1) there are abuse issues, imminent danger type stuff, in which case they are justified in removing the children from the home.

OR

(2) there is a lack of education which is not imminent danger and the removal was not justified.

 

If there is true abuse/neglect, there is no need for CPS or the judge to even mention educational issues as it is basically irrelevant if there are imminent danger type issues happening.

 

So it just doesn't make sense that homeschooling and asking for oversight of the education is even being mentioned.  And furthermore, none of this explains why the children couldn't go to friends/relatives when they were removed from the home, which clearly would been much less traumatic for the children. 

 

[RanchGirl]

As a foster parent, I can say that the state has no interest in taking children away from stable, safe homes. Families have to have multiple issues of sexual or physical abuse, drug or alcohol usage, extreme neglect. If nothing else, it's not like there are a ton of foster homes available... and really that's not the way child protective services work.  They really, really try to keep families intact unless there is obvious safety issues. There is so much paperwork and so many meetings and hearings and ways that a family can get their kids back unless they just don't want to follow the rules. If a rogue case worker oversteps his/her role and takes a child from a family, there is oversight in the system to make certain it is legal and appropriate... case worker supervisers, CASA workers, judges, citizen review boards.  It's a huge bureaucracy full of multiple layers of protection,  but it's set up with the purpose of protecting kids. I don't always like working with the system, but I can say with 100% assurance that they do not take children away from stable homes.   My guess is that there are a lot of other issues with this family and they just don't want to tell their friends and family what's actually going on.

 

I completely disagree with this and have seen with my own eyes how the various caseworkers close ranks to protect their own even when mistakes are clearly being made and their own rules are being violated at the expense of children and their stable, safe homes.  I am thrilled for you that you haven't experienced this as a foster parent but please do not mistake your own good luck for a system that works 100% of the time.

[Mergath]

The fact that the judge and guardian ad litem are citing made up homeschool oversight authority is concerning to me.  From my limited understanding of this situation, it seems that it should be either:

 

(1) there are abuse issues, imminent danger type stuff, in which case they are justified in removing the children from the home.

OR

(2) there is a lack of education which is not imminent danger and the removal was not justified.

 

If there is true abuse/neglect, there is no need for CPS or the judge to even mention educational issues as it is basically irrelevant if there are imminent danger type issues happening.

 

So it just doesn't make sense that homeschooling and asking for oversight of the education is even being mentioned.  And furthermore, none of this explains why the children couldn't go to friends/relatives when they were removed from the home, which clearly would been much less traumatic for the children. 

 

But we don't know if that's true.  All we know is that the website said that someone in the courtroom said the judge/GAL said that.  Ever played telephone?  Yeah.

[Truscifi]

The fact that the judge and guardian ad litem are citing made up homeschool oversight authority is concerning to me.  From my limited understanding of this situation, it seems that it should be either:

 

(1) there are abuse issues, imminent danger type stuff, in which case they are justified in removing the children from the home.

OR

(2) there is a lack of education which is not imminent danger and the removal was not justified.

 

If there is true abuse/neglect, there is no need for CPS or the judge to even mention educational issues as it is basically irrelevant if there are imminent danger type issues happening.

 

So it just doesn't make sense that homeschooling and asking for oversight of the education is even being mentioned.  And furthermore, none of this explains why the children couldn't go to friends/relatives when they were removed from the home, which clearly would been much less traumatic for the children. 

 

But are they really? If so I agree that is concerning but the only thing we have to go on right now is what the family and their attorney are saying the judge and GAL said. I have also googled and can't find any outside sources.

[LMV]

The fact that the judge and guardian ad litem are citing made up homeschool oversight authority is concerning to me.  From my limited understanding of this situation, it seems that it should be either:

 

(1) there are abuse issues, imminent danger type stuff, in which case they are justified in removing the children from the home.

OR

(2) there is a lack of education which is not imminent danger and the removal was not justified.

 

If there is true abuse/neglect, there is no need for CPS or the judge to even mention educational issues as it is basically irrelevant if there are imminent danger type issues happening.

 

So it just doesn't make sense that homeschooling and asking for oversight of the education is even being mentioned.  And furthermore, none of this explains why the children couldn't go to friends/relatives when they were removed from the home, which clearly would been much less traumatic for the children. 

 

The case plan should address all of the deficiencies.  It would be incomplete to address physical safety but ignore the co-existing neglect issues.  That would just set up a scenario that would be likely to result in further problems (and further CPS involvement) even if the parents worked the case plan to the letter.  That doesn't sound like it is in the best interest of anyone.

 

I am not in TX but in our state if CP/FS removes children they can only go into a licensed and approved foster scenario.  In my experience I have seen the process expedited for family members (and in some cases even family friends) who want to take the kids and are suitable but they can't just put them there without some evaluation.  Now if TX doesn't have such a law or regulation that is a different story.  It is also a different story if family members had valid foster care licenses and open beds and CPS opted to place elsewhere.  There actually may be legitimate reasons for them placing elsewhere regardless but it would change things a bit.  I just haven't seen any evidence that this happened. 

[Pamela H in Texas]

Mergath, that is what I was thinking.  We have NO idea how true any of what was reported is.  CPS isn't going to discuss ANY of this.  The people involved can say anything under the sun. Well, and they aren't necessarily TRYING to mislead.  Omitting mistakes wouldn't be that surprising. Not recognizing them is pretty par for the course with CPS cases. Then perception of things mentioned or not mentioned could make it seem like a bigger deal than it was in real life. Hearsay by biased people when there can be no discussion of it really has a high possibility of being fiction.  

 

Again, not saying that is the case here.  Just saying that under the circumstances, I think we have to remember it *could* be.  

 

BTW, another thing that bothered me as a foster parent from the same area was the simplification of things.  Obviously, this makes sense because lay people don't understand how everythign works.  But there are parts where you know there were at least three people and yet it is written as if there was only one.  Was that deliberate? for the article's simplicity? or story-telling?