|
Post by Guest on Oct 25, 2008 18:17:35 GMT -6
tinyurl.com/587wstA father who murdered his baby daughter by snapping her spine in two was yesterday jailed for a minimum of 22 years. Can someone tell me when this man will really be released from prison? Why are the europeans so reluctant to punish murderers? They starved her, tortured her, and then snapped her little spine in two. I guess if you are a sadist or murderer, europe is the best place to live.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2008 19:31:21 GMT -6
Yes horrible, this could be well a death penalty case but it depends in which state, if it happened in hawaii for example a 2003 under a 2003 federal law that father could face a death sentence in a federal trial, child abuse resulting in murder is a federal crime now in all 50 states. That guy is the poster boy for the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Nov 12, 2008 22:20:30 GMT -6
tinyurl.com/587wstA father who murdered his baby daughter by snapping her spine in two was yesterday jailed for a minimum of 22 years. Can someone tell me when this man will really be released from prison? Why are the europeans so reluctant to punish murderers? They starved her, tortured her, and then snapped her little spine in two. I guess if you are a sadist or murderer, europe is the best place to live. He received a life sentence, with a minimum of 22 years. I read the comments posted under the article, and this one grabbed my attention: "Why doesn't life mean life any more? We were assured when capital punishment was abolished that life sentences would be set and these would mean life." - Janet, Newton Abbot, Devon, 24/10/2008 9:39
|
|
|
Post by clairew on Nov 13, 2008 2:21:16 GMT -6
Child Protection Services need a complete overhaul. This is the second case where children on the At risk register have not been followed up.
|
|
gillypod
Old Hand
PRO-DP Scot. PTO hates me - I am blessed
Posts: 596
|
Post by gillypod on Nov 14, 2008 9:07:07 GMT -6
tinyurl.com/587wstA father who murdered his baby daughter by snapping her spine in two was yesterday jailed for a minimum of 22 years. Can someone tell me when this man will really be released from prison? Why are the europeans so reluctant to punish murderers? They starved her, tortured her, and then snapped her little spine in two. I guess if you are a sadist or murderer, europe is the best place to live. Now you understand why there are so many Europeans on this board who support the Death Penalty. Life in Prison means nothing in the UK. The only time this has happened has been Myra Hindley, and even SHE managed to convince some do-gooders that she had nothing to do with child murder. In the USA you use punishments that mean something. Life without parole, 100 years and the Death Penalty. I would be proud to be an American. I read about perps doing henious crimes in the UK get away with 20 years, which usually means they are out in 8. - I wanna move to Texas where life means life, and death means death. I have good IT Skills - can someone get me a job
|
|
|
Post by clairew on Nov 14, 2008 9:39:01 GMT -6
tinyurl.com/587wstA father who murdered his baby daughter by snapping her spine in two was yesterday jailed for a minimum of 22 years. Can someone tell me when this man will really be released from prison? Why are the europeans so reluctant to punish murderers? They starved her, tortured her, and then snapped her little spine in two. I guess if you are a sadist or murderer, europe is the best place to live. Now you understand why there are so many Europeans on this board who support the Death Penalty. Life in Prison means nothing in the UK. The only time this has happened has been Myra Hindley, and even SHE managed to convince some do-gooders that she had nothing to do with child murder. In the USA you use punishments that mean something. Life without parole, 100 years and the Death Penalty. I would be proud to be an American. I read about perps doing henious crimes in the UK get away with 20 years, which usually means they are out in 8. - I wanna move to Texas where life means life, and death means death. I have good IT Skills - can someone get me a job Great post. YOu are so right
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Nov 14, 2008 10:48:22 GMT -6
Child Protection Services need a complete overhaul. This is the second case where children on the At risk register have not been followed up. I read the article and didn't notice anything about social workers. Health care workers were mentioned at one point. I assume this to be medical staff like nurses, doctors, and such. Could be wrong, I guess. Social services has never and will never be able to prevent child abuse. Health care staff cannot do it either. As long as any violent idiot can have a baby, the "at risk" list will be impossibly large if it is even remotely capable of identifying any significant portion of caretakers that actually pose a risk of harm to their children. By "impossibly large" I mean that it is impossible to investigate these folks with any hope of accuracy without a "nazification" of the government and vastly expanding the powers of government agents. Not a solution many would embrace. Even then, maybe . . . Folks who abuse their children know full well that it is wrong and looked down on by the majority of society. This is evident by the extraordinary lengths these offenders go to in order to conceal their activities. Too often they are successful. Overhauling social services will not change this. It has been overhauled many, many times already probably in every country. Folks are trying to put out a house fire by pouring water on the house next door.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2008 11:24:04 GMT -6
tinyurl.com/587wstA father who murdered his baby daughter by snapping her spine in two was yesterday jailed for a minimum of 22 years. Can someone tell me when this man will really be released from prison? Why are the europeans so reluctant to punish murderers? They starved her, tortured her, and then snapped her little spine in two. I guess if you are a sadist or murderer, europe is the best place to live. Now you understand why there are so many Europeans on this board who support the Death Penalty. Life in Prison means nothing in the UK. The only time this has happened has been Myra Hindley, and even SHE managed to convince some do-gooders that she had nothing to do with child murder. In the USA you use punishments that mean something. Life without parole, 100 years and the Death Penalty. I would be proud to be an American. I read about perps doing henious crimes in the UK get away with 20 years, which usually means they are out in 8. - I wanna move to Texas where life means life, and death means death. I have good IT Skills - can someone get me a job I'm sure you would be welcomed. We do have DP and LWP; we now need to speed up and/or limit the appeals process. If this helps deter would be murderers, great. If not, we have executed or put away forever a person who doesn't deserve life.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Nov 14, 2008 11:59:35 GMT -6
Child Protection Services need a complete overhaul. This is the second case where children on the At risk register have not been followed up. I read the article and didn't notice anything about social workers. Health care workers were mentioned at one point. I assume this to be medical staff like nurses, doctors, and such. Could be wrong, I guess. Social services has never and will never be able to prevent child abuse. Health care staff cannot do it either. As long as any violent idiot can have a baby, the "at risk" list will be impossibly large if it is even remotely capable of identifying any significant portion of caretakers that actually pose a risk of harm to their children. By "impossibly large" I mean that it is impossible to investigate these folks with any hope of accuracy without a "nazification" of the government and vastly expanding the powers of government agents. Not a solution many would embrace. Even then, maybe . . . Folks who abuse their children know full well that it is wrong and looked down on by the majority of society. This is evident by the extraordinary lengths these offenders go to in order to conceal their activities. Too often they are successful. Overhauling social services will not change this. It has been overhauled many, many times already probably in every country. Folks are trying to put out a house fire by pouring water on the house next door. Why would health care workers make house calls unless there was some sort of social work problem? And if social services was not involved, why weren't they notified when access to the child was blocked by the father? They had months to act but did nothing.
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Nov 14, 2008 12:18:13 GMT -6
I read the article and didn't notice anything about social workers. Health care workers were mentioned at one point. I assume this to be medical staff like nurses, doctors, and such. Could be wrong, I guess. Social services has never and will never be able to prevent child abuse. Health care staff cannot do it either. As long as any violent idiot can have a baby, the "at risk" list will be impossibly large if it is even remotely capable of identifying any significant portion of caretakers that actually pose a risk of harm to their children. By "impossibly large" I mean that it is impossible to investigate these folks with any hope of accuracy without a "nazification" of the government and vastly expanding the powers of government agents. Not a solution many would embrace. Even then, maybe . . . Folks who abuse their children know full well that it is wrong and looked down on by the majority of society. This is evident by the extraordinary lengths these offenders go to in order to conceal their activities. Too often they are successful. Overhauling social services will not change this. It has been overhauled many, many times already probably in every country. Folks are trying to put out a house fire by pouring water on the house next door. Why would health care workers make house calls unless there was some sort of social work problem? And if social services was not involved, why weren't they notified when access to the child was blocked by the father? They had months to act but did nothing. Who knows? You can play what if games like this all day. For that matter you could argue the same for the victims of every violent idiot paroled by the parole board, every violent moron released from jail after his victim drops charges, every sex offender released after completing a reduced plea bargained sentence. Some offend again, some don't. There is no rhyme or reason to it. For most there were plenty of warning signs. For many, a lifetime of warning signs. The government can only do so much.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 14, 2008 13:15:55 GMT -6
Who knows? You can play what if games like this all day. For that matter you could argue the same for the victims of every violent idiot paroled by the parole board, every violent moron released from jail after his victim drops charges, every sex offender released after completing a reduced plea bargained sentence. Some offend again, some don't. There is no rhyme or reason to it. For most there were plenty of warning signs. For many, a lifetime of warning signs. The government can only do so much. The ultimate cause of child abuse is unfettered reproductive rights, coupled with a strong, undeserved bias toward biological parentage.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Nov 14, 2008 13:42:54 GMT -6
Why would health care workers make house calls unless there was some sort of social work problem? And if social services was not involved, why weren't they notified when access to the child was blocked by the father? They had months to act but did nothing. Who knows? You can play what if games like this all day. For that matter you could argue the same for the victims of every violent idiot paroled by the parole board, every violent moron released from jail after his victim drops charges, every sex offender released after completing a reduced plea bargained sentence. Some offend again, some don't. There is no rhyme or reason to it. For most there were plenty of warning signs. For many, a lifetime of warning signs. The government can only do so much. Or nothing at all even when they are required to do so by law. You can label it a what if game but this kid was on their radar for a reason. Somebody dropped the ball. And comparing it to adult parolees/victims is dishonest. An adult victim can move, stop their enabling behavior, or better yet, get a gun. An infant cannot. Who protects a child when the parents will not? This is the government's job.
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Nov 14, 2008 15:14:30 GMT -6
Who knows? You can play what if games like this all day. For that matter you could argue the same for the victims of every violent idiot paroled by the parole board, every violent moron released from jail after his victim drops charges, every sex offender released after completing a reduced plea bargained sentence. Some offend again, some don't. There is no rhyme or reason to it. For most there were plenty of warning signs. For many, a lifetime of warning signs. The government can only do so much. Or nothing at all even when they are required to do so by law. You can label it a what if game but this kid was on their radar for a reason. Somebody dropped the ball. And comparing it to adult parolees/victims is dishonest. An adult victim can move, stop their enabling behavior, or better yet, get a gun. An infant cannot. Who protects a child when the parents will not? This is the government's job. I was comparing the "uncertainty" of knowing who will offend and who will not between child abusers and adult parolees not the actual children to adult criminals. I am asserting that the "uncertainty" involved is exactly the same. No one calls for an overhaul of the prison/parole system when one of their folks commits a crime despite all the warning signs in the world. No, "protecting" children is definitely not the government's job. If anything, the government has proved conclusively is that it is unable to raise children. This isn't especially due to poor planning or inefficiency but to the cold reality that the government simply doesn't have the resources and legal power necessary to oversee us in the way that you want. The sole purpose of social services is to attempt to prevent child abuse where it can be reasonably certain to be occurring. Social services cannot guarantee that children won't be abused any more than police officers can guarantee that you won't be murdered. And yes, you are playing a what-if game. Now that it has happened, all the puzzle pieces make perfect sense and everyone appears stupid for missing them. However, culling through 1200 cases a month all very similar trying to identify which one if any out of the stack poses a realistic and significant risk of harm is a much different matter. It cannot be done with 100% success. It's sort of like how the so-called Nostrdamas predictions make a tad bit of sense once they are attached to something that has already happened. Until someone matches these, for lack of a better term, "future" predictions with something that has already happened, it is meaningless gibberish.
|
|
|
Post by clairew on Nov 15, 2008 4:39:04 GMT -6
Or nothing at all even when they are required to do so by law. You can label it a what if game but this kid was on their radar for a reason. Somebody dropped the ball. And comparing it to adult parolees/victims is dishonest. An adult victim can move, stop their enabling behavior, or better yet, get a gun. An infant cannot. Who protects a child when the parents will not? This is the government's job. I was comparing the "uncertainty" of knowing who will offend and who will not between child abusers and adult parolees not the actual children to adult criminals. I am asserting that the "uncertainty" involved is exactly the same. No one calls for an overhaul of the prison/parole system when one of their folks commits a crime despite all the warning signs in the world. No, "protecting" children is definitely not the government's job. If anything, the government has proved conclusively is that it is unable to raise children. This isn't especially due to poor planning or inefficiency but to the cold reality that the government simply doesn't have the resources and legal power necessary to oversee us in the way that you want. The sole purpose of social services is to attempt to prevent child abuse where it can be reasonably certain to be occurring. Social services cannot guarantee that children won't be abused any more than police officers can guarantee that you won't be murdered. And yes, you are playing a what-if game. Now that it has happened, all the puzzle pieces make perfect sense and everyone appears stupid for missing them. However, culling through 1200 cases a month all very similar trying to identify which one if any out of the stack poses a realistic and significant risk of harm is a much different matter. It cannot be done with 100% success. It's sort of like how the so-called Nostrdamas predictions make a tad bit of sense once they are attached to something that has already happened. Until someone matches these, for lack of a better term, "future" predictions with something that has already happened, it is meaningless gibberish. I understand what you are saying DE. But, both of these children were on the SS at risk register. They knew the children would come to harm. IMO those children should have been given much more protection. If someone kicks a dog in the mouth, the animal is removed and the perp is charged...Why the h£ll do we not do that with our children? The worst thing is that the mother is expecting another child.... and she will be able to keep it.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Nov 15, 2008 5:27:47 GMT -6
I was comparing the "uncertainty" of knowing who will offend and who will not between child abusers and adult parolees not the actual children to adult criminals. I am asserting that the "uncertainty" involved is exactly the same. No one calls for an overhaul of the prison/parole system when one of their folks commits a crime despite all the warning signs in the world. No, "protecting" children is definitely not the government's job. If anything, the government has proved conclusively is that it is unable to raise children. This isn't especially due to poor planning or inefficiency but to the cold reality that the government simply doesn't have the resources and legal power necessary to oversee us in the way that you want. The sole purpose of social services is to attempt to prevent child abuse where it can be reasonably certain to be occurring. Social services cannot guarantee that children won't be abused any more than police officers can guarantee that you won't be murdered. And yes, you are playing a what-if game. Now that it has happened, all the puzzle pieces make perfect sense and everyone appears stupid for missing them. However, culling through 1200 cases a month all very similar trying to identify which one if any out of the stack poses a realistic and significant risk of harm is a much different matter. It cannot be done with 100% success. It's sort of like how the so-called Nostrdamas predictions make a tad bit of sense once they are attached to something that has already happened. Until someone matches these, for lack of a better term, "future" predictions with something that has already happened, it is meaningless gibberish. I understand what you are saying DE. But, both of these children were on the SS at risk register. They knew the children would come to harm. IMO those children should have been given much more protection. If someone kicks a dog in the mouth, the animal is removed and the perp is charged...Why the h£ll do we not do that with our children? The worst thing is that the mother is expecting another child.... and she will be able to keep it. Claire, it sounds to me that DE knows exactly what he is talking about, its only ever the members of the public who think all child deaqths can eb stopped, those in the risk business know it cant, but none opf us focus on how much more deaths would happen without those services in place. Like he said, police cant stop all killings and they are armed for gods sake.
|
|
|
Post by clairew on Nov 15, 2008 8:22:58 GMT -6
I understand what you are saying DE. But, both of these children were on the SS at risk register. They knew the children would come to harm. IMO those children should have been given much more protection. If someone kicks a dog in the mouth, the animal is removed and the perp is charged...Why the h£ll do we not do that with our children? The worst thing is that the mother is expecting another child.... and she will be able to keep it. Claire, it sounds to me that DE knows exactly what he is talking about, its only ever the members of the public who think all child deaqths can eb stopped, those in the risk business know it cant, but none opf us focus on how much more deaths would happen without those services in place. Like he said, police cant stop all killings and they are armed for gods sake. I agree life would be far worse without the SS. It is just very frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Nov 15, 2008 9:33:05 GMT -6
Claire, it sounds to me that DE knows exactly what he is talking about, its only ever the members of the public who think all child deaqths can eb stopped, those in the risk business know it cant, but none opf us focus on how much more deaths would happen without those services in place. Like he said, police cant stop all killings and they are armed for gods sake. I agree life would be far worse without the SS. It is just very frustrating. I agree wholeheartedly, claire, that it is very frustrating. However, I feel that the focus of that frustration should be that a small but significant percentage of our society continues to abuse and kill the children under their care with alarming regularity. I'm afraid that I have no good solutions to that one. I'd like to think that society will evolve eventually.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Nov 15, 2008 9:54:55 GMT -6
Or nothing at all even when they are required to do so by law. You can label it a what if game but this kid was on their radar for a reason. Somebody dropped the ball. And comparing it to adult parolees/victims is dishonest. An adult victim can move, stop their enabling behavior, or better yet, get a gun. An infant cannot. Who protects a child when the parents will not? This is the government's job. I was comparing the "uncertainty" of knowing who will offend and who will not between child abusers and adult parolees not the actual children to adult criminals. I am asserting that the "uncertainty" involved is exactly the same. No one calls for an overhaul of the prison/parole system when one of their folks commits a crime despite all the warning signs in the world. No, "protecting" children is definitely not the government's job. If anything, the government has proved conclusively is that it is unable to raise children. This isn't especially due to poor planning or inefficiency but to the cold reality that the government simply doesn't have the resources and legal power necessary to oversee us in the way that you want. The sole purpose of social services is to attempt to prevent child abuse where it can be reasonably certain to be occurring. Social services cannot guarantee that children won't be abused any more than police officers can guarantee that you won't be murdered. And yes, you are playing a what-if game. Now that it has happened, all the puzzle pieces make perfect sense and everyone appears stupid for missing them. However, culling through 1200 cases a month all very similar trying to identify which one if any out of the stack poses a realistic and significant risk of harm is a much different matter. It cannot be done with 100% success. It's sort of like how the so-called Nostrdamas predictions make a tad bit of sense once they are attached to something that has already happened. Until someone matches these, for lack of a better term, "future" predictions with something that has already happened, it is meaningless gibberish. Oh, *bullcrap*. You were responding to my post that since they were attempting a home visit, they had some reason to believe this baby was at risk. And when denied access to the child, which made the risk even greater, they did nothing. They had a duty to act. “Uncertainty” has nothing to do with it. People don’t pay taxes to fund these agencies to employ people who won’t do their jobs. And spare me the poor overworked civil servant nonsense. I've worked in government. There is always high a percentage of people who can't and/or won't do their jobs.
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Nov 15, 2008 10:13:50 GMT -6
I was comparing the "uncertainty" of knowing who will offend and who will not between child abusers and adult parolees not the actual children to adult criminals. I am asserting that the "uncertainty" involved is exactly the same. No one calls for an overhaul of the prison/parole system when one of their folks commits a crime despite all the warning signs in the world. No, "protecting" children is definitely not the government's job. If anything, the government has proved conclusively is that it is unable to raise children. This isn't especially due to poor planning or inefficiency but to the cold reality that the government simply doesn't have the resources and legal power necessary to oversee us in the way that you want. The sole purpose of social services is to attempt to prevent child abuse where it can be reasonably certain to be occurring. Social services cannot guarantee that children won't be abused any more than police officers can guarantee that you won't be murdered. And yes, you are playing a what-if game. Now that it has happened, all the puzzle pieces make perfect sense and everyone appears stupid for missing them. However, culling through 1200 cases a month all very similar trying to identify which one if any out of the stack poses a realistic and significant risk of harm is a much different matter. It cannot be done with 100% success. It's sort of like how the so-called Nostrdamas predictions make a tad bit of sense once they are attached to something that has already happened. Until someone matches these, for lack of a better term, "future" predictions with something that has already happened, it is meaningless gibberish. Oh, *bullcrap*. You were responding to my post that since they were attempting a home visit, they had some reason to believe this baby was at risk. And when denied access to the child, which made the risk even greater, they did nothing. They had a duty to act. “Uncertainty” has nothing to do with it. People don’t pay taxes to fund these agencies to employ people who won’t do their jobs. And spare me the poor overworked civil servant nonsense. I've worked in government. There is always high a percentage of people who can't and/or won't do their jobs. Social workers are not the gestapo. Removing a child from his or her caretakers is still a major invasion on personal rights that no western government takes lightly. In the US, anyway, such power can only be ordered by a judge. Even then judges are bound by due process rules. Such actions would have to be backed up by doctors, health care workers, teachers, social services, etc. Social workers simply do not have this power alone. I have seen time and time again CPS argue for removal that was not subsequently approved by a judge. You seem to think that a child identified as "at risk" should be immediately removed from their caretakers. Do you have any idea of how many children social services determines to be "at risk?" The government cannot possibly take custody of all children identified as "at risk." Also, "at risk" does not especially mean "will be murdered tomorrow" hence the "uncertainty" I spoke of in my previous post. Being frustrated and angry at the system is fine but understand that social services investigators are simply cogs in a much larger wheel.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Nov 15, 2008 10:33:13 GMT -6
Oh, *bullcrap*. You were responding to my post that since they were attempting a home visit, they had some reason to believe this baby was at risk. And when denied access to the child, which made the risk even greater, they did nothing. They had a duty to act. “Uncertainty” has nothing to do with it. People don’t pay taxes to fund these agencies to employ people who won’t do their jobs. And spare me the poor overworked civil servant nonsense. I've worked in government. There is always high a percentage of people who can't and/or won't do their jobs. Social workers are not the gestapo. Removing a child from his or her caretakers is still a major invasion on personal rights that no western government takes lightly. In the US, anyway, such power can only be ordered by a judge. Even then judges are bound by due process rules. Such actions would have to be backed up by doctors, health care workers, teachers, social services, etc. Social workers simply do not have this power alone. Making the "at risk" list is not enough. I have seen time and time again CPS argue for removal that was not subsequently approved by a judge. Being frustrated and angry at the system is fine but understand that social services investigators are simply cogs in a much larger wheel. If abuse is obvious, can't CPS workers call the police? Couldn't the police haul the adults in the house to the police station for questioning at that point? After which, I assume that CPS could take a young child into custody because obviously the child can't be left alone if there's no adult in the house. Not being argumentative or flip, I'm trying to learn.
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Nov 15, 2008 10:54:29 GMT -6
Social workers are not the gestapo. Removing a child from his or her caretakers is still a major invasion on personal rights that no western government takes lightly. In the US, anyway, such power can only be ordered by a judge. Even then judges are bound by due process rules. Such actions would have to be backed up by doctors, health care workers, teachers, social services, etc. Social workers simply do not have this power alone. Making the "at risk" list is not enough. I have seen time and time again CPS argue for removal that was not subsequently approved by a judge. Being frustrated and angry at the system is fine but understand that social services investigators are simply cogs in a much larger wheel. If abuse is obvious, can't CPS workers call the police? Couldn't the police haul the adults in the house to the police station for questioning at that point? After which, I assume that CPS could take a young child into custody because obviously the child can't be left alone if there's no adult in the house. Not being argumentative or flip, I'm trying to learn. Of course, in fact, such action would require calling the police. I might add that any one of us has this same power to call police when abuse is obvious. Police officers do have the legal power to take anyone, including children, into temporary protective custody. An offical court hearing on this must be held withing a matter days ( 3 in TN) for a judge to decide whether continued protective custody will continue. If it is continued, another official court hearing must be held in a short period of time (30 days in TN) to determine permancy plans for the child. In almost every case, the starting permancy plan, ordered, of course, by a judge is "Return to Parent." Social services is bound by this order to work toward this goal and must present significant reasons not to do so which usually must include the caretakers failure to meet the goals of this plan. Keeping children away from caretakers who actively work with the department on the permancy plan (regular visitation, parenting classes, etc.) is almost impossible. Fortunately, bad parents usually fail at this but not always by any means. Cases where children are left alone still require calling the police. Policy generally dictates that the social worker remain with the child until the police arrive. However, social workers, to my knowledge, never have the power, without a court order, to take physical custody of children.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Nov 15, 2008 10:58:25 GMT -6
Oh, *bullcrap*. You were responding to my post that since they were attempting a home visit, they had some reason to believe this baby was at risk. And when denied access to the child, which made the risk even greater, they did nothing. They had a duty to act. “Uncertainty” has nothing to do with it. People don’t pay taxes to fund these agencies to employ people who won’t do their jobs. And spare me the poor overworked civil servant nonsense. I've worked in government. There is always high a percentage of people who can't and/or won't do their jobs. Social workers are not the gestapo. Removing a child from his or her caretakers is still a major invasion on personal rights that no western government takes lightly. In the US, anyway, such power can only be ordered by a judge. Even then judges are bound by due process rules. Such actions would have to be backed up by doctors, health care workers, teachers, social services, etc. Social workers simply do not have this power alone. I have seen time and time again CPS argue for removal that was not subsequently approved by a judge. You seem to think that a child identified as "at risk" should be immediately removed from their caretakers. Do you have any idea of how many children social services determines to be "at risk?" The government cannot possibly take custody of all children identified as "at risk." Also, "at risk" does not especially mean "will be murdered tomorrow" hence the "uncertainty" I spoke of in my previous post. Being frustrated and angry at the system is fine but understand that social services investigators are simply cogs in a much larger wheel. Your inability to address my comments and the issues of this case and instead choosing to go off on tangents and create strawman arguments tells me all I need to know.
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Nov 15, 2008 11:06:35 GMT -6
Social workers are not the gestapo. Removing a child from his or her caretakers is still a major invasion on personal rights that no western government takes lightly. In the US, anyway, such power can only be ordered by a judge. Even then judges are bound by due process rules. Such actions would have to be backed up by doctors, health care workers, teachers, social services, etc. Social workers simply do not have this power alone. I have seen time and time again CPS argue for removal that was not subsequently approved by a judge. You seem to think that a child identified as "at risk" should be immediately removed from their caretakers. Do you have any idea of how many children social services determines to be "at risk?" The government cannot possibly take custody of all children identified as "at risk." Also, "at risk" does not especially mean "will be murdered tomorrow" hence the "uncertainty" I spoke of in my previous post. Being frustrated and angry at the system is fine but understand that social services investigators are simply cogs in a much larger wheel. Your inability to address my comments and the issues of this case and instead choosing to go off on tangents and create strawman arguments tells me all I need to know. "Strawman arguments??" Your ignorance of this subject apparently knows no bounds. I might suggest also that you don't base your opinions on ANY subject on a single news article and then assume that you actually know what you are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Nov 15, 2008 11:33:05 GMT -6
If abuse is obvious, can't CPS workers call the police? Couldn't the police haul the adults in the house to the police station for questioning at that point? After which, I assume that CPS could take a young child into custody because obviously the child can't be left alone if there's no adult in the house. Not being argumentative or flip, I'm trying to learn. Of course, in fact, such action would require calling the police. I might add that any one of us has this same power to call police when abuse is obvious. Police officers do have the legal power to take anyone, including children, into temporary protective custody. An offical court hearing on this must be held withing a matter days ( 3 in TN) for a judge to decide whether continued protective custody will continue. If it is continued, another official court hearing must be held in a short period of time (30 days in TN) to determine permancy plans for the child. In almost every case, the starting permancy plan, ordered, of course, by a judge is "Return to Parent." Social services is bound by this order to work toward this goal and must present significant reasons not to do so which usually must include the caretakers failure to meet the goals of this plan. Keeping children away from caretakers who actively work with the department on the permancy plan (regular visitation, parenting classes, etc.) is almost impossible. Fortunately, bad parents usually fail at this but not always by any means. Cases where children are left alone still require calling the police. Policy generally dictates that the social worker remain with the child until the police arrive. However, social workers, to my knowledge, never have the power, without a court order, to take physical custody of children. Another question. If a child tells us he's being abused, or we see signs of obvious abuse, would it be wiser to call the police or CPS? Would calling the police be a faster way to get an abused child into protective custody?
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Nov 15, 2008 11:46:47 GMT -6
Of course, in fact, such action would require calling the police. I might add that any one of us has this same power to call police when abuse is obvious. Police officers do have the legal power to take anyone, including children, into temporary protective custody. An offical court hearing on this must be held withing a matter days ( 3 in TN) for a judge to decide whether continued protective custody will continue. If it is continued, another official court hearing must be held in a short period of time (30 days in TN) to determine permancy plans for the child. In almost every case, the starting permancy plan, ordered, of course, by a judge is "Return to Parent." Social services is bound by this order to work toward this goal and must present significant reasons not to do so which usually must include the caretakers failure to meet the goals of this plan. Keeping children away from caretakers who actively work with the department on the permancy plan (regular visitation, parenting classes, etc.) is almost impossible. Fortunately, bad parents usually fail at this but not always by any means. Cases where children are left alone still require calling the police. Policy generally dictates that the social worker remain with the child until the police arrive. However, social workers, to my knowledge, never have the power, without a court order, to take physical custody of children. Another question. If a child tells us he's being abused, or we see signs of obvious abuse, would it be wiser to call the police or CPS? Would calling the police be a faster way to get an abused child into protective custody? Very good question. My answer, unfortunately, is "it depends." What my seem "obvious" abuse may, in fact, be explainable. It may not be "obvious" to someone else. It depends upon the type and location of the injuries and the age of the child. I can say that getting the police to show up immediately will require the "immediate" threat of harm as defined by the police not you. For CPS, the "immediate" or "emergency" status of referals, again determined by CPS not you, require a 24 hour response time preference given to the most serious allegations. Trust me, such referrals are not rare. In fact, each CPS unit on call for that day in any US city will receive many such referrals. Other cases are set aside to investigate the most immediate. I'm not making excuses for social services or the police for this. Just relaying the reality of it all.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Nov 15, 2008 11:55:24 GMT -6
Felix, this case has appalled a whole nation and i am in total support of a complete and utter overhauling of social service and rid it of PC, it was PC and a very clever so called mother that in my book caused the horrifying death of this beautiful little boy. My emotions at the time were rage, tears, disbelief, shock, horror and more rage especially after i read what the boyfriend and lodger did to this little boy. Nothing short of the DP is suitable for this type of human filth. No person with an ounce of humanity could have done that to a 17 month old defenseless child.
I read somewhere, i think it was yesterdays Times that a 5 visit ruling would be brought in if the parent cant explain the injury to a child or the social workers, Police & doctors believe the child to be in immanent danger, if thats the case then that child will be removed and placed into care until the parents can prove themselves fit to look after a child. I cant remember if it was the Tories Cameron or the Liberal leader. All i know is that something needs to be done because this is happening all to often and i really am at a loss for words as to how anyone can do this. Seriously, i cant understand the mentality of anyone who would do this.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Nov 15, 2008 12:02:10 GMT -6
Your inability to address my comments and the issues of this case and instead choosing to go off on tangents and create strawman arguments tells me all I need to know. "Strawman arguments??" Your ignorance of this subject apparently knows no bounds. I might suggest also that you don't base your opinions on ANY subject on a single news article and then assume that you actually know what you are talking about. Still refuse to address this case and comments. No surprise.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Nov 15, 2008 12:18:36 GMT -6
I can say that getting the police to show up immediately will require the "immediate" threat of harm as defined by the police not you. What is the definition used by police? Examples?
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Nov 15, 2008 15:04:53 GMT -6
I can say that getting the police to show up immediately will require the "immediate" threat of harm as defined by the police not you. What is the definition used by police? Examples? I am not a police officer and do not have police training. Therefore, I do not know their official policy on such matters. I can say that children unattended is the most common from my experience. Abused children in emergency rooms is another if supported by medical staff. I suppose there are cases when police are called when actual abuse is occurring and they witness either the abuse or the immediate aftermath but at the moment I don't recall any cases I had like this. For older kids, by far the most common way they come into protective custody is when parents call the police and claim their child to be unruly and demand they be taken to jail. If the parents don't pick them up later, it becomes a neglect issue which prompts social services intervention. A more direct answer I suspect you might be looking for: If you witness a neighbor abusing their child or just hear the abuse occurring, of course you can call the police and hope for one of two things. One, the police arrive quickly enough to witness the abuse themselves or two, that the child have obvious fresh significant injuries requiring medical attention. Barring these two things, more than likely you will be instructed by the police to call social services and make a referral. Not very elegant, I realize. For government to have the power to remove all children who they suspect (using unreliable, unproven tools) of having the potential to cause harm to their children as some in this thread seem to support would require a trade-off on personal rights that would make illegal search and seizure seem tame by comparison. No one is especially arguing for the government to have this power but are oblivious to the fact that such power would be necessary to get the results they seek. Rather, the argument seems to be that social services should magically be able to identify potential child abusers with 100% accuracy and then disregard the personal rights of just those folks as necessary to prevent them from doing bad things. Cases like this one where everything went wrong are all too common. Could things have been done differently in this case to prevent the terrible outcome? Armed with knowing the facts of what happened, the obvious answer is "yes." Someone, however, would have to make the determination, before knowing what was about to occur, that THIS case among a stack of cases with similar factors would be the one to focus on. Often they get it right but that can't be proven, of course. Sometimes they get it wrong which is unfortunate. Until someone develops better tools to identify potential child abusers and killers and as long as there remains a steady stream of folks willing and able to abuse their children, cases like this one will continue to occur no matter how often or how thoroughly the system is overhauled.
|
|