THSC article on CPS taking kids...

[Ravin]

In the u.s., public schools have to provide special ed services and evaluations to kids who are privately schooled and homeschooled, so enrolling them isn't necessary to order such evaluations.

[vonfirmath]

In the u.s., public schools have to provide special ed services and evaluations to kids who are privately schooled and homeschooled, so enrolling them isn't necessary to order such evaluations.

 

My sister homeschools in small town Texas and has had two of her kids evaluated at the local public school (Carlos, I believe) and gotten some services that way.

[shawthorne44]

I thought you guys might be interested in this followup article.  I had been wondering myself.  

 

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2014-07-17/news/christina-and-trevor-tutt-collected-troubled-kids-until-the-state-said-enough-was-enough/full/

 

About the Dallas Observer, they have a decidedly liberal slant, but they take their journalism seriously.  I am an arch conservative who thinks most journalists aren't conscientious, so this is high praise from me.  

[Wheres Toto]

Maybe this has been addressed but it looks like it wasn't CPS that placed the infant?  It was a private organization that placed the children?

 

Edit to add: reading the most recently posted article, it appears CPS didn't place any of the children.  Is that a normal thing, to see some kids in a parking lot and decide to offer to take them?  Is that legal?

[shawthorne44]

Maybe this has been addressed but it looks like it wasn't CPS that placed the infant?  It was a private organization that placed the children?

 

Edit to add: reading the most recently posted article, it appears CPS didn't place any of the children.  Is that a normal thing, to see some kids in a parking lot and decide to offer to take them?  Is that legal?

 

Well, the placements were initiated by the parent(s).  The one where it looked like the birth family wasn't happy about it, the mother was in jail and instigated the placement.  Got out of jail and wanted the kids back, and was told no.  But, then the mom went back to jail practically immediately proving that she didn't have her life in order enough to get her kids back. 

 

DH went to school with kids that were in a private orphanage that sounds like an orphanage version of the Tutts home.  The kids were brought to the orphanage to be taken care of while the parents got their life in order.  The kids were positive about the orphanage.  

 

One thing that really stuck out to me was the caseworker agreeing with "I look down on women with husbands and kids" on a public twitter account.  Personally I think that should be a fire-able offense on two grounds, one of them being stupidity.  

[TammyS]

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.

 

Seriously?  You would report someone because their four year old wandered a few blocks?  That's nuts.  Kids get out sometimes.  No one wants it to happen, but it does.  Doesn't mean they are bad parents. It means their attention slipped, or they thought the kid was one place (sleeping, in a secure room) and he wasn't (maybe he woke up...maybe the latch that keeps him in failed...whatever).  But if we are becoming a society of people that reports people when a four year old wanders off, instead of returning them home like decent people, then I don't see what hope we have left.

[Wheres Toto]

I'm pretty sure in NJ they have to provide evaluations but they don't have to provide services unless the kids enroll with the school.

 

[TeacherZee]

Seriously?  You would report someone because their four year old wandered a few blocks?  That's nuts.  Kids get out sometimes.  No one wants it to happen, but it does.  Doesn't mean they are bad parents. It means their attention slipped, or they thought the kid was one place (sleeping, in a secure room) and he wasn't (maybe he woke up...maybe the latch that keeps him in failed...whatever).  But if we are becoming a society of people that reports people when a four year old wanders off, instead of returning them home like decent people, then I don't see what hope we have left.

No I wouldn't report a four year old that had wandered off, but that wasn't the only thing the police officer found.

[maize]

I thought you guys might be interested in this followup article. I had been wondering myself.

 

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2014-07-17/news/christina-and-trevor-tutt-collected-troubled-kids-until-the-state-said-enough-was-enough/full/

 

About the Dallas Observer, they have a decidedly liberal slant, but they take their journalism seriously. I am an arch conservative who thinks most journalists aren't conscientious, so this is high praise from me.

Thanks for the update!

[Excelsior! Academy]

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?

 

Most probably do.  I know not all do.  Some CPS workers prefer public school even if the state doesn't require it.

[maize]

One thing that really stuck out to me was the caseworker agreeing with "I look down on women with husbands and kids" on a public twitter account. Personally I think that should be a fire-able offense on two grounds, one of them being stupidity.

That stood out to me too. No way would I trust a caseworker who looks down on women who have families. Yikes!

[Excelsior! Academy]

..........

 

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.

 

Partial quote. I cut above the line. 

 

Agree with the above.  We know of a family that absolutely had their children removed erroneously and it took years to get them back.   Another family did not have their children removed despite many, warranted, child services visits over multiple years. The abuse was horrific.  (They no longer have the children.)  We also have known various DHS, department of human services, workers.  One close friend discontinued working for them because of internal corruption.  It is sad that the power DHS workers have can be abused and the result is damaging to many precious children.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

[Excelsior! Academy]

In the u.s., public schools have to provide special ed services and evaluations to kids who are privately schooled and homeschooled, so enrolling them isn't necessary to order such evaluations.

 

Not in OK.

[RanchGirl]

Thank you for posting this article.  I found this background information fascinating.  It appears that the source of the animosity with CPS is that the Tutts were helping children without going through official CPS channels.  Which explains so much - this cuts down on revenue and head counts for the CPS budget.  They don't like that at all.

 

The social worker sounds like the typical young selfish, idiot we encountered in our foster parenting experience.  There were some wonderful, knowledgeable, experienced social workers as well, but they did not help us avoid the clueless fools.

 

 

 

 

Is that a normal thing, to see some kids in a parking lot and decide to offer to take them?  Is that legal?

 

 

The children's mother was in jail and they were living with their (alleged) drug-addicted grandmother and her (alleged) sexual abusing boyfriend.  The children's aunt (who had been removed from the grandmother's care by CPS for neglect) asked for help with the kids from a different foster parent.  That person contacted the Tutts, who agreed to help, and then Christina Tutt picked up the kids in a fast-food restaurant parking lot.  That seems a bit different from seeing kids in a parking lot and asking for them.

 

It is legal to ask someone to watch your kids without going through the state.  Apparently CPS doesn't like it, but that doesn't make it illegal.

 

 

 

But when they stepped outside CPS channels to take in James and his sister Chaniya in August 2009, their relationship with CPS began to sour. State requirements say foster families can only take children into their care through their licensing agency, but the Tutts did not get James and Chaniya through the Texas Baptist Home. They picked them up in the parking lot of an Arlington Wendy's.

This, too, came from God. James was 4. His sister was a week shy of her first birthday. Their mother, Ikea Haynes, had been locked up the previous month and was on the front-end of a three-year burglary sentence, and they'd been sent to live with their grandmother and her live-in boyfriend.

CPS records provided by the Tutts alleged the boyfriend was a serial child molester and the grandmother a drug addict whose own children had been taken by CPS five years before after a finding of neglect. James and Chaniya's aunt — she was one of the kids taken from the grandmother — feared for their safety.

She contacted a foster mother she'd known from her days in the child-welfare system. The foster mom couldn't take them in, having already reached the six-child cap for foster placements in Texas, but knew the Tutts through a foster/adopt support network. If there was anyone willing to pick up two strange children from a fast-food parking lot with virtually no notice, it would be the Tutts.

 

[TammyS]

No I wouldn't report a four year old that had wandered off, but that wasn't the only thing the police officer found.

 

Well, then, what?  What is such a concern? 

 

The kids are dirty?

The house is dirty?

There is no grass (I can't even believe that was brought up, like people are supposed to keep grass, honestly!)?

There are animals?

 

WHAT is so dangerous in any of that?

 

There is such a tendency in our society to equate atypical with abnormal.

 

Just because people don't live like we do or want to or approve of, doesn't mean we go around turning them into the government.

[TammyS]

 

It is legal to ask someone to watch your kids without going through the state.  Apparently CPS doesn't like it, but that doesn't make it illegal.

 

The state doesn't like it when people do anything outside of the state.  That's why they hate this woman and every other person who does something without state approval (like, say, homeschooling without bothering to send in notices).

 

There's plenty about this woman from that article that one might call weird (as a mom who hates the noise made by her 2 kids, I think she's awfully weird to willingly sign up for the noise of 13), but not one thing that made me think she was a bad mom or had done a single, solitary thing wrong.

[Happy2BaMom]

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.

 

Dh and I were foster parents for three years, and I second Momling's statement absolutely.

 

Oh - and EVERY foster child we had had a parent or parents who screamed foul about "CPS taking my kids away for no reason". We also never had a child who was not extremely abused or neglected...as in make-you-sick-kind-of-cruelty.

 

I've heard stories about how CPS can cross the line with threats, but I've never seen them be able to take the kids away unless without grounds.

[ErinE]

The renaming of the children really bothers me. I can't pinpoint why. They aren't pets to be named at will.

[Halftime Hope]

In the u.s., public schools have to provide special ed services and evaluations to kids who are privately schooled and homeschooled, so enrolling them isn't necessary to order such evaluations.

 

This is not true in TX.  Additionally, there are numerous ways that local ISDs get around having to provide appropriate services for kids that are enrolled.  It's really sad.

 

[Excelsior! Academy]

In regards to private agreements, they vary by state but are legal. 

 

We had a DHS worker visit shortly after gaining our nieces and nephews.  For the record the social worker only visited because their mother was there during the day, it was not to investigate us.  I'd prefer not to go into more private details online. The social worker pulled me aside and told me that if she was ever in a situation and needed to raise relatives she would do it exactly how I was.  She never pressured me to put them in the system and stopped visits once the children's mother no longer spent her days with us.

[FaithManor]

In many states, one cannot voluntarily place your child with someone informally for more than six months. There are a lot of good reasons for this. Also one must be the legal guardian not just a foster parent or informal group home. You have to have formalized legal custody in order to homechool a child not your own by birth or adoption. So that wass likely one issue. 

 

Another is that some of these child rescue organizations operate in a very grey area legally. We'll never know the full legal ins and outs, but it is highly likely that whether or not one agrees with it, the children were there illegally. This is dangerous for the children because in all actuality this would mean that the people they were with did noy possess then legal right to authorize medical care. It took some serious maneuvering just to give our medic dd the right to make medical decisions for ds for just ONE night while dh went home to sleep and I was still being watched for head injury so I couldn't give consent. Additionally, the Tuft's had no legal standing to refuse to relinquish the child to his mother regardless of how she felt about the woman's incarceration. That is for a court to decide.

 

Additionally, there are very possibly other issues with the situation which will not be told because cps and police are not at liberty to disclose. The vast majority of states do not have near enough foster families. Not even close. So they generally aren't looking to wantonly remove children from the care of decent people unless the stuation is beyond what they can reasonably ignore. They do have bigger fish to fry.

 

We had guardianship of our niece for 12 months. She was surrendered to us by my brother and sil willingly. It still took significant legal paperwork in order for us to have full rights tonher during that time. So ultimately I suspect some important procedures were not followed. Homeschooling outside the boundaries of the law as a foster parent or in non legal guardianship status would be a big no no for starters.

 

Oh, and for the term of the incarceration, the mother would have lost custody to the state so she could not legally place her own child with this family.  They had closed their foster license so this is all very problematic.

[Mergath]

The state doesn't like it when people do anything outside of the state.  That's why they hate this woman and every other person who does something without state approval (like, say, homeschooling without bothering to send in notices).

 

There's plenty about this woman from that article that one might call weird (as a mom who hates the noise made by her 2 kids, I think she's awfully weird to willingly sign up for the noise of 13), but not one thing that made me think she was a bad mom or had done a single, solitary thing wrong.

 

And if the state didn't regulate certain things, there would be nothing to prevent sexual predators from collecting abused children like trading cards.

 

Not only did a four year old wander off unattended, but there were prior allegations of sexual abuse and neglect.  I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a safe and nurturing environment to me.

[Reefgazer]

Justina Pelletier.

Dh and I were foster parents for three years, and I second Momling's statement absolutely.

 

Oh - and EVERY foster child we had had a parent or parents who screamed foul about "CPS taking my kids away for no reason". We also never had a child who was not extremely abused or neglected...as in make-you-sick-kind-of-cruelty.

 

I've heard stories about how CPS can cross the line with threats, but I've never seen them be able to take the kids away unless without grounds.

 

[Mergath]

Somewhat agree with you, but I thought the allegations of sexual abuse were determined to be unfounded?

 

I think that just means that CPS couldn't find enough evidence to warrant taking further action, not necessarily that nothing happened.  There are, sadly, far too many stories in the news where a child was murdered by the parents despite a long history of CPS investigations that didn't find anything.  That's not to say that an allegation means something did happen, of course, but when you look at the sum of all the parts in this story, it certainly doesn't seem implausible that CPS took those kids for a reason.

[Ravin]

In many states, one cannot voluntarily place your child with someone informally for more than six months. There are a lot of good reasons for this. Also one must be the legal guardian not just a foster parent or informal group home. You have to have formalized legal custody in order to homechool a child not your own by birth or adoption. So that wass likely one issue.

 

Another is that some of these child rescue organizations operate in a very grey area legally. We'll never know the full legal ins and outs, but it is highly likely that whether or not one agrees with it, the children were there illegally. This is dangerous for the children because in all actuality this would mean that the people they were with did noy possess then legal right to authorize medical care. It took some serious maneuvering just to give our medic dd the right to make medical decisions for ds for just ONE night while dh went home to sleep and I was still being watched for head injury so I couldn't give consent. Additionally, the Tuft's had no legal standing to refuse to relinquish the child to his mother regardless of how she felt about the woman's incarceration. That is for a court to decide.

 

Additionally, there are very possibly other issues with the situation which will not be told because cps and police are not at liberty to disclose. The vast majority of states do not have near enough foster families. Not even close. So they generally aren't looking to wantonly remove children from the care of decent people unless the stuation is beyond what they can reasonably ignore. They do have bigger fish to fry.

 

We had guardianship of our niece for 12 months. She was surrendered to us by my brother and sil willingly. It still took significant legal paperwork in order for us to have full rights tonher during that time. So ultimately I suspect some important procedures were not followed. Homeschooling outside the boundaries of the law as a foster parent or in non legal guardianship status would be a big no no for starters.

 

Oh, and for the term of the incarceration, the mother would have lost custody to the state so she could not legally place her own child with this family. They had closed their foster license so this is all very problematic.

I don't know about the situation in TX, but in Arizona a child can be voluntarily placed in a legal guardianship with a guardian of the parent's choosing. A parent facing long-term incarceration or other circumstances that prevent them from parenting can do this legally and avoid State agency involvement.

 

One can also simply give a temporary guardian a notarized affidavit, but if that is done they can file a private dependency action or report the parent to CPS after six months alleging abandonment.

 

The private dependency action is somewhat peculiar to Arizona and doesn't exist in most states.

 

Of course, legal guardianship must be arranged prior to being incarcerated, and takes the ability to plan ahead and accept that one cannot parent. It can also result in a dependency or custody battle if undertaken by a single parent without consent of the other parent.

[Lurker]

Thank you for posting this article. I found this background information fascinating. It appears that the source of the animosity with CPS is that the Tutts were helping children without going through official CPS channels. Which explains so much - this cuts down on revenue and head counts for the CPS budget. They don't like that at all.

.

CPS/Foster care does not receive revenue for a child being in their custody. Depending on the circumstances the child left (research iv-e funding), they may receive reimbursement for placement costs, but that goes directly to the funding of foster homes and is not in anyway a bonus or profit for CPS.

[Butter]

Somewhat agree with you, but I thought the allegations of sexual abuse were determined to be unfounded?

 

There was no evidence.  It doesn't mean it definitely didn't happen.  There have been cases where CPS investigates and investigates and never finds evidence that the allegations are true and then something catastrophic happens.  Things have been happening all the time, but without evidence, there was nothing that could be done.

[lovinmomma]

I thought you guys might be interested in this followup article.  I had been wondering myself.  

 

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2014-07-17/news/christina-and-trevor-tutt-collected-troubled-kids-until-the-state-said-enough-was-enough/full/

 

About the Dallas Observer, they have a decidedly liberal slant, but they take their journalism seriously.  I am an arch conservative who thinks most journalists aren't conscientious, so this is high praise from me.  

 

Not that anyone cares, but unless there's something totally crazy that this article doesn't cover.... this woman sounds like someone that I would love to know and would be honored to call her friend. She sounds like a woman after my own heart. I tend to pick up stray children, too. ;) They just don't stay the night at my house....most days. :)

[katilac]

It really bothered me that the mom would take the children to the shelter to hand out supplies, all the while acknowledging that the aunts and uncles might be there and cause trouble. She warns them to be ready to jump into the car the minute she says so. 

 

Why do something so unnecessary? Why not leave the children home, or let someone else deliver the supplies, or simply go to another shelter? Fort Worth is a sizable city with many shelters. 

 

It seems to show very poor judgement, and perhaps a taste for drama. 

[lovinmomma]

It really bothered me that the mom would take the children to the shelter to hand out supplies, all the while acknowledging that the aunts and uncles might be there and cause trouble. She warns them to be ready to jump into the car the minute she says so. 

 

Why do something so unnecessary? Why not leave the children home, or let someone else deliver the supplies, or simply go to another shelter? Fort Worth is a sizable city with many shelters. 

 

It seems to show very poor judgement, and perhaps a taste for drama. 

Perhaps. I was unsure if she was saying that the family hangs out at that shelter or just that the family could possibly be anywhere and it's the type of place that they might be at? I tried to re-read to decipher which one, but I'm still not sure. For the record, I still have no idea if secretly this woman is actually abusing these children or allowing abuse to happen, but I haven't read anything that's conviced me that she has done anything to warrant the circumstances that she found herself in. Everything that I have read implies that she has a huge heart and is trying to be a mother to children that have no mother/father/caregiver. Is she unconventional? Yes. But abusive? I haven't seen/read any evidence of such. If you have, please pass it along.

 

As to taking her children with her, maybe we're reading too much in to that? I don't remember the article saying that there was physical harm possible from the relatives. Maybe she just doesn't want to deal with it if she runs into the family and so she warns the children so that they know what the plan is should they run into the disapproving family? I do stuff like that with my kids, and I don't feel like I'm a dramatic person in the least. In fact, I had this friend (that was much younger) that entered my life for a short period of time due to a relationship that she had with a good friend of ours. I befriended her before I realized that she was mentally unstable. Still, a year later, if I'm heading somewhere that I think would be a place that we could possibly see her I warn the kids A. not to talk to her and B. come tell Mommy immediately. I don't think that's me being dramatic. A little over cautious? Maybe. But this woman is cray-cray. I'm not taking any chances.

 

Actually, come to think of it.... we have probably 3? situations in which we warn our children when we're headed to a place that we even remotely think that we could possibly run in to that person. And by warn, we briefly discuss "if we're at the BBQ and such and such person shows up...it's time to go....come tell Mommy immediately". That kind of thing. Coincidentally, one person happens to be a life long friend of my dh's that we had to call CPS on and that person is very angry about it (we cut off contact). I'm guessing that there would be some sort of confrontation should we run into him (haven't seen him in 2 years). If not from the ex-friend then possibly from my dh because of the reason that CPS had to be called. We're still always extremely cautious if we go to an event that sounds like something he would enjoy, or a mutual friend's house, etc.

 

I'm rambling now, but my point is that I think it's possible that we're reading too much into what little we know regarding her taking the kids to the shelter with her.

[Momling]

It seems to me that Mrs.Tutt was operating her own group home with no oversight.  It scares me to imagine one individual playing all the roles, besides mother and teacher, she was also apparently case worker, judge, visitation supervisor, perhaps therapist too?... making the decisions herself about visitation with parents, education, services being provided and returning children to their home. These are appropriate decisions for her own family, but those were not all her own children.  

 

I may sometimes hate all the bureaucracy of the social work world, but I do like that we caregivers have the support of mental health professionals and social workers and foster care support groups and certifiers and the folks at the visit centers and the court system.  I especially like the family decision meetings where mediators and families try to find alternatives to having kids placed in community foster care.  Or the citizens' review board who are community members overseeing the child welfare system.  Or the permanency hearings where a judge makes a ruling about how the child will have a permanent stable home. It may be a ton of meetings, but I like that many of my kids get a CASA worker and an educational advocate and a mental health caseworker and an attorney. It may be a clunky system and while most of the people are good and caring, there may be a few incompetent or rogue caseworkers out there... But most of all, I appreciate that there is a community of people out there looking over everyone else's shoulders to ensure that kids are safe.  Mrs. Tutt had none of that.

 

I think my point is that the decisions of families in terrible need should not be made by only one person.  I like that the biological parents have avenues to improve their lives if they want their kids back --- to do outpatient or inpatient alcohol and drug treatment (even in residential programs with their kids), to take parenting classes, anger-management classes, classes for victims of domestic abuse... I like that parents are helped with going back to school or with getting a job or with getting assistance for transportation or food or an apartment.    Mrs. Tutt could not provide the parents of the children she was fostering with support.  And then the kids... within the system, foster kids get counseling and therapy, occupational therapy, 504's or IEPs, supervised visitation with their families, monthly activities with other foster kids from other families.  And we have access to respite care when I'm exhausted or need a break, support groups, training for helping kids deal with trauma.  My family also has access to programs like WIC and free school breakfasts and lunches (regardless of our own income) and a monthly stipend and funds to pay for summer camps and extra-curricular activities and we have all sorts of community events provided by churches and community groups. 

 

When a family is in need, I like that we have a system in place to help keep a child safe, give foster families support and get the biological parents the help they need to get their kids back.  As far as I can tell, Mrs. Tutt was not able to do any of these things.  I suspect she was taking in children more to satisfy her own needs than to satisfy the needs of the children and their families.