THSC article on CPS taking kids...

[Pamela H in Texas]

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. 

 

I have actually wondered about this.  My current kids went straight to kin so I know it *can* happen.  However, in most situations I've had or have seen, it takes quite a long time.  My last kids were here five months before going to kin. If kin is out of state, it can take months on end (Monkey's "kin" took 14 months to get her). Texas has become QUITE serious about kinship placements now.  But primary for kin, outside of passing a simple homestudy, is to be able to show they can meet the needs of the children (including keeping them safe in regards to parents- which is actually how I got Monkey. Her grandparents couldn't keep her safe from her biodad).

[NASDAQ]

Pamela, your posts on this thread have been really measured and useful. I appreciate the insight into the Texas system.

[lovinmomma]

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.

 

.

[Momling]

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.

 

I'm not suggesting mistakes can't be made.  I'm saying that the big, clunky system of child protective services has no interest in removing kids from a minimally safe family and that there are people both inside and outside child welfare who check the system. If the case worker with her supervisors and the CASA and the judge all say the kids should be removed, then we're probably not getting the whole story.   If truly the only issue was homeschooling, I have full confidence that the system will chug along and either a different judge or review board will order those kids back home or the family will jump through whatever hoops they want them to and we won't hear anything more about it.

 

As an aside, do we know that these kids are even in community foster placements and not just staying with grandparents or whatever as relative foster care?

[Momling]

Exactly, Lovinmomma (whose post I will not quote), mistakes were made and the system of backup and oversight worked.  It must have been a terrible time!

[lovinmomma]

Exactly, Lovinmomma (whose post I will not quote), mistakes were made and the system of backup and oversight worked.  It must have been a terrible time!

 

True. However, it worked out in our favor because it was something that could be proved. I've had several friends (one a close friend) that was NOT so lucky. She lost custody for a time. Lost her teaching credentials, etc. Eventually, it was overturned but it's taken 5 years. That's 5 years of her and her childrens' lives because of an accident that her child had while she was supervising him.

[Laurie4b]

I'm not suggesting mistakes can't be made.  I'm saying that the big, clunky system of child protective services has no interest in removing kids from a minimally safe family and that there are people both inside and outside child welfare who check the system. If the case worker with her supervisors and the CASA and the judge all say the kids should be removed, then we're probably not getting the whole story.   If truly the only issue was homeschooling, I have full confidence that the system will chug along and either a different judge or review board will order those kids back home or the family will jump through whatever hoops they want them to and we won't hear anything more about it.

 

As an aside, do we know that these kids are even in community foster placements and not just staying with grandparents or whatever as relative foster care?

 

You cannot make generalizations about CPS based on where you live. There are whole systems involved that can become very sick and dysfunctional. The belief that we should "err on the side of protecting the child" leads to a great deal of damage when protecting the child is interpreted as removal. Judges know the CPS workers and the CPS attorney and the GAL attorneys. The parents almost always have court-appointed attorneys who themselves often think the child shouldn't be with the parents. With regard to the case below, our foster daughter's attorney actually said to me that he had never known that there were negatives to removing a child from his parents' care (in terms of psychological impact on the child, for instance.) The court-appointed attorneys often don't even meet with the parent until the day of court. They are only technically representing the parent. Most don't put up a very concerted effort. (On another case I was involved in as a mental health social worker, the parents' attorney said to me, "We all want what is in the best interests of the child" ...Yes, but that is not his job, though in that case, I was glad he didn't put up a fight. But he didn't do his job as an attorney.)

 

I was involved in such a case . We were not accused--a former foster daughter was.The child had been beaten by a boyfriend/babysitter while the mom was at work. It was undisputed that she wasn't there. They decided to take custody from her anyway while he was in the hospital. I immediately offered our home knowing the impact of separation from primary caregiver at that age. 

 

A social worker lied on the stand about what I had said to her, after previously being very excited about being able to place both mom and child with our family. Her supervisor was a woman with major control issues and overruled her. The judge did eventually place the child with us, but only because I was a former GAL and knew how to intervene in the GAL system there. Not only that, but the expert doctor who had examined the child did a Bill-Clintonesque type of "mislead the judge" kind of lie on the stand about marks on the child's legs. She didn't outright lie. But she deflected a key question and mislead the judge. It had the same effect as a lie. (The marks were from a sensitive reaction to the diaper line on an African-American child. I saw this myself after he stayed with us and had a CPS supervisor from our county look at them with a wet diaper on. She totally agreed.) The doctor was implying that they were switch marks. To be switch marks, someone would have had to carefully match them up, herringbone tweed style and avoid marking anything but the inside of the thighs. Her assertion was ludicrous. The attorney for the mother didn't push the doctor after she lied. He wasn't confident enough.

 

That CPS supervisor put me through hell trying to disrupt the placement after that. I was pregnant and had a 6, 4, and 2 year old.

 

A person with issues can most certainly disrupt the entire system. The system is truly stacked against parents. I doubt if that child would have been returned to our foster daughter for months and months. Disruption of a primary caregiver at age 2 (which he was) can have lifelong psychological impact (ie RAD, etc.)

 

So you put together poor legal representation, CPS/judges/GAL attorneys who hang out together, and you have any 2 of those players have preconceived notions of any kind, or their own control issues, etc. and yes, indeed, kids can get removed who shouldn't.

 

By the way, thus was the same CPS system in which a colleague who worked with crack moms couldn't get DSS to take a baby after she had reported the mom was using again because CPS said they had no openings for infant placements.

 

Again, I have no clue what happened in this case. None of us do. But it isn't outrageous to think that a child can be removed from the home in some jurisdictions with no cause because of power issues by someone in charge.

[poppy]

You cannot make generalizations about CPS based on where you live. There are whole systems involved that can become very sick and dysfunctional. The belief that we should "err on the side of protecting the child" leads to a great deal of damage when protecting the child is interpreted as removal. Judges know the CPS workers and the CPS attorney and the GAL attorneys. The parents almost always have court-appointed attorneys who themselves often think the child shouldn't be with the parents. With regard to the case below, our foster daughter's attorney actually said to me that he had never known that there were negatives to removing a child from his parents' care (in terms of psychological impact on the child, for instance.) The court-appointed attorneys often don't even meet with the parent until the day of court. They are only technically representing the parent. Most don't put up a very concerted effort. (On another case I was involved in as a mental health social worker, the parents' attorney said to me, "We all want what is in the best interests of the child" ...Yes, but that is not his job, though in that case, I was glad he didn't put up a fight. But he didn't do his job as an attorney.)

 

I was involved in such a case . We were not accused--a former foster daughter was.The child had been beaten by a boyfriend/babysitter while the mom was at work. It was undisputed that she wasn't there. They decided to take custody from her anyway while he was in the hospital. I immediately offered our home knowing the impact of separation from primary caregiver at that age. 

 

A social worker lied on the stand about what I had said to her, after previously being very excited about being able to place both mom and child with our family. Her supervisor was a woman with major control issues and overruled her. The judge did eventually place the child with us, but only because I was a former GAL and knew how to intervene in the GAL system there. Not only that, but the expert doctor who had examined the child did a Bill-Clintonesque type of "mislead the judge" kind of lie on the stand about marks on the child's legs. She didn't outright lie. But she deflected a key question and mislead the judge. It had the same effect as a lie. (The marks were from a sensitive reaction to the diaper line on an African-American child. I saw this myself after he stayed with us and had a CPS supervisor from our county look at them with a wet diaper on. She totally agreed.) The doctor was implying that they were switch marks. To be switch marks, someone would have had to carefully match them up, herringbone tweed style and avoid marking anything but the inside of the thighs. Her assertion was ludicrous. The attorney for the mother didn't push the doctor after she lied. He wasn't confident enough.

 

That CPS supervisor put me through hell trying to disrupt the placement after that. I was pregnant and had a 6, 4, and 2 year old.

 

A person with issues can most certainly disrupt the entire system. The system is truly stacked against parents. I doubt if that child would have been returned to our foster daughter for months and months. Disruption of a primary caregiver at age 2 (which he was) can have lifelong psychological impact (ie RAD, etc.)

 

So you put together poor legal representation, CPS/judges/GAL attorneys who hang out together, and you have any 2 of those players have preconceived notions of any kind, or their own control issues, etc. and yes, indeed, kids can get removed who shouldn't.

 

By the way, thus was the same CPS system in which a colleague who worked with crack moms couldn't get DSS to take a baby after she had reported the mom was using again because CPS said they had no openings for infant placements.

 

Again, I have no clue what happened in this case. None of us do. But it isn't outrageous to think that a child can be removed from the home in some jurisdictions with no cause because of power issues by someone in charge.

 

This sounds incredibly stressful and hard, I'm sorry. But I have to say, leaving a two year old in the care of an abusive boyfriend does seem very troubling.  Removal from a primary caregiver can have lifelong psychological impact, but, obviously, so can leaving a toddler in a physically unsafe environment.

[maize]

You cannot make generalizations about CPS based on where you live. There are whole systems involved that can become very sick and dysfunctional. The belief that we should "err on the side of protecting the child" leads to a great deal of damage when protecting the child is interpreted as removal. Judges know the CPS workers and the CPS attorney and the GAL attorneys. The parents almost always have court-appointed attorneys who themselves often think the child shouldn't be with the parents. With regard to the case below, our foster daughter's attorney actually said to me that he had never known that there were negatives to removing a child from his parents' care (in terms of psychological impact on the child, for instance.) The court-appointed attorneys often don't even meet with the parent until the day of court. They are only technically representing the parent. Most don't put up a very concerted effort. (On another case I was involved in as a mental health social worker, the parents' attorney said to me, "We all want what is in the best interests of the child" ...Yes, but that is not his job, though in that case, I was glad he didn't put up a fight. But he didn't do his job as an attorney.)

 

I was involved in such a case . We were not accused--a former foster daughter was.The child had been beaten by a boyfriend/babysitter while the mom was at work. It was undisputed that she wasn't there. They decided to take custody from her anyway while he was in the hospital. I immediately offered our home knowing the impact of separation from primary caregiver at that age.

 

A social worker lied on the stand about what I had said to her, after previously being very excited about being able to place both mom and child with our family. Her supervisor was a woman with major control issues and overruled her. The judge did eventually place the child with us, but only because I was a former GAL and knew how to intervene in the GAL system there. Not only that, but the expert doctor who had examined the child did a Bill-Clintonesque type of "mislead the judge" kind of lie on the stand about marks on the child's legs. She didn't outright lie. But she deflected a key question and mislead the judge. It had the same effect as a lie. (The marks were from a sensitive reaction to the diaper line on an African-American child. I saw this myself after he stayed with us and had a CPS supervisor from our county look at them with a wet diaper on. She totally agreed.) The doctor was implying that they were switch marks. To be switch marks, someone would have had to carefully match them up, herringbone tweed style and avoid marking anything but the inside of the thighs. Her assertion was ludicrous. The attorney for the mother didn't push the doctor after she lied. He wasn't confident enough.

 

That CPS supervisor put me through hell trying to disrupt the placement after that. I was pregnant and had a 6, 4, and 2 year old.

 

A person with issues can most certainly disrupt the entire system. The system is truly stacked against parents. I doubt if that child would have been returned to our foster daughter for months and months. Disruption of a primary caregiver at age 2 (which he was) can have lifelong psychological impact (ie RAD, etc.)

 

So you put together poor legal representation, CPS/judges/GAL attorneys who hang out together, and you have any 2 of those players have preconceived notions of any kind, or their own control issues, etc. and yes, indeed, kids can get removed who shouldn't.

 

By the way, thus was the same CPS system in which a colleague who worked with crack moms couldn't get DSS to take a baby after she had reported the mom was using again because CPS said they had no openings for infant placements.

 

Again, I have no clue what happened in this case. None of us do. But it isn't outrageous to think that a child can be removed from the home in some jurisdictions with no cause because of power issues by someone in charge.

This is why assertions that we should just trust the system to do its job concern me. I don't believe the system is evil, I absolutely believe most of the people involved are trying to help children. But people make mistakes, people believe lies, people disagree with lifestyles...and the idea that if mistakes are made they will all be sorted out in the end and children returned to their home does not account for potentially permanent damage caused by the removal itself.

 

I do believe that real risk of imminent harm justifies removing children, but the certain trauma of removal from familiar circumstances and from a primary care giver must always be weighed in the balance.

[vonfirmath]

 "Anyone can have their children taken for no reason" is just not true. 

 

This story smells fishy.

 

I used to believe that until I had two friends lose their kids -- and really fight to get them back (months and months without their kids). In situations that, it seemed to me, I could see myself being in.

[MistyMountain]

I'm not suggesting mistakes can't be made. I'm saying that the big, clunky system of child protective services has no interest in removing kids from a minimally safe family and that there are people both inside and outside child welfare who check the system. If the case worker with her supervisors and the CASA and the judge all say the kids should be removed, then we're probably not getting the whole story.

I used to say this exact same thing until I realized it really isn't true everywhere. I have seen kids separated from their parent or parents for months when there was NOT severe neglect or abuse and the kids were negatively affected. All the parents did everything possible to get their kids back. One set of kids was removed because a toddler got into something up high and the home was slightly messy (another friend was there recently it was pretty typical and not disgusting) and the hot water heater was not working but a call was in to get it fixed. Those kids were removed from a good school to a bad one and one of the kids had an IEP. A close friend of mine who I knew well had her kids removed and there was no neglect at all going on.

 

You cannot make generalizations about CPS based on where you live. There are whole systems involved that can become very sick and dysfunctional. The belief that we should "err on the side of protecting the child" leads to a great deal of damage when protecting the child is interpreted as removal. Judges know the CPS workers and the CPS attorney and the GAL attorneys. The parents almost always have court-appointed attorneys who themselves often think the child shouldn't be with the parents. With regard to the case below, our foster daughter's attorney actually said to me that he had never known that there were negatives to removing a child from his parents' care (in terms of psychological impact on the child, for instance.) The court-appointed attorneys often don't even meet with the parent until the day of court.

I have seen this occur. I realize not every area is the same but yes there are areas where they do not keep families together and are quick to remove and don't even see the harm in doing so in some cases. The people who interview children do not always do that properly in every case.

[Harriet Vane]

There are some pretty nasty stories on this thread. They are scary indeed. Would you elaborate, just a little, what happened to your friends?

 

I do realize that making uncommon choices (including homeschooling) could cause suspicion in child services where there should be none. But, does it really happen that kids get taken because you hadn't done the dishes that day, or because a neighbor makes up stuff about you, or because your pediatrician doesn't like it that you still breastfeed, etc? If that happens, that is terrifying and terrible.

 

The problem is the amount of discretionary power the various people in the system have. It really does come down to opinion rather than fact, and dishonest or controlling people can easily thrive in the system because of the lack of checks and balances.

 

On one hand, it can be well-nigh impossible to pull a kid who really should be taken into care. Try getting a 13yo African-American boy from inner-city Chicago into foster care--it's virtually impossible. Often kids are left in terrible circumstances because there are no placements available or because the people who should help choose not to do so. (That would include mandated reporters who don't report as well as the myriad people within the system who choose not to react appropriately.)

 

On the other hand, if a caseworker or a judge chooses to remove a child, it can be extremely difficult to prevent that from happening. They do actually have that power. Just going through the various hearings can take forever. Once a child is in care, the system is predisposed to assume guilt.

[poppy]

There are some pretty nasty stories on this thread. They are scary indeed. Would you elaborate, just a little, what happened to your friends?

 

I do realize that making uncommon choices (including homeschooling) could cause suspicion in child services where there should be none. But, does it really happen that kids get taken because you hadn't done the dishes that day, or because a neighbor makes up stuff about you, or because your pediatrician doesn't like it that you still breastfeed, etc? If that happens, that is terrifying and terrible.

 

I have to confess I am a little skeptical of second or third hand stories about how parents had kids taken away for no reason at all or for the flimsiest of excuses.  Look at this very thread.  The first poster described it this way:  "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." Now obviously the real story is a lot more complicated than that.    Autistic child escaped, parent didn't notice until other kids alerted him, police found the children unsupervised, possible education neglect, possible house filled with animal feces, possible prior concerns with CPS, concerns about the safety plan, possibly other reports from the children -- that may be untrue (see RAD comments).     But to some people, once they decide CPS is in the wrong, it becomes "they were taken away because there were too many kids!"

 

Just want to be clear, I have a bit of experience with bureaucracy that has taught me that there are plenty of flaws in the system, and that it's NOT fair, and stupid people make bad mistakes that can have terrible consequences.  And as I said earlier, I'd love to wrong about the Tutt family and I hope they are great parents who are reunited with their kids soon, for everyone's sake.

[QueenCat]

Since not everything is in the public record, it is not always possible to get a full or true picture of a situation. And just because one's friends appear to be good parents, does not mean they actually are.......

[Catwoman]

This sounds incredibly stressful and hard, I'm sorry. But I have to say, leaving a two year old in the care of an abusive boyfriend does seem very troubling. Removal from a primary caregiver can have lifelong psychological impact, but, obviously, so can leaving a toddler in a physically unsafe environment.

:iagree:

 

Even if the woman was an incredibly great mom, CPS would have no way of knowing for sure that the boyfriend wouldn't return to further harm the child. In that particular case, I can understand why the child was removed from the home. Thank goodness Laurie was there to step in and try to help both the child and the mom.

[Guest submarines]

The problem is the amount of discretionary power the various people in the system have. It really does come down to opinion rather than fact, and dishonest or controlling people can easily thrive in the system because of the lack of checks and balances.

 

On one hand, it can be well-nigh impossible to pull a kid who really should be taken into care. Try getting a 13yo African-American boy from inner-city Chicago into foster care--it's virtually impossible. Often kids are left in terrible circumstances because there are no placements available or because the people who should help choose not to do so. (That would include mandated reporters who don't report as well as the myriad people within the system who choose not to react appropriately.)

 

On the other hand, if a caseworker or a judge chooses to remove a child, it can be extremely difficult to prevent that from happening. They do actually have that power. Just going through the various hearings can take forever. Once a child is in care, the system is predisposed to assume guilt.

 

:iagree: This is my experience as well.

 

[lovinmomma]

The problem is the amount of discretionary power the various people in the system have. It really does come down to opinion rather than fact, and dishonest or controlling people can easily thrive in the system because of the lack of checks and balances.

 

 

EXACTLY. This. That is the main problem. It's really up to the opinion of 1 person whether or not you are put on the child abuse registry. No evidence or trial is needed. That is scary.

[lovinmomma]

Since not everything is in the public record, it is not always possible to get a full or true picture of a situation. And just because one's friends appear to be good parents, does not mean they actually are.......

 

Which is why I rarely mention the horrible nightmare that we went through or that my friends went through, because until you have experienced what we have experienced it's hard to understand or believe.

[Catwoman]

Which is why I rarely mention the horrible nightmare that we went through or that my friends went through, because until you have experienced what we have experienced it's hard to understand or believe.

 

In another post, you mentioned that several of your friends have had similarly terrible experiences, and I have to admit that I had no idea that this sort of thing was common, as I have never known anyone IRL who had a problem with CPS. Did all of you live in the same area, with the same dysfunctional system? 

[QueenCat]

In another post, you mentioned that several of your friends have had similarly terrible experiences, and I have to admit that I had no idea that this sort of thing was common, as I have never known anyone IRL who had a problem with CPS. Did all of you live in the same area, with the same dysfunctional system? 

 

I was wondering the same thing.............. the only people I've ever known to be accused of something, actually did do something, to the shock of many, as they seemed on the surface to be incredibly involved, good parents.

[Harriet Vane]

In another post, you mentioned that several of your friends have had similarly terrible experiences, and I have to admit that I had no idea that this sort of thing was common, as I have never known anyone IRL who had a problem with CPS. Did all of you live in the same area, with the same dysfunctional system? 

The question was not directed to me, but I will provide an anecdote.,

 

A friend of mine was a licensed foster parent with a toddler (3yo) that she had had from that child's birth. She hoped to adopt that child and did eventually do so. My friend had several other children--a couple bio kids and one adopted child in addition to the foster child. My friend's husband had suffered unemployment for months. Once in a stable job again he chose to go back to school to get a degree. He worked all day and then had classes at night or had to study on those nights that he did not have classes. He was also either studying or in class on weekends. My friend found parenting through her husband's schooling exhausting (understandably). They chose to rent an apartment in the heart of the city that had no kitchen. (It did have a bathroom as well as living room and bedrooms.) Rather, the building had a cafeteria, and residents who were accepted into that apartment building would purchase a meal plan through the cafeteria. The apartment was approved by both the caseworker and the caseworker's supervisor, and my friend moved in. She was overjoyed! It was sooooo easy to take the kids downstairs to the cafeteria to eat. No cooking. No clean-up. Easy-peasy.

 

HOWEVER, a DCFS licensing worker had never heard of an apartment building like this and pulled the paperwork. The licensing worker decided two things:

 

1. She decided it was a religious commune. (It was NOT. There was nothing at all religious about it. It was an apartment building for people who didn't want to cook and who wanted a cafeteria. There was NO religious affiliation or paperwork or anything. The DCFS worker, when confronted with the lack of supporting data for her determination simply responded that it was a stealth religious commune--she didn't need paperwork to know that it was a commune.)

 

2. She decided that the public cafeteria (public in the sense of being available to all tenants in this large building) presented a risk of harm to the foster child. That made no sense at all--it would be the same risk that any other restaurant or park in the city would present. The worker could not be reasoned with on this point.

 

Based on this one worker's determination, my friend was given 24 hours to secure new housing or lose her foster child. There was NO way to appeal this. My friend moved into an apartment in a terrible neighborhood because it was literally the only thing she could get on 24 hours' notice.

 

This is just one anecdote that represents the reality that there is waaaaaaay too much power in the hands of individuals within the child welfare system. I could tell more such stories.

[Ravin]

I had a sister who temporarily lost custody of her son. CPS took him into care and placed him with my mom, where he was already staying, to protect him from his father, who was being investigated for abusing my niece (his stepdaughter), while my sister was hospitalized. The concern was that he'd take the boy and run for it.

 

It took months and months for my sister to get him back. BIL took his own life, sis was back on her feet with a job and her own apartment, and custody of her daughter, which was never taken, despite reunification orders and all services being complied with.

 

The GAL recognized that being home with mom was what was in my nephew's best interest, and pushed for it with CPS, who were dragging their feet, compounding the boy's trauma.

 

This was in tx, by the way. Also, any attorney the parents have is privately hired. TX doesn't appoint attorneys in dependency/removal, only when the situation escalates to termination proceedings.

[Mergath]

The question was not directed to me, but I will provide an anecdote.,

 

A friend of mine was a licensed foster parent with a toddler (3yo) that she had had from that child's birth. She hoped to adopt that child and did eventually do so. My friend had several other children--a couple bio kids and one adopted child in addition to the foster child. My friend's husband had suffered unemployment for months. Once in a stable job again he chose to go back to school to get a degree. He worked all day and then had classes at night or had to study on those nights that he did not have classes. He was also either studying or in class on weekends. My friend found parenting through her husband's schooling exhausting (understandably). They chose to rent an apartment in the heart of the city that had no kitchen. (It did have a bathroom as well as living room and bedrooms.) Rather, the building had a cafeteria, and residents who were accepted into that apartment building would purchase a meal plan through the cafeteria. The apartment was approved by both the caseworker and the caseworker's supervisor, and my friend moved in. She was overjoyed! It was sooooo easy to take the kids downstairs to the cafeteria to eat. No cooking. No clean-up. Easy-peasy.

 

HOWEVER, a DCFS licensing worker had never heard of an apartment building like this and pulled the paperwork. The licensing worker decided two things:

 

1. She decided it was a religious commune. (It was NOT. There was nothing at all religious about it. It was an apartment building for people who didn't want to cook and who wanted a cafeteria. There was NO religious affiliation or paperwork or anything. The DCFS worker, when confronted with the lack of supporting data for her determination simply responded that it was a stealth religious commune--she didn't need paperwork to know that it was a commune.)

 

2. She decided that the public cafeteria (public in the sense of being available to all tenants in this large building) presented a risk of harm to the foster child. That made no sense at all--it would be the same risk that any other restaurant or park in the city would present. The worker could not be reasoned with on this point.

 

Based on this one worker's determination, my friend was given 24 hours to secure new housing or lose her foster child. There was NO way to appeal this. My friend moved into an apartment in a terrible neighborhood because it was literally the only thing she could get on 24 hours' notice.

 

This is just one anecdote that represents the reality that there is waaaaaaay too much power in the hands of individuals within the child welfare system. I could tell more such stories.

 

But when you take in foster kids, you go into it knowing that the child might leave your home at any time, and that the workers can impose rules on how you care for them.  And I can kind of see why CPS might be concerned about a foster child living in a home with no kitchen, and no way to store and prepare food in case of an emergency.  (I've never heard of that kind of a living situation, either, except in dorms.  Was it some kind of college housing?)  People seem to have a lot of stories about foster parents they knew that didn't agree with the rules they had to follow, and present them as evidence that the system is broken, but I just don't agree.  And having been a foster kid myself for a year as a teen, I'm well aware that there's often a lot more to it that doesn't make it into the public story.

[Harriet Vane]

But when you take in foster kids, you go into it knowing that the child might leave your home at any time, and that the workers can impose rules on how you care for them.  And I can kind of see why CPS might be concerned about a foster child living in a home with no kitchen, and no way to store and prepare food in case of an emergency.  (I've never heard of that kind of a living situation, either, except in dorms.  Was it some kind of college housing?)  People seem to have a lot of stories about foster parents they knew that didn't agree with the rules they had to follow, and present them as evidence that the system is broken, but I just don't agree.  And having been a foster kid myself for a year as a teen, I'm well aware that there's often a lot more to it that doesn't make it into the public story.

 

There was no kitchen, but there certainly was room to store food. They could and did keep snacks in their own apartment. It was not college housing. It was an apartment building in Chicago. It is obviously an unusual idea, but that does not make the idea either illegal or unsafe.

 

The foster parents (my close friends) followed all the rules and had taken the time to have the housing placement approved by DCFS. My friend had provided copious amounts of documentation. There are no DCFS rules against this type of housing (or were not at the time--it's been a number of years), and both the caseworker and caseworker's supervisor had specifically approved the placement both verbally and in writing.

 

As for your assertion that foster parents know they could lose the child at any time--technically yes. But the reality is that this child had been hers for literally years at that point and they were well on the road to adopting her. It is in no way in that child's best interest to stay in a shelter rather than with the only family she had ever known. She had never been abused and there were no allegations of abuse against my friend or her husband or anyone they knew at any time. (The baby had been placed in care directly from the hospital shortly after her birth.)

 

There is no hidden side to this story. I walked this path with my friend. I am, in fact, the person who found an apartment for her on 24 hours' notice through my contacts with an inner city organization. If you spoke directly to her caseworker, she would tell you the same story.

 

I was involved with foster care for many years and I have many friends who were or are foster parents. I am more than familiar with the workings of DCFS. I know intimately the difference a good caseworker can make as well as the damage a bad caseworker or bad judge can do. I also know intimately the vast difference there is in how DCFS operates in a large urban setting versus an upper-middle-class suburban setting.

 

While it is true that many within the child welfare system are smart, capable, honest, and want only the best for children, it is also true that the system also harbors idiots and control freaks. Every foster parent, CASA worker, caseworker, etc., knows this reality. My anecdote is only one story--I could certainly tell many more, all stories that I was either personally involved with or knew of through my other friends involved in the child welfare system.

[lovinmomma]

In another post, you mentioned that several of your friends have had similarly terrible experiences, and I have to admit that I had no idea that this sort of thing was common, as I have never known anyone IRL who had a problem with CPS. Did all of you live in the same area, with the same dysfunctional system? 

 

Our situation was not in the same area as my friends' were. Ours was different because we were in a custody battle. However, it's a way too common event for parents in custody battles to accuse the other of abuse of some sort. Some of those get sorted out. Some do not.

 

As for my friends... I'm probably much more aware of these situations because at the time I was in leadership at a large church and knew many of the situations very closely. In addition, I was the childcare director. Others around may not have even known what was going on. That's much more common than people realize.

 

2 of the situations were due to accidents at home. The parent(s) were then accused of abuse.

 

On the other side of the coin, there was a situation in which I felt that the children should be taken away due to incidents I can not describe here. They were, but the children were given back and the unthinkable happened.

[lovinmomma]

 

While it is true that many within the child welfare system are smart, capable, honest, and want only the best for children, it is also true that the system also harbors idiots and control freaks. Every foster parent, CASA worker, caseworker, etc., knows this reality. My anecdote is only one story--I could certainly tell many more, all stories that I was either personally involved with or knew of through my other friends involved in the child welfare system.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. :)

[Laurie4b]

This sounds incredibly stressful and hard, I'm sorry. But I have to say, leaving a two year old in the care of an abusive boyfriend does seem very troubling.  Removal from a primary caregiver can have lifelong psychological impact, but, obviously, so can leaving a toddler in a physically unsafe environment.

 

Of course it would be troubling if she had known it would happen. However, she didn't. First incident. CPS's concern was that she was a dependent personality disorder (no evidence) and they were going to take the child just in case she would just go back to the boyfriend. She had previously been in therapy when she was our foster child and that therapist could have done a re-evaluation right away. But noooooo; that wouldn't do. It had to be a specific psychologist who didn't have an opening for months. When we finally got the appointment, he was absolutely furious after evaluating her and finding no evidence for CPS's concerns and finding out that another evaluation by someone who had already been her therapist was not acceptable. I think he felt used.

 

However, all that notwithstanding, we had offered our home while the child was still in the hospital. It was a win-win. Child could be safe AND not separated from his mother. We had been previous foster parents, our back door neighbor was the CPS supervisor, and I used her, a therapist in our neighborhood and a CPS worker for references when I offered our home. The initial CPS worker was thrilled, but the supervisor made her turn us down. Placement with us would have guaranteed the safety of the child and kept him from separation from his mother. CPS decided instead to put him in foster care, after a traumatic event, hospitalization, etc. They compounded the trauma. It would have been months, if ever, before she got him back. To top it off, she had a language retrieval problem which made it sound like she was lying sometimes when she wasn't. The wrong word or phrase would pop out and she'd have to go back into the "files" and pull out another one.

 

Anyway, because I was well-connected and very knowledgeable about the system and able to produce expert witnesses because I knew them and they did it for free, the judge allowed the placement with us. That supervisor still threw up every obstacle she could to make us drop the placement. It was hell being pregnant with 3 children plus a teenaged mother and a 2 year old traumatized child with CPS making life absolutely miserable. For instance, the supervisor required that I sleep in the room with the mother and child. Initially, we were supposed to have the child in a separate room from her. We tried, but he wailed for her all night. I consulted a child trauma expert and was told to let them sleep in the same room because of the trauma. That was fine with the social worker and I put a baby monitor in there.  The supervisor found out and required me to sleep in there instead. There was zero evidence that the mom had ever abused him and you can hear a child breathe on those things. No way could she be beating the child and I wouldn't hear it, plus the room was right across the hall from us. Like I said, the case-worker thought it was fine.  It was a control-freak issues with the supervisor. So I was in there pregnant, teenaged mother snored, and kid woke up periodically crying. It was very hard for me to sleep. There were several things that supervisor did like that.

 

[Laurie4b]

The problem is the amount of discretionary power the various people in the system have. It really does come down to opinion rather than fact, and dishonest or controlling people can easily thrive in the system because of the lack of checks and balances.

 

On one hand, it can be well-nigh impossible to pull a kid who really should be taken into care. Try getting a 13yo African-American boy from inner-city Chicago into foster care--it's virtually impossible. Often kids are left in terrible circumstances because there are no placements available or because the people who should help choose not to do so. (That would include mandated reporters who don't report as well as the myriad people within the system who choose not to react appropriately.)

 

On the other hand, if a caseworker or a judge chooses to remove a child, it can be extremely difficult to prevent that from happening. They do actually have that power. Just going through the various hearings can take forever. Once a child is in care, the system is predisposed to assume guilt.

 

Exactly.

[Laurie4b]

:iagree:

 

Even if the woman was an incredibly great mom, CPS would have no way of knowing for sure that the boyfriend wouldn't return to further harm the child. In that particular case, I can understand why the child was removed from the home. Thank goodness Laurie was there to step in and try to help both the child and the mom.

 

But note that I was there from the beginning. Knowing I was there, with references from 3 different social workers, one who lived next door to me, they still chose to place the child in foster care.

[Laurie4b]

 

I'm not saying it isn't possible for horrendous mistakes to be made by children's services, or that this does not happen in reality. I'm just saying that it isn't necessary to let Fox News or Random Blogs make us all live in fear. Additionally, being paranoid about this kind of thing actually makes it more likely to happen to you. If your body language says "scared of official people" every time you're in contact with authorities, you are going to make them suspicious. 

 

I got my fear of a child being taken for no reason from my work in children's mental health, as a GAL, and as a foster parent. I actually chose where to live based on avoiding the county that had the worst reputation in our area.

 

[Harriet Vane]

I got my fear of a child being taken for no reason from my work in children's mental health, as a GAL, and as a foster parent.

 

Yep. Me too. Involvement with the system over many years in more than one role had a profound effect on me.

 

On one hand, because I understand the nature of abuse and know many good people in the system, I am a strong advocate for reporting genuine criminal abuse.

 

On the other hand, because I have seen the abuses within the system first hand, I am well aware of how dangerous the system can be. It leaves a person cynical.

 

[Laurie4b]

Yep. Me too. Involvement with the system over many years in more than one role had a profound effect on me.

 

On one hand, because I understand the nature of abuse and know many good people in the system, I am a strong advocate for reporting genuine criminal abuse.

 

On the other hand, because I have seen the abuses within the system first hand, I am well aware of how dangerous the system can be. It leaves a person cynical.

 

 

Yep, and on the other hand, babies with moms using crack were left in their homes by the same agency because they didn't have enough beds.

 

I always said you could roll dice and have as good a chance of knowing what CPS  would do as you would if you had all the facts and tried to discern what their position would be. Baby with no one in the house besides mom whose started using crack again? Leave the baby. Safe home where we can put mom and 2 year old while we finish investigation?  Put the kid in foster care. Kid with scars all over his back who reported his prison guard father beat him with a belt?   Leave him in the home after he's reported it cuz those are bee stings, dontchaknow. 7 year old developmentally delayed child who can simulate sexual intercourse? Her 6 year old developmentally delayed (but apparently sexually precocious !) brother taught her so there's no abuse.  :banghead:  Never mind the wild parties going on all night at the home with drunk people crashing any and everywhere . 13 year old kid needs foster care? Put her with a foster parent who needs the money in public housing with a high crime rate where the foster mother requires only that she clean her room and is home by 1:00 a.m. So crazy. All true stories.

 

[Pamela H in Texas]

Okay, so a few hours ago, their FB page said court was running late.  I seriously don't get these long court hearings this family is having at this point in the case.  It is usually pretty black and white.  TPR trials don't usually last as long as this family has had either of these adversary hearings.  And this during hearings that are generally quite short.

 

Anyway, but one thing I don't understand:  the petition.  What will a bunch of signatures by strangers do for this family?  None of us know the family or circumstances around the removal past what is in the article.  Why would anyone take those signatures seriously?  Why would anyone think they would be taken seriously?  I guess all I see is that the signatures are like "likes" in that they show support for the family under the circumstance that the account of the article is 100% accurate. 

[swellmomma]

I don't think the petition would do anything legally to help but certainly would help the family feel they had people supporting them, a morale booster of sorts during this.

[Pamela H in Texas]

UPDATE on the Support the Tutt Family FB page:

 4 of the kids are being returned to their parents tomorrow after school, 3 are temporarily remaining in other places. The kids who are returned will be required to go to public school while certain stimulations are being met. This was not a victory or defeat, but a sidestep. More details to follow. Continue to pray for everyone involved.

 

 

Very weird.  

[AimeeM]

In another post, you mentioned that several of your friends have had similarly terrible experiences, and I have to admit that I had no idea that this sort of thing was common, as I have never known anyone IRL who had a problem with CPS. Did all of you live in the same area, with the same dysfunctional system? 

 

My best friend had a visit from CPS. Her daughter had a (very small) scratch on, I believe, her arm. When the school nurse asked the child about it, and who did it, the girl said "mom". The nurse was aware that this child was autistic and her personality was such that she would only answer direct questions. Instead of asking "how" or "why" mom scratched her arm, the nurse called CPS.

The scratch was about half an inch and completely superficial. My pre-k boy's knees look worse - seriously.

The day before, the girl had made a mad dash out the house door, in bare feet, on to an ice covered sidewalk; my friend grabbed her to pull her back and scratched her with her nail.

Now, while CPS eventually dropped the case, it's a bit unsettling that something as small as a scratch can land one in CPS territory with evals and home visits.

[Laurie4b]

UPDATE on the Support the Tutt Family FB page: 4 of the kids are being returned to their parents tomorrow after school, 3 are temporarily remaining in other places. The kids who are returned will be required to go to public school while certain stimulations are being met. This was not a victory or defeat, but a sidestep. More details to follow. Continue to pray for everyone involved.

 

Very weird.  

 

Yes, it is very weird ruling and tends to support the theory that the kids shouldn't have been removed in the first place.

 

If the home is dangerous, it would be very odd that 4/7 of the kids would be returned. Since TX has no homeschool oversight, it seems odd that they are being ordered into public school. I am guessing the 4/7 are school age and the others are younger. But if the home is abusive or the conditions unsanitary/unsafe as people have guessed, there is no reason to allow the older ones back, either. Kids are not supposed to be removed just because the home is messy, but an overzealous worker may have done that and it's now cleaned up? Who knows. It's still speculation, but having 4/7 of the children returned already does tend to support the theory that nothing much was actually wrong.

 

Also, I looked at the article more closely and the child with autism was one of 5 siblings who were part of a temporary placement.  As I said earlier, running away is very, very common with children with autism, even for the families that they've grown up in who have developed stringent plans, have alarms on doors, etc. In a temporary placement, the parents would just be getting on top of it. Additionally, encopresis is more common in kids with autism, and would be especially so during a transition time.

 

[Lisa R.]

What I also find troubling and confusing is why many homeschoolers are *automatically* supporting these parents as fit parents as as parents that have a right to homeschool. We don't know the whole story. I hope that these are great parents caught up in a terrible misunderstanding that will soon be fixed. However, I can't assume that because large pieces of information are missing here. I think it doesn't reflect well on homeschoolers when they have the attitude that investigation of a homeschooling family and subsequent removal of children is automatically an injustice. It makes homeschoolers look a bit...irrational. 

 

Perhaps homeschoolers (and others) should wait until the facts come out and then make a decision. Those close to the family can certainly be outraged and offer their opinions on that. For people that don't know the family or the situation...I find it odd that that they are firmly on the side of a homeschooling family they don't know and whose situation is unfamiliar to them.

[Pamela H in Texas]

It really isn't that odd that only some of the children were removed/returned.  That happens in a number of cases when certain children are more at risk than others for whatever reason.  And the stipulation regarding the children's education doesn't seem that off to me while with CPS oversight.  CPS often returns children with oversight and stipulations for several months (3, 6, or 12).  IMO, the fact that there are services still suggests there were real concerns.  The fact that some of the children are still in out-of-home care suggests it even more strongly.  

 

The chance this is about homeschooling alone is next to nil.  The chance this says ANYTHING for the other million Texas homeschool families is also small.

 

I think it is fine for people to want to support parents having dealings with CPS. I do think blindly supporting a family simply because they are homeschoolers is weird.  We're not going to get real evidence of their shortcomings as CPS isn't going to violate their privacy and they aren't going to admit wrong-doing.  However, after TWO extremely long hearings (during a time when hearings are usually counted in MINUTES, not hours), two judges have upheld the need for services and out-of-home care DESPITE what the family has taken care of since removal (which certainly they haven't just sat on their rears the last six weeks as their kids have been in foster care.  

 

I won't throw a family under the bus because I simply do not have all the facts.  I won't ever have all the facts though.  If I had to err on a side, I'm willing to say that I think it is reasonable to guess that SOMETHING has gone on, not that their own lawyers and professionals are inept, as are two judges, the investigator, the FBSS worker, the ongoing case worker, supervisors for each worker, the psychologist, the schools each child attends, the foster parents involved, the therapists involved, the doctors involved, etc.  Sometimes, it really isn't "everyone else" who is the problem.

 

 

[texasmama]

I live about 45 minutes from this family.  I am a former CPS investigator (in the early 90's).  Several years ago, I took in two children of a relative for five weeks after a founded CPS investigation. 

 

I read about this case from an email I received from THSC.  No one outside of this case can really know about all of the allegations or concerns because those are kept confidential.  Kinship care (temporary or permanent) is always the first choice for kids in removal situations.  In order to have my relative's kids stay at my house for five weeks, my dh and I had to give our SSN so a criminal background check could be done.  That is all that was required.  At the time, I had only a double bed for these two same gender kids to share, which was fine with CPS.  I was allowed to supervise visits in my home between my relative and the children.  As long as dh and I could pass a background check, we were allowed to keep the kids indefinitely. 

 

What I read about what the judge and ad litem attorney have stated sounds very "off".  This case does not sound like a legitimate use of CPS authority on the surface, but who really knows what was alleged and what occurred?  Time may provide more information about the facts, but the general public will never have all of the information.

 

Just my two cents.

[*Alyssa*]

Unless we know the whole story, we can never successfully judge any case without those details that a jury could be privy to.  This is the problem with family court cases.  You rarely get a trial-by-jury.  You are guilty until proven not guilty.  Family courts are most often closed to the public and I believe that is the true crime in all CPS cases.  I understand the reason is often because the case involves a minor, but that doesn't negate that both minors and adults deserve to have their day in court.

*Edited to clarify that a day in court means a trial-by-jury.

[Laurie4b]

Unless we know the whole story, we can never successfully judge any case without those details that a jury could be privy to.  This is the problem with family court cases.  You rarely get a trial-by-jury.  You are guilty until proven not guilty.  Family courts are most often closed to the public and I believe that is the true crime in all CPS cases.  I understand the reason is often because the case involves a minor, but that doesn't negate that both minors and adults deserve to have their day in court.

 

In our state, you never get a trial by jury in a CPS case. That would happen only if you are also charged with a criminal act and would not affect whether or not you get your kids back, only whether you go to jail or not.

 

The turnover among investigative case workers is very high. So it's not unlikely that the person investigating would be right out of school with a year or less experience.

The lack of trial by jury is why things can really get biased in an unhealthy system: the judges know the attorneys for both CPS and GAL. The judges hear the same social workers testify and in many areas with small GAL staffs, hear the same GALs testify. Note: you cannot be on a jury if you know any of the witnesses, however little. Why? Because it influences your perception of truth-telling. You are more likely to believe someone whom you know than someone you don't. In a jury trial, the jury knows no one. In a CPS trial, the "jury" is the judge and he knows everyone except the parents. As I said upthread, the parents are often poor and have court-appointed attorneys who have rarely met with them before the day of the trial and most of whom don't really believe in the parents in their hearts. I'd go so far as to say I've never seen a parent aggressively defended by a court -appointed attorney. I'm sure it happens. I've just never seen it. So the whole system is as Alyssa said, "guilty until proven not guilty" and is not a fair system for the parents. There are no checks and balances. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

So if you are ever investigated and the initial case-worker decides to remove your kids, the rest is rigged against you as the parents.   Everyone will be saying, "We don't really know the details." The details can be known in a jury trial, but not if your kids are taken.  It stinks. Your reputation will be suspect forever. Getting your kids back will convince no one. The system is broken. We really need a better one.

[*Alyssa*]

Momling, I appreciate your enthusiastic desire to see the good in people, but I am a victim of CPS gone wrong.  I grew up in foster jail.  You will never convince me CPS always does things in the best interest of the child/family.  I keep my story to myself, because honestly, remembering what happened makes me physically ill.  Plus, my story it too complicated to tell and would require a lengthy book.  Despite my past, I can still acknowledge CPS can do good for children who truly are abused in ways that require removal from the home.

[Pamela H in Texas]

UPDATED INFO: The judge found no abuse or neglect (CPS worker did not allege that even) and agreed the children should not have been removed. She did order public schooling while they children are evaluated by an educational expert. The 3 children not returned were the 2 pending adoption and the oldest, a child from a previous marriage who is with his father. Home schooling was the main issue. THSC will have more on this as things develop. As we are currently in litigation more details cannot be released. Please continue to pray for all the children and parents involved. Yes, this does fly in the face of our understanding of State law, but judges are the ones who interpret that law.

 

IF that is the case, this *is* outrageous.  

[Lisa R.]

UPDATED INFO: The judge found no abuse or neglect (CPS worker did not allege that even) and agreed the children should not have been removed. She did order public schooling while they children are evaluated by an educational expert. The 3 children not returned were the 2 pending adoption and the oldest, a child from a previous marriage who is with his father. Home schooling was the main issue. THSC will have more on this as things develop. As we are currently in litigation more details cannot be released. Please continue to pray for all the children and parents involved. Yes, this does fly in the face of our understanding of State law, but judges are the ones who interpret that law.

 

IF that is the case, this *is* outrageous.

But what if the kids have been neglected academically? Perhaps this step is necessary. I'm not suggesting they have been academically neglected, but I am suggesting that we don't know. Since we don't know, what is there to be outraged about?

 

I don't understand homeschoolers that automatically support other homeschoolers whether or not they know if their kids are college-ready or illiterate.

 

I think if we show staunch support for everyone that chooses to homeschool, whether they do a good job or not, that it will lead to increasing regulations on homeschoolers.

 

I'm getting off topic here, but I just wanted to chime in regarding defending those whom we have incomplete information.

 

Again, I do hope these parents are innocent of all wrong-doing and that their kids were being educated properly and then all are returned to their home.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Lisa, but nothing.  In Texas, a family cannot have judgment against them simply because of homeschooling (http://thsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/cps-memo-2012-11-05.pdf) and Texas homeschool law is written in a way that pretty much makes it where we're virtually untouchable (I have mixed feelings about that).  

 

IF there really was no neglect or abuse, then the state is overstepping by trying to evaluate these children and the homeschooling they received.

 

Now, in general, I think it is fine for us to say that we, as homeschoolers, don't want to encourage or wink at those not homeschooling in good faith.  Many of us Texas homeschoolers would agree with you that it stinks that some people neglect their kids educationally.

 

But that isn't what Texas homeschool law requires.  It basically says we *should* ("bonafide manner") but doesn't give ANYONE any right or responsibility to make sure we do.  

 

 

[alef]

Lisa, but nothing. In Texas, a family cannot have judgment against them simply because of homeschooling (http://thsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/cps-memo-2012-11-05.pdf) and Texas homeschool law is written in a way that pretty much makes it where we're virtually untouchable (I have mixed feelings about that).

 

IF there really was no neglect or abuse, then the state is overstepping by trying to evaluate these children and the homeschooling they received.

 

Now, in general, I think it is fine for us to say that we, as homeschoolers, don't want to encourage or wink at those not homeschooling in good faith. Many of us Texas homeschoolers would agree with you that it stinks that some people neglect their kids educationally.

 

But that isn't what Texas homeschool law requires. It basically says we *should* ("bonafide manner") but doesn't give ANYONE any right or responsibility to make sure we do.

This. The courts are supposed to uphold the laws. Texas homeschooling laws do not give this court the authority to evaluate the home education of the children. If that is the gist of the case, the court is acting outside the law.

 

The fact that one of the children is from a former marriage may be the cause of some of the unreported complications, as there may be a custody battle component we are not aware of.

[lovinmomma]

In our state, you never get a trial by jury in a CPS case. That would happen only if you are also charged with a criminal act and would not affect whether or not you get your kids back, only whether you go to jail or not.

 

So if you are ever investigated and the initial case-worker decides to remove your kids, the rest is rigged against you as the parents.   Everyone will be saying, "We don't really know the details." The details can be known in a jury trial, but not if your kids are taken.  It stinks. Your reputation will be suspect forever. Getting your kids back will convince no one. The system is broken. We really need a better one.

 

This is exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you so much for saying it better than me. Essentially, there is no trial and jury it's just simply one person's word against yours. Our case worker couldn't stand us from the second she walked up to our door. She was rude, demeaning, yelled at us, told us how to parent in the simplest of things, told us how to communicate with dh's ex, told us what things we were allowed to discuss together as spouses, etc. It was absurd! You can't imagine the relief when we got the letter that their findings were "unsubstantiated". The case worker called to tell us that even though the official ruling was unsubstantiated she still believed that it happened (even though it was proven in district court that it was actually dsd's mom) and that it would be "forever in our file" that she didn't believe us.

[RanchGirl]

But what if the kids have been neglected academically?

 

I don't know much about Texas but it appears CPS doesn't get to be the arbiters of the success or failure of a homeschool program there.  Regardless, in any state with any type of laws, you will never convince me that sending police to remove children from the home and placing them in foster care is an appropriate response to a suspicion, accusation, or even 100% verified finding of educational neglect. 

[swellmomma]

As far as requiring the kids to be in ps as they are evaluated could that be a funding issue to get psychoeducational testing for learning disabilities? Perhaps they are concerned that the kids have undiagnosed and untreated learning issues causing their delays rather than testing for neglect kwim.  I know where I live here in Alberta unless I want to pay thousands of $$ out of pocket for testing the only way to get my kids evaluated and diagnosed with their learning issues is to send them to ps and let the school test them or admit them to a mental health unit in the hospital.