Here is what worries me about CPS

[jharris352]

YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
Court blasts state's strip-search of children
Social worker enters Christian school without cause, tells kids to remove clothing​

Posted: May 20, 2008
9:01 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Two children who attended a private Christian school in Wisconsin were illegally strip-searched and had their constitutional rights violated by a state social worker, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled Monday.

In Michael C. v. Gresbach, the court said state worker Dana Gresbach violated the children's Fourth Amendment rights to freedom from unreasonable search when she entered Good Hope Christian Academy in Milwaukee, Wis., had the children pulled from the classrooms and told them to remove their clothing when she suspected the parents of spanking in February 2004.

Stephen Crampton, vice president of legal affairs and general counsel for Liberty Counsel, represented the parents of 8-year-old Ian and 9-year-old Alexis when they sued the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare and the caseworker.

"We are obviously pleased with the result, but candidly, we wish they had been more harsh on this renegade department that has ruined the lives of so many well-intentioned families already," he told WND.

Crampton said this type of overstep is common among social workers, and they often do not give it a second thought.

"The social worker performed these strip searches as a matter of routine, estimating that in perhaps one-half of the 300 or so cases she handled every year she subjected kids to a partial disrobing," he said. "In fact, she testified that she considered it so routine that she did not bother to discuss her intentions with her supervisor, even though she spoke to her on her way to the school."

The state had several social workers file affidavits saying they would have followed the same procedure. Crampton said, "That is an alarming admission, and we suspect you would find a similar pattern in social service offices all over America."

When Gresbach entered the school, she handed her business card to Principal Cheryl Reetz and told her she needed to see Ian and Alexis. Reetz asked the social worker if she could call the children's parents, but Gresbach refused to allow it, saying she would contact them at a later time. The principal then asked if she could remain in the room to observe the interview, but she was denied permission to do so.

According to court documents, state officials claimed they made efforts to speak with the parents and stepparents of the children, but the visits never occurred.

Crampton said the mindset of most social workers is that parents are the problem.

"They go to great lengths to lock parents out of the process, treating them as the enemy, and ultimately doing more harm than good by driving something of a wedge between the children and their parents," he said.

The social worker spent nearly 15 minutes alone in the room with each child. She searched Ian's wrists for bruising and asked him to pull up his shirt. He complied, and she examined his back for suspicious marks. Gresbach then privately inspected Alexis, asking her to pull down her tights and lift up her dress. The worker was unable to find any sign of injury on the children's bodies.

Gresbach's behavior is not a one-time incident uncommon among social workers. In Doe v. Carla Heck, the court addressed an eerily similar child abuse investigation where children's rights to freedom from unreasonable search were violated by the same state agency on the premises of another private educational facility.

"The problem almost always arises only in private schools," Crampton said. "Public schools, as agents of the government, routinely roll over and give social workers access to any student they wish to see, provide a room for them, and in short serve up our children on a platter, without bothering to contact parents," he said.

Gresbach claimed she was entitled to qualified immunity because her actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; however, the court disagreed.

"We do not exempt child welfare workers from adhering to basic Fourth Amendment principles under non-exigent circumstances – to do so would be imprudent," the court stated. "… we do not believe that requiring a child welfare caseworker to act in accordance with basic Fourth Amendment principles is an undue burden on the child welfare system, particularly when it is necessary to conduct an examination of a child's body, which is undoubtedly 'frightening, humiliating and intrusive' to the child."

Crampton said Christian families have the freedom to follow scriptures in administering corporal punishment and should not have their rights violated by power-hungry government officials.

"That social workers and bureaucrats don't like it is no reason to allow the trampling of the constitutional rights of parents and their children," he said. "It is the high privilege and high responsibility of parents to oversee the care, custody and education of their children, not the state."

 

[MorgansDaddy]

Great post!! I have a not so pleasant memory of something of the same from my child hood. My mother had someone become mad at her and so to retaliate they decided to make a false report to CPS and they searched all four of us children just the same, only to find out there was no abuse. I think the biggest problem is they do not understand that their "procedures" can effect the children in such a negative way and create bad memories they will carry their entire lives. It is sad that a system meant to protect children can do as much harm as they are trying to prevent because of their "procedures."

 

[army judge]

In the immortal words of former first lady, Nancy Reagan, "Just say, no!"

If you refuse to cooperate with them, there is nothing they can do to you, if you're not doing anything improper to your kids!

 

[PQN2]

Army judge,

In this case the social worker got the little children alone, even if you practice and practice with small children, when the principal of their school sends them off with someone 'official', they will often do as they are told out of fear or because they think they have to listen to the grown-up.

All schools should adopt a policy of not allowing anyone to talk to the children without the parent/legal guardian's permission or a warrant.

 

[army judge]

Army judge,

In this case the social worker got the little children alone, even if you practice and practice with small children, when the principal of their school sends them off with someone 'official', they will often do as they are told out of fear or because they think they have to listen to the grown-up.

All schools should adopt a policy of not allowing anyone to talk to the children without the parent/legal guardian's permission or a warrant.

Every parent should supply each child's principal with a letter instructing them to allow no one to speak with their child, unless they have a warrant.

And, even when a warrant is presented, it is a parent's right to be present when the child is taken into custody.

The parent then would instruct the authorities that the child will be making no statements about anything.

The child has no rights.

Any rights a child possesses flows through the parent or guardian.

You then contact your attorney or take your child home and contact your attorney.

 

[MorgansDaddy]

I think the problem is that most parents don't realize that they have that right and fear if they don't comply then CPS will make their lives a living hell. A little while back, my wife's ex-husband had regular visits with their daughter and his neighbors reported him not so much for abuse but more so for putting their daughter in dangerous situations. So of course there was no need to strip search her. None the less I can say much to my surprise, they handled everything with great respect and of a delicate nature with their daughter careful not to make it stressful for the child. She was barely 4 at the time and I guess according to the part of the report my wife received that wasn't blacked out(most of it was blacked out) said he let her go ride her bike in the street with no supervision and he was reported for drug use as well which he admitted to. None the less, I am trying to say that I am thankful and shocked that they handled everything so delicately not to upset my step daughter in any way.

 

[CdwJava]

All schools should adopt a policy of not allowing anyone to talk to the children without the parent/legal guardian's permission or a warrant.

The problem you run in to - and what we in CA are running in to after January 1st of this year - is that parents who are abusing or neglecting their children are shielded by these protections. Locally have had parents withdraw their children from school and effectively lock them at home (citing some nebulous "home schooling" program), or simply moving away and effectively rendering any further investigation impossible.

The question to be asked should be: Do these laws serve to protect the child? or, do they serve to protect the abuser?

When I worked in San Diego County, some of the schools exercised the loco parentis right and would sit in on the interview and intervene when necessary. Some would even contact the parents after the interview per school policy. But, now these new warrant requirements are causing court clogs, interview delays (or no interview/investigation at all), and potentially endangering children.

There has to be a middle ground.

 

[PQN2]

statistics

The problem you run in to - and what we in CA are running in to after January 1st of this year - is that parents who are abusing or neglecting their children are shielded by these protections. Locally have had parents withdraw their children from school and effectively lock them at home (citing some nebulous "home schooling" program), or simply moving away and effectively rendering any further investigation impossible.

The question to be asked should be: Do these laws serve to protect the child? or, do they serve to protect the abuser?

The laws need to protect all of the children. The state should not be allowed to abuse children and families in the chance that they will discover some abuse in a few of them.

The trauma endured by a child who is stripped searched at school or even worse, a child who is taken from their school and many not see their parents -- maybe not even their siblings -- for days or weeks -- is unnecessary and abusive. We should not allow this abuse in the name of saving other abused children.

We need a way to protect the children that are being abused without abusing more children in the process.

DCFS workers could...

(1) better screen the calls they choose to investigate/eliminate "anonymous" callers
(2) start all investigations by meeting with the parents
(3) eliminate the ability of DCFS workers to take children without a warrant
(4) change the training of their workers to place family support as the top goal
(5) putting a child in foster care should only be considered after all other options failed (family support, relative placement, etc)

 

[Proserpina]

The laws need to protect all of the children. The state should not be allowed to abuse children and families in the chance that they will discover some abuse in a few of them.

The trauma endured by a child who is stripped searched at school or even worse, a child who is taken from their school and many not see their parents -- maybe not even their siblings -- for days or weeks -- is unnecessary and abusive. We should not allow this abuse in the name of saving other abused children.

We need a way to protect the children that are being abused without abusing more children in the process.

DCFS workers could...

(1) better screen the calls they choose to investigate/eliminate "anonymous" callers
(2) start all investigations by meeting with the parents
(3) eliminate the ability of DCFS workers to take children without a warrant
(4) change the training of their workers to place family support as the top goal
(5) putting a child in foster care should only be considered after all other options failed (family support, relative placement, etc)

Please, just explain how a DCFS worker is meant to distinguish between a genuine case of abuse and an embittered ex.

Are we suggesting that every DCFS worker needs to be a psychiatrist who can somehow make that decision based upon a phone call?

 

[jharris352]

Please, just explain how a DCFS worker is meant to distinguish between a genuine case of abuse and an embittered ex.

Are we suggesting that every DCFS worker needs to be a psychiatrist who can somehow make that decision based upon a phone call?

You don't protect children by disrespecting rights. You catch criminals the right way. Will you be able to protect every child? NO. That is just life. Rights in society are far more important than preventing every harm. If you allow CPS or anyone else to ride roughshod over rights you have no society.

Social services like everyone else can DO IT THE RIGHT WAY or not do it at all.

 

[CdwJava]

(1) better screen the calls they choose to investigate/eliminate "anonymous" callers

Why? Anonymous calls sometimes lead to great information. What you can DO with an anonymous caller is already greatly limited. But, even the police often initiate an investigation on an anonymous call - even if very short and limited.

(2) start all investigations by meeting with the parents

Not always a great idea. If the parents are the suspects, this is a HORRIBLE idea.

(3) eliminate the ability of DCFS workers to take children without a warrant

That could cause an unnecessary and dangerous delay in protecting a child. As it is now, they have to have articulable cause and depending on the laws in a particular state, they will have to attend a court hearing within 2 or 3 days to establish good cause to hold on to the child.

Police can arrest on probable cause, and the police can even seize children with good cause, why not DCFS workers?

If the social workers act out of line, there are penalties that can be applied much as there are penalties for errant police work.

(4) change the training of their workers to place family support as the top goal

It's already there nationwide. Family reunification is the benchmark.

(5) putting a child in foster care should only be considered after all other options failed (family support, relative placement, etc)

Already the national standard and benchmark. However, while they evaluate the proper placement with a family member or close family friend, foster care may be unavoidable. Depending on the process, the resources available, and the nature of the prospective temporary guardian, approval of a family member or family friend might take hours or it might take a week or two. In fact, I was just at a meeting tonight with my county's social services agency (which includes CPS) and this very issue came up. In more than half of placements where a family member or close family friend is immediately available, the child can be placed there within 6 hours.

There is no perfect system, and there are rules in place to try and protect everyone. However, the system is designed to err on the side of the child's safety. There are many high profile cases where DFCS workers failed to take immediate action and then got castigated for that failure ... then there is the other extreme where they are accused of acting prematurely. I don't know why anyone would want to work in that field - the pay sucks, and no matter what you do, someone thinks you're evil.

At least as a cop, I often have at least half the people that like me on any given call.

 

[PQN2]

That could cause an unnecessary and dangerous delay in protecting a child. As it is now, they have to have articulable cause and depending on the laws in a particular state, they will have to attend a court hearing within 2 or 3 days to establish good cause to hold on to the child.

The damage caused to the child of innocent parents in 2 to 3 days is severe; there is now one more abused child (this time abused by the state). Most child abuse does not rise to fatal/permanent physical harm and the additional damage that may be done while a warrant is obtained is far less than the damage done to the unabused child whose entire sense of safety in the world was just destroyed.

Police can arrest on probable cause, and the police can even seize children with good cause, why not DCFS workers?

If the social workers act out of line, there are penalties that can be applied much as there are penalties for errant police work.

Those penalties cannot undo the damage to a child.

It's already there nationwide. Family reunification is the benchmark.

Exactly - family REunification - how about not ripping families apart in the first place.

Already the national standard and benchmark. However, while they evaluate the proper placement with a family member or close family friend, foster care may be unavoidable. Depending on the process, the resources available, and the nature of the prospective temporary guardian, approval of a family member or family friend might take hours or it might take a week or two. In fact, I was just at a meeting tonight with my county's social services agency (which includes CPS) and this very issue came up. In more than half of placements where a family member or close family friend is immediately available, the child can be placed there within 6 hours.

Not in our area, I know of several cases where families begged for the children and were not approved for such reasons as "there were dirty dishes in the sink 20 minutes after lunch was over" and "there were toys everywhere on the floor". I just looked at those childless social workers and asked if they had lost their minds.

And how about the Texas pull of over 400 children.

There is no perfect system, and there are rules in place to try and protect everyone. However, the system is designed to err on the side of the child's safety. There are many high profile cases where DFCS workers failed to take immediate action and then got castigated for that failure ... then there is the other extreme where they are accused of acting prematurely. I don't know why anyone would want to work in that field - the pay sucks, and no matter what you do, someone thinks you're evil.

No, the system is designed to presume guilt. The vast majority of children who are subjects of an abuse investigation are not being abused at all. I feel horrible for the ones who are but the system as currently designed and implemented does more harm than good.

At least as a cop, I often have at least half the people that like me on any given call.

IMHE, most cops are well trained, professional and do their job to the best of their ability. Sadly, my experience with social workers is that they are poorly trained, incredibly biased against parents, drunk on power and lacking in critical real life experience as parents that would help them determine the difference between normal family interactions, a family trying their best that may benefit from services and the rare case of abuse.

If social workers (as a whole) were able to appropriately advocate what is best for the children on their caseloads, there would be no need for a CASA/GAL program.

 

[PQN2]

I am very passionate about this because, as an adoptive parent to children from the foster care system, I live each day trying to undo the damage done by inept social workers. For most of the children that were placed with us, the damage done by the 'system' was worse than anything the birth parents had inflicted on them.

 

[CdwJava]

I am very passionate about this because, as an adoptive parent to children from the foster care system, I live each day trying to undo the damage done by inept social workers. For most of the children that were placed with us, the damage done by the 'system' was worse than anything the birth parents had inflicted on them.

As a foster parent myself, and as an officer assigned to investigate these crimes, I have precisely the opposite experience.

If the social workers in your neck of the woods are that bad, this is a problem of supervision and oversight and needs to be addressed. To equate your experiences with the system as a whole is unfair.

I told myself when I first began working juvenile crimes in 1999 that I would NEVER again have to ask myself, "what more could I have done" to protect a child who ended up dead. If it means that we err on the side of protecting the child, oh well. I will not attend another child's funeral and wonder if the system's inaction contributed to the child's death.

 

[PQN2]

I told myself when I first began working juvenile crimes in 1999 that I would NEVER again have to ask myself, "what more could I have done" to protect a child who ended up dead. If it means that we err on the side of protecting the child, oh well. I will not attend another child's funeral and wonder if the system's inaction contributed to the child's death.

We all come at this from the basis of our own experience with 'the system'. In my experience, the horrific cases of child abuse are so rare. And, usually, the evidence that the child is being abused is there and would justify a warrant for the child's removal.

The cases where 'the system' causes permanent harm to a child are common.

All children need to feel that they are secure in their family. Having strangers take you away against your parents wishes shows a child that their parents cannot keep them safe; that the world is a scary place.

Troubled homes better than foster care

And children don't just die in birthhomes. What more (or in most cases less) could have been done to/for these children:


Links to other stories about children dying in foster care

CdwJava - I admire your passion for your job and the children you serve. Neither one of us wants to see children abused or killed. We just disagree on how it is best to protect the children.

The book Wounded Innocents: The Real Victims of the War Against Child Abuse was written about the California CPS system (I think specifically LA).

 

[CdwJava]

Tragedies at the hands of government receive press ... as they should. Keep in mind that in those instances where the authorities have looked the other way for fear of liability, similar tragedies occur, yet they do not get press as it is "safe" to do nothing.

I have seen many children hurt and killed at the hands of their parents, and have yet to ever work a case of abuse, death, or injury from a foster home. Fortunately, they receive press when such tragedy and gross oversight happens. But, the few stories that make the press represent a minority of actions.

The key is training, supervision, administration, and oversight.

 

[jharris352]

CDWJava, I would be ok with DFCS workers having Police powers if they had Police Limits. DFCS workers are not very well trained, they are very much insulated, they get on MORAL not Legal vendettas, and they are doing so with children. If DFCS workers were held to more accountability I would be ok with them actually having power.

The problem is that they have very very little power until they have probable cause. So what they do is Lie, Threaten, Intimidate, and otherwise game people's emotions and rights on the basis that they are doing it "for the children."

The VAST majority of DFCS cases are NOTHING, with NO MERIT. Do you really want untrained people investigating nothing cases to be able to ignore Constitutional rights? I have heard DFCS workers tell my clients that Constitutional Rights do not apply to them because Deprivation is a civil matter.

I know that it is a common practice to seize a children by force with EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ORDERS on simple information and belief so that they can compel the freaked out parents to cooperate. How many times do you think the DFCS workers just make up or exaggerate things when they find out they took children and simply screwed up?

You wouldn't agree with the police acting in the loose cannon manner that social workers and CASA's employ. They barely know the law, they flatly deny people have constitutional rights because they aren't criminal investigators, and they lie, threaten, and exaggerate about our very CHILDREN.

Don't be blinded by the very few but horrible cases of abuse and neglect they find and intervene in. The VAST majority of cases have nothing to do with abuse or neglect.

 

[jharris352]

I'm curious CDWjava. Would you dare walk into a school, demand to see a child without a warrant, without giving an adults their rights, and STRIP search the child on the simple "information and belief" that they had been abused? Is that how you would conduct police work? Of course it isn't

Then why is it ok for CPS?

 

[CdwJava]

I'm curious CDWjava. Would you dare walk into a school, demand to see a child without a warrant, without giving an adults their rights, and STRIP search the child on the simple "information and belief" that they had been abused? Is that how you would conduct police work? Of course it isn't

Then why is it ok for CPS?

First, I never said that the incident you posted was "okay."

Second, I have opined from the beginning that it is all about training, supervision, and accountability. CPS workers have very strict rules they are supposed to live by - perhaps stricter than those I must operate under ... at least in my state, and in most others. If they are not held accountable, that again goes back to poor management and supervision.

I am very familiar with the rules under which CPS has to operate, and their rules tend to be at least as strict as those I have to operate under are. They, too, have to operate with the same concepts of reasonable suspicion and probable cause in order to act except they are forced to operate without the benefit of the laws of arrest. They are also subject to lawsuit, criticism, and bad press when they leave a child in a bad situation. When said child is injured or killed, then CPS doesn't get praise for doing "the right thing" and leaving the child where it was because they adhered to the law, but they get castigated for not acting to protect the children.

There was a proposal in CA some years back that would have removed qualified immunity from CPS workers and law enforcement for the seizure of children. This would have meant a great many civil suits and allegations, and CPS and law enforcement would likely NEVER have seized a child again absent a warrant from a court. Fortunately, the law did not pass and so long as the authorities act reasonably and within the law and policy, they will generally receive qualified immunity.

Before you nod and say that a warrant should always be issued before a child is removed, understand that the police can arrest with probable cause without a warrant, likewise children should be able to be taken into protective custody for similar probable cause. You might say that if there is such probable cause to take the child, then there should be probable cause to arrest the parents. Well, this is not always the case. Sometimes seizing the child is the only way to guarantee his or her safety while you build a case against the parents. And, of course, CPS still has to present the case before a judge within a specified period (like the police do for probable cause in an arrest). I can outline numerous cases where there existed good cause to seize the children, but insufficient probable cause to arrest the parents at that moment. In some of those cases, the parents had been planning to flee the jurisdiction to avoid prosecution, and in others the child would have been at great physical risk had they been allowed to remain.

In the end, it comes down to training and accountability. Like any organization, a CPS organization is only as good as the supervision and management it applies. My county agency is among the best I have worked with. When I was in San Diego County, theirs was pretty good as well. Like any organization that consists of relatively low paid social workers with heavy case loads, huge responsibility and liability, and inadequate funding for training and resources, they are prone to errors if inadequately managed. Ultimately, if the horror stories become the norm (and they are not the norm) then things will change. Even when they are not the norm, things change. My county agency is constantly re-evaluating their processes and striving to work better. But, always, their policy is to act in the best interests of the child, and to do so within the law.

 

[CdwJava]

I should add that very, very few cases investigated by CPS are substantiated and even fewer result in any child being taken from the home. As I recall from my meeting last night, my local CPS agency receives a number of referrals (for neglect, abuse, etc.) equal to about 100 referrals per one thousand children in the county (keep in mind that some of those are multiple referrals for the same child, so that does NOT mean that 10% of the kids in the county have had a referral made on them in any given year).

Of those, less than half are substantiated (something is found to have happened) and less than 8% of the total number of referrals result in some sort of action mandating even a temporary placement of the children in a year.

By law, they are required to investigate all of these referrals - which, by the way, are most often also forwarded to law enforcement, so we both have to look into them. In my county this can mean an investigative caseload for a CPS caseworker of more than 200 cases per worker per year with about 16 of those resulting in temporary or long term placements. So, a lot of time is spent by CPS investigating allegations that ultimately result in nothing or cannot be substantiated (which is not to say nothing happened, only that there is no way to ascertain whether anything happened or not).

Most of the horror stories we hear - like the ones involving dirty cops - are the exception to the rule and are minuscule when compared to the total number of actions they take. Should they be ignored? Of course not! They should be addressed. But to condemn the whole system, in every county and in every state, for the actions of a few in one state or another is wrong.