Is there a doctor in the house, preferably a Psychiatrist.

Is there a doctor in the house, preferably a Psychiatrist.Aww and yet another one who can't handle the truth but that's ok I understand when the truth gets too hard to handle people attack the person who is telling it. As the old saying goes if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. I understand that you can't handle the truth but that still won't make it go away the truth is the truth and there is nothing you can do about it. You either have to continue to live on fantasy island or you have to choose to live in the real world. You can say what you want about me but the bottom line is I still have the evidence that proves I am telling the truth and there is nothing you can do about that.

It's not really that anyone wants to attack you, it's just that you don't come off as very credible. Your lawyer wouldn't disagree with the judge? I disagree with judges all the time. That's why we have juries--to protect people from an overreaching system.

It's not really that anyone wants to attack you, it's just that you don't come off as very credible. Your lawyer wouldn't disagree with the judge? I disagree with judges all the time. That's why we have juries--to protect people from an overreaching system.I am just telling you what my lawyer told me all I can do is tell the truth I can't help if people on here can't handle it. Too bad you can't add digital files to this thread I would let you guys here the tape.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JSpbgoKp8LA/ShfvkLVlOpI/AAAAAAAAEsw/0CEZvxd1n_c/s400/300_Jessop_HandletheTruth.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JSpbgoKp8LA/ShfvkLVlOpI/AAAAAAAAEsw/0CEZvxd1n_c/s400/300_Jessop_HandletheTruth.jpg

I don't know how you got this picture on here but I couldn't have said it better myself.

It seems like this topic has somewhat petered out from where google showed it going on when I put what I put into the google search line and found the forum but I would like to add my thoughts anyway and hopefully, there are still some around to discuss it.
My observation with DHS is that if you don't have jack squat and you're abusing your child(ren), DHS doesn't "find" a reason to remove them and "no assessment" or "no ruling is entered into the so-called investigation. If you have a home of your own and other possessions, guess what? They keep your child as long as they damn well please and order child support for the kids and attach all kinds of ways to make you to pay to get your child back.
Sound feasible?
I currently live in Washington County and have been told my no less than 5 lawyers that I am all but screwed.
As to the reason my children were taken: I struck my 17 year old son in the face for calling me an insane f**ing b**ch that needed to be on drugs after I gave him permission to use my cell phone and then he began using it in a way I asked him not to which was checking the voicemail which I calmly explained 2-3 times that wasted the minutes and was junk and didn't need to be checked at the time. I have dealt with this boy and all his issues, oppositional defiance, loss of daycares, school problems and so on since the problems began when he turned 3. Seriously. I was at the end of my rope with him as I had just bought a home in town to keep him off the roads due to lack of mental capability to handle it and because of the added insane expense I would have incurred upon adding him to my insurance. Reverse to last Sept. after a month or two of hearing what he later said was all but threats of suicide and I again sought mental help at which time he was given numerous tests, diagnosed with 4 "labels", slight Aspergers, depression, ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder and given 3-4 prescriptions for all of the above which I now know began to make him violent and even more abusive and mean. After I hit him, he ranted and screamed and me for about a minute and then rose up and began to attack me so I called the police. Big mistake. I was the one arrested regardless because of his being 3 weeks shy of turning 18 and because I didn't have someone to come get them both within the mere 5-10 minutes which is all DHS allows, the investigator threw in a few more allegations in order for the judge to order for their removal.
My youngest boy was placed with a family in our church within the next week and the oldest boy sat at a shelter in Pawhuska for just under 2 weeks, not in school I might add, until they approved some people he asked to be placed with.
Fast forward to the adjudication last Monday and the boys attorney recommended the youngest be returned home and my only that morning approved court appointed attorney recommended the same only to have the judge listen to the DA flanked by the DHS caseworker that he should not be returned.
I then overheard said caseworker tell the boys attorney that I harassed her thru out that month with near daily phone calls which is not true among other things and I have also be told by my son that he was told by the caseworker that these things can take as long as a year and then he also asked me "what you did to bo (what he calls his brother), you wouldn't ever do that to me would you?" which I KNOW to be something this child would have NEVER thought to ask me himself!!
I still have not been given anything or told of anything I can begin doing to show that I am otherwise not an abusive mom, my newly appointed attorney has not yet called me to begin whatever could be done to get my youngest son back and the next court appointment is not until June 23, plenty of time for "them" to continue telling my child things I feel they have NO business telling him.

I work with DHS in a different jurisdiction. I am a guardian ad litem and don't actually work for or report to the agency. Sometimes I am on the side of DHS but frequently I oppose them in court. I won't say that there aren't some bad foster homes. I have seen them and complained about them and had my kids removed. I have also seen foster parents who take in a ton of special needs kids just to get the extra cash. I fight to get my kids out of there. I had a child sexually abused at a foster home which is horrifying. Some people who take in kids don't do it out of altruism, I'll give you that.

I have also seen spectacular foster parents. For the pittance they can afford to give them, I can't imagine why ANYONE would take in foster kids.

Truth be told, however, the families DHS works with tend to be nuts, especially the ones whose children are taken into foster care. I'll just say it. Many are drug addicts, mentally ill or social misfits who think they can do whatever they want and society is supposed to foot the bill. Individuals who have a relative in foster care, frequently make completely outlandish claims about the case without doing the research. You know that grandmother with the missing grand daughter down in Florida whose daughter has been in and out of jail? Yup, she in her many incantations, is what DHS workers (and GALs) deal with, everyday. I have lost track of how many difficult family members I have dealt with over the years who furiously insist that "their" child would never be abusive to the grandbaby who come back to me, years later, and admit they just had no idea...

A subset of the families DHS works with are the ones who still have their children but a protective order is in place requiring them to get counseling, go to parenting class, etc. I won't say these parents are all nuts. A lot of them are just overworked, overwhelmed, uneducated or have made poor choices in their life that leave them exhausted and overextended. The court procedings are a mixed blessing. On the one hand, they can get some services that could help them. On the other, they are already stretched so thin that the added stress of court, missing work for court appearances, etc. is just so hard.

My experience is that while staff at DHS make mistakes, they are in a situation where if they take the kids, they are criticized. If they leave the kids, they are responsible if they get hurt. Everly single family members insists the child be sent home to the person of "their" choice. A lot of them spend all their energy telling their friends and neighbors what they think should happen, and why, but never bother to show up to court.

As for calling the governor in the Briggs case, well, DON'T THEY ALL CALL THE GOVERNOR?????? You just have to live in my world to understand how these things go.

You have to be careful what you say to families because no matter what is said, it gets twisted into something that doesn't even resemble the conversation. They tend to hear what they want to hear or what they expect to hear. Sometimes I say something completely neutral and they report that I all but threatened them. Just as often, I will tell them I completely disagree with what it is that they did and they happily report that I completely agree with them and I am one swell lady. There is no rhyme or reason to it as near as I've been able to tell.

I have seen family members who take in their kin's family ("because they love them so much!") hit the ceiling when they don't get paid for it by the state. Parents who lose their kids due to abuse are furious that they have to pay child support for their upkeep after the state has to step in to keep them safe.

It is common in my custody cases for protective serviceds to be called with complaints that the child is being abused. In fact, a "good" case is one in which this doesn't happen. In fact, the common understanding is that first grandma calls in a neglect complaint about that no-good-former-son-in-law. If that doesn't work, here comes the one alleging sexual abuse. Grandma frequently does her own "examination" of the poor kid before dragging her to the doctor on the sly, all the time telling her exactly what she is afraid they will find. 99 times out of 100 there is nothing to it - just an hysterical noncustodial parent or grandparent who sees things through their own filter. And who feels NO unease at justifying the means to achieve whatever end he/she prefers.

A lot of parents come to court and offer the judge NOTHING to support their arguments. To hear them tell it, later, the court just ignored them when they laid it all out for them. Next to never happens. What actually happens is that they give their conclusory opinion, if they say anything, with no evidence beyond that THEY think things should be decided a certain way. "She is a crappy mother and I didn't want him to marry her in the first place," from the paternal grandparent just doesn't carry the punch as bringing in witnesses who can describe things that substantiate that the mother is a drug using, abusive parent.

Re: Adoption. I have been doing this for years. I have never ONCE had an adoption go through that had even a hint of illegality to it. I've never had another GAL tell me they were involved in an illegal adoption, either. Adoptions deal with the parents' constitutional rights - not just run of the mill "laws." Not only is there a very high standard for a termination of parental rights to be granted, the right to appeal is there to make sure nothing is out of order. There are a ton of procedural hoops you have to jump through before termination of parental rights (and subsequent adoption) is accomplished. Moreover, the state will supply the parent an attorney if they can't afford one. Claims that the judge gets a bonus are absolutely ridiculous and irresponsible. The feds will offer a special adoption subsidy for a special needs child but that goes to the adoptive parents. This is an attempt to get children a home - some of them are blind, crippled, need a G tube, are severely mentally retarded (will never even be potty trained), or otherwise hard or impossible to place.

I am not sure where Dana is getting her information about all these cases. As a GAL, I have access to all the information about a child I represent but I don't have any way of getting the type of "inside" information she describes about several foster kids. Most courts keep this strictly confidential. Perhaps she has an insider who is sharing these tales? Someone who, by the way, is not subject to cross examination to prove the factual basis of these tales?

I read about the Briggs story. The bonus argument is hogwash. No social worker or judge gets ANYTHING financial related to a child in foster care. The judge and DHS came under a lot of criticism but unless you were there, you have no idea what evidence was presented that led to her death. And BTW - the child was with her family when she died - not with a foster family. So, on the one hand, foster care is bad. On the other, DHS is stealing babies and money is changing hands. Oh, and when the child goes back to her parent? That is bad, too. It is all the government's fault.

I tell my families that the courts are a very poor excuse for families behaving as they should. It is easy to criticize DHS and I understand why people do it. But on the whole, it is staffed with what I call "do gooders" who have soft hearts and want to the do the right thing. A lot of them burn out relatively quickly because their high ideals don't stand up to misery and irrationality that the dregs of society tend to bring to the table. 99% of them are the dregs of society. Let me repeat that. Those among us who are functioning just fine can't imagine the lives many of these folks live. They are in and out of jail, rehab, relationships, jobs, never have transportation, frequently change residences and their kids' schools, and an amazing number are on pain medication from "back" pain.

The depravity that is visited upon kids by dysfunctional families and an overworked fostercare system is soul killing. Fact is, a child doesn't end up in foster care without a pretty good reason. Fact is, a lot of the families who lose their kids are nutty. Fact is, there is no real good reason beyond being a saint or being a sinner to take children into your home as a foster parent. Fact is, the combination of overworked social workers, jaded GALs, crazy, addicted, maladjusted or otherwise dysfunctional families, traumatized children, skeptical judges sometimes result in a child not being protected as they should. But the alternative is ... what? It is easy to criticize, particularly if you have an ax to grind.

I am so grateful to good foster parents. The bad ones, well, I hate them. Just hate them. But the alternative? I have never met a social worker or a judge that didn't care about the kids. Sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes they miss things. Sometimes, believe it or not, the families lie. Hard to believe, but true. DHS staff and the courts are not god. They can't see into someone's soul and tell if they are good or bad, or if they are telling the truth and they can't read the future. They generally do the best they can. Sometimes it doesn't work out. If families would do their part, these agencies would be put out of business.So I guess you are not aware of D.G. vs Henry or the ABA report which clearly states that children are not getting proper legal representation. Isn't that the job of the Guardian Ad Litem to make sure that this happens? Since it is part of your job to make sure that the childs best interest is assured I just had to ask. Maybe you have spent too much time defending DHS on the net that you don't see what is really going on.

Well, hello, Dana. Nice to see you, again.

Well, hello, Dana. Nice to see you, again.

Wow that was probably the fastest response I ever got to a post.

Wow that was probably the fastest response I ever got to a post.

I was uncharacteristically brief. <grin>

I was uncharacteristically brief. <grin> Yes I see that but you were definately fast it only took you 3 minutes to respond didn't answer the questions but quick to acknowledge them anyway.

Another child dies under the watchfull eye of DHS I am surprised that they actually suspended some of the caseworkers this quick this has never happened before usually they just transfer them to another county.
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-department-of-human-services-workers-suspended-over-death-of-child/article/3577864#ixzz1PXuYrVW6

Another child dies under the watchfull eye of DHS I am surprised that they actually suspended some of the caseworkers this quick this has never happened before usually they just transfer them to another county.
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-department-of-human-services-workers-suspended-over-death-of-child/article/3577864#ixzz1PXuYrVW6

In recent months, I've been doing a lot more juvenile work. I can tell you that kinship placements are way up; and the number of kids taken into custody is way, way down. One of the things I do up there is represent the children taken into custody at show-cause hearings. Thus far, in all the time I've done this, I have yet to see a pickup that doesn't look like it was warranted. And the kids are out of the shelter and into foster homes extremely fast.

The cynic inside me tells me that this is in response to the recent lawsuit. We still have some dreadful caseworkers, and some really good ones. Unfortunately, the good ones tend to burn out pretty fast.

So sad... my heart goes out to that little girl

In recent months, I've been doing a lot more juvenile work. I can tell you that kinship placements are way up; and the number of kids taken into custody is way, way down. One of the things I do up there is represent the children taken into custody at show-cause hearings. Thus far, in all the time I've done this, I have yet to see a pickup that doesn't look like it was warranted. And the kids are out of the shelter and into foster homes extremely fast.

The cynic inside me tells me that this is in response to the recent lawsuit. We still have some dreadful caseworkers, and some really good ones. Unfortunately, the good ones tend to burn out pretty fast.Yea the good ones burn out because they can't handle having to lie in court and take children who don't deserve to be taken just for the Title IV funding.

So sad... my heart goes out to that little girlYea too bad the caseworkers didn't learn anything from the 2 cases they had before that ended in death.

Yea the good ones burn out because they can't handle having to lie in court and take children who don't deserve to be taken just for the Title IV funding.

Dana, that may have been how it was in the past, I wasn't there, but as someone who has sat through numerous show cause hearings as a semi-objective observer, representing the kids, I haven't been presented with a case yet where I didn't think a pickup wasn't warranted.

Dana, that may have been how it was in the past, I wasn't there, but as someone who has sat through numerous show cause hearings as a semi-objective observer, representing the kids, I haven't been presented with a case yet where I didn't think a pickup wasn't warranted.

Not the past it is still going on today you are just the newby onboard once they find out which way you swing then the truth will come out. I hope you are not like some of the others and always keep the best interest of the child at the top of your list.

Midtowner I get the feeling that you mean well and I hope it stays that way Oklahoma's children need someone that will truly fight for them and make sure they are protected. I hope they don't change you like they have done so many others just for the record for every pickup you say was warranted I can show you one that clearly wasn't and everybody knew it and didn't care.

I will tell you that everyone says that since the lawsuit, things have changed. Caseworkers have smaller loads, there are fewer kids in the system, and caseworkers really have to be able to show a lot before a pickup is ordered. It certainly hasn't been my experience that show causes involve half-ass presentations by the caseworkers as to why the children were taken into custody.

Now, that being said, do I have cases where I represent parents where the reasons the kids were taken into custody were bogus? Absolutely. There still is, and probably always will be an issue of people gaming the system, e.g., grandparents making bogus reports to DHS in order to get kinship placement of their grand kids. In those situations, parents have to make pretty tough choices--jury trials where they risk the parental death penalty versus stipulating to something like "the kid made such and such allegation" and taking a bunch of classes.

I will say most everyone in the system means well, but some of it is pretty absurd. It's not perfect, but it's better.

Dana I appreciate your truthful insight....I'm SURE sooooo much goes on within that agency that we outsiders have NO CLUE...I wonder if Sheree Powell is getting tired of going in front of the camera's (what seems at least once a month) to defend the agency's actions....

A little off topic, but still DHS related, did anyone read the short article in Sat's paper regarding 4 Father's wanting a class action suit against DHS child support? Supposedly DHS has been charging too much in child-support-back-pay interest. I will be watching that one closely!!!!

I will tell you that everyone says that since the lawsuit, things have changed. Caseworkers have smaller loads, there are fewer kids in the system, and caseworkers really have to be able to show a lot before a pickup is ordered. It certainly hasn't been my experience that show causes involve half-ass presentations by the caseworkers as to why the children were taken into custody.

Now, that being said, do I have cases where I represent parents where the reasons the kids were taken into custody were bogus? Absolutely. There still is, and probably always will be an issue of people gaming the system, e.g., grandparents making bogus reports to DHS in order to get kinship placement of their grand kids. In those situations, parents have to make pretty tough choices--jury trials where they risk the parental death penalty versus stipulating to something like "the kid made such and such allegation" and taking a bunch of classes.

I will say most everyone in the system means well, but some of it is pretty absurd. It's not perfect, but it's better.

I have to wonder Midtowner when you see this stuff that you say is wrong go on what do you do? Do you by chance let it be known to the powers that be about the bogus stuff or do you just keep your mouth shut and let be what will be?

Dana I appreciate your truthful insight....I'm SURE sooooo much goes on within that agency that we outsiders have NO CLUE...I wonder if Sheree Powell is getting tired of going in front of the camera's (what seems at least once a month) to defend the agency's actions....

A little off topic, but still DHS related, did anyone read the short article in Sat's paper regarding 4 Father's wanting a class action suit against DHS child support? Supposedly DHS has been charging too much in child-support-back-pay interest. I will be watching that one closely!!!!Yes I saw that and did you notice that this lawyer has proof that this has been going on since 1993 and it has only gotten worse since then. Not only do they overcharge some in child support knowing it is wrong they also defy court orders and charge people child support who are not even supposed to pay. That is going on right now today I have gotten a copy of the court order and the person is still paying child support today as we speak.

I have to wonder Midtowner when you see this stuff that you say is wrong go on what do you do? Do you by chance let it be known to the powers that be about the bogus stuff or do you just keep your mouth shut and let be what will be?

I would imagine since he's representing the parents, or other persons involved, he does what's best for his client and let them know what their choices are.

Reasonable and logical people would fire every single person working there--and have any who want to stay re-apply and then have some sort of public panel assess each one.

Look at the Medical Examiner's Office. An absolute, total and complete--disgrace. Corrupt stem to stern. They should all be fired without recourse. There is no room for rehabilitation here...but instead...amputation.

I have to wonder Midtowner when you see this stuff that you say is wrong go on what do you do? Do you by chance let it be known to the powers that be about the bogus stuff or do you just keep your mouth shut and let be what will be?

If there is bogus stuff going on that negatively impacts his client, I expect everyone in the courtroom is made aware of it.

But be that as it may, if an attorney knows something, he doesn't just pull it out of the hat. I can't recall ever knowing something that was going on with an agency that the supervisor didn't already know. I personally have raised issues with counsel for social services when something or someone was squirrely. You have to remember that as attorneys, there is a certain ethical protocol we have when dealing with people who are represented by counsel. I suppose I could have run to the media but that never even occured to me since I worked with these people all the time and knew that if I picked up the phone and gave their counsel a heads up, the situation would likely get taken care of. And once the matter was corrected - and it generally was - you just move on and bring it up at court if it is pertinent to the case. That was my philosophy, anyway. If I'd been a layperson it might have different but as an attorney, I was accustomed to working with other counsel and the court and in my situation, don't recall that ever being inadequate to deal with something. There was more than one time when an incompetent social worker got put through the ringer by me on the stand and her lawyer wouldn't do much to help. That was one of those cases where they were apt to mutter under their breath to me as we exchanged places at the podium, "Thanks, you've given me something I can use to get rid of her."

I have to wonder Midtowner when you see this stuff that you say is wrong go on what do you do? Do you by chance let it be known to the powers that be about the bogus stuff or do you just keep your mouth shut and let be what will be?

Dana, at that point, you have to give your client good advice. Stipulating to some damaging stuff which can be rectified in the eyes of DHS upon completion of a plan versus a jury trial, where the parental death penalty is what you get for losing is a tough choice. And most parents will stipulate if it means that 100%, they'll get their kids back if they work their plan. I believe in zealous advocacy for my client. If I'm representing the parents, either they have nothing to hide and we give DHS full access to make sure they understand they have no case or my client does have some issues. Then, I double as an attorney and a life coach--I have literally told clients what they should eat for breakfast before court and where they should be applying for jobs. Some of these folks, especially kids with kids have absolutely no life skills, and DHS, as traumatic as everything is, can provide some real positive outcomes for these families.

I will tell you that everyone says that since the lawsuit, things have changed. Caseworkers have smaller loads, there are fewer kids in the system, and caseworkers really have to be able to show a lot before a pickup is ordered....

A lawsuit can be funny like that sometimes. About two decades ago it took an action in federal court, not DHS related but it did involve another aspect of state provided services, to significantly improve a longstanding problem with the timely delivery of those services. When the right situation demands a hop to it result, it does tend to happen.

I would imagine since he's representing the parents, or other persons involved, he does what's best for his client and let them know what their choices are.I never assume anything I always ask so there is no confusion especially when it is a well know fact that a lawyers loyalty is to the court first not the law or their client.

Reasonable and logical people would fire every single person working there--and have any who want to stay re-apply and then have some sort of public panel assess each one.

Look at the Medical Examiner's Office. An absolute, total and complete--disgrace. Corrupt stem to stern. They should all be fired without recourse. There is no room for rehabilitation here...but instead...amputation.You make a lot of good points I would also add that any of these that want to stay must do a background check and a drug screen.

If there is bogus stuff going on that negatively impacts his client, I expect everyone in the courtroom is made aware of it.

But be that as it may, if an attorney knows something, he doesn't just pull it out of the hat. I can't recall ever knowing something that was going on with an agency that the supervisor didn't already know. I personally have raised issues with counsel for social services when something or someone was squirrely. You have to remember that as attorneys, there is a certain ethical protocol we have when dealing with people who are represented by counsel. I suppose I could have run to the media but that never even occured to me since I worked with these people all the time and knew that if I picked up the phone and gave their counsel a heads up, the situation would likely get taken care of. And once the matter was corrected - and it generally was - you just move on and bring it up at court if it is pertinent to the case. That was my philosophy, anyway. If I'd been a layperson it might have different but as an attorney, I was accustomed to working with other counsel and the court and in my situation, don't recall that ever being inadequate to deal with something. There was more than one time when an incompetent social worker got put through the ringer by me on the stand and her lawyer wouldn't do much to help. That was one of those cases where they were apt to mutter under their breath to me as we exchanged places at the podium, "Thanks, you've given me something I can use to get rid of her."I have to ask because I know so many that won't say a word. I agree with you about the supervisors too they know exactly what is going on. As far as getting rid of workers that do wrong that is almost as impossible as getting rid of a judge but yet that unethical worker can jerk someones child in 5 seconds with no proof, no warrant and no court order. I know that is not what the law states but that is what is done. Workers have been known to break the law many times to get what they want.

Dana, at that point, you have to give your client good advice. Stipulating to some damaging stuff which can be rectified in the eyes of DHS upon completion of a plan versus a jury trial, where the parental death penalty is what you get for losing is a tough choice. And most parents will stipulate if it means that 100%, they'll get their kids back if they work their plan. I believe in zealous advocacy for my client. If I'm representing the parents, either they have nothing to hide and we give DHS full access to make sure they understand they have no case or my client does have some issues. Then, I double as an attorney and a life coach--I have literally told clients what they should eat for breakfast before court and where they should be applying for jobs. Some of these folks, especially kids with kids have absolutely no life skills, and DHS, as traumatic as everything is, can provide some real positive outcomes for these families.

What about parents who did nothing wrong why should they have to work a plan at all? Also why is it ok for DHS to take a child from a good home and put them with people who will abuse and murder them? I agree with you about providing positive outcomes for people who have messed up their lives or do drugs etc. but if you are an innocent victim they are your worst nightmare. Letting a worker take out a personal vendetta against somebody just because they want to. Letting them walk into someones house and steal their children with a police escort while the worker has 2 active warrants for her arrest for crimes she committed while the person she is going after is lawabiding and has never even had a traffic ticket. What this woman did was wrong all the way around and the state didn't care to stop her even after they were given the evidence of what she did and was still doing only because she was a state worker and that's not right I don't care what anybody says. The reason we have laws is to keep people in line and make sure they obey them. The laws are supposed to be the same for all nobody is supposed to be treated special just because they work at a certain place or know a certain person or have a certain amount of money. Of course we all know that doesn't happen.

I have to ask because I know so many that won't say a word. I agree with you about the supervisors too they know exactly what is going on. As far as getting rid of workers that do wrong that is almost as impossible as getting rid of a judge but yet that unethical worker can jerk someones child in 5 seconds with no proof, no warrant and no court order. I know that is not what the law states but that is what is done. Workers have been known to break the law many times to get what they want.

There isn't a state out there that doesn't allow their social services to take children from a home where they are in imminent danger. Of course that is a judgment call but they have to go before a judge within a short period of time to have the judge review the facts and grant an order authorizing taking the child into custody if he agrees with them. Moreover, generally social workers have a strict protocol to follow and taking a child has to be to approved by a supervisor unless there is such an emergency that the child's life is in danger.

You are taking the position that social services wants to grab every child out there off the street. No so. They don't have the money, they lack foster families and frankly, it increases their individual work loads to do that, apart from the impact is has on the child and the child's family.

In my experience, for every over zealous social worker who sees abuse if a mother so much as gives her child "the mom look," there are 75 workers who are over worked, burned out, exhausted or just fooled into not keeping close enough tabs on the situation. And most of our high profile social services cases involve situations where parents harm a child and the outcry involves a judge that made a bad judgment call on custody, or claims that the agency should have kept a closer eye on the situation.

From time to time you hear about children being abused in foster care and, to me, those are some of the most horrendous cases.

It isn't easy to know if a child should stay in the family or go into foster care. Investigations are done but, unfortunately, families turn on each other, they lie, they give mixed messages (especially grandparents who are often ripped between protecting their child or their grandchild), they play gotcha with each other, they encourage children to make things up, they teach children to lie and distrust their social worker and guardian ad litem, they play head games and invariably, they talk openly about all this in front of the kids. Puts the poor things in an emotional blender. I completely understand why social workers mess up in knowing who is telling the truth and who isn't. Most of them try and some of them reach a point where they don't trust anyone, anymore. It is the kind of job where the stakes are high and any day you wake up could be the day you make a decision that is going to end up having your face splashed across the front page of the paper with people calling you a heartless baby killer by making the mistake of trusting the parents to protect their child.

What about parents who did nothing wrong why should they have to work a plan at all? Also why is it ok for DHS to take a child from a good home and put them with people who will abuse and murder them? I agree with you about providing positive outcomes for people who have messed up their lives or do drugs etc. but if you are an innocent victim they are your worst nightmare. Letting a worker take out a personal vendetta against somebody just because they want to. Letting them walk into someones house and steal their children with a police escort while the worker has 2 active warrants for her arrest for crimes she committed while the person she is going after is lawabiding and has never even had a traffic ticket. What this woman did was wrong all the way around and the state didn't care to stop her even after they were given the evidence of what she did and was still doing only because she was a state worker and that's not right I don't care what anybody says. The reason we have laws is to keep people in line and make sure they obey them. The laws are supposed to be the same for all nobody is supposed to be treated special just because they work at a certain place or know a certain person or have a certain amount of money. Of course we all know that doesn't happen.

Dana, CASA could use folks like you! (seriously, apply!)

I'll be honest, I've never even looked at the criminal record for any caseworker attached to a case I've worked. Shocking? It shouldn't be... I would expect DHS not to employ someone like that. So thanks Dana, I just learned something from you. I have only done juvenile cases in Oklahoma County, so my experience with DHS is limited to the big city.

Now, state's attorneys acting like asshats? I've definitely seen that. Being totally unrealistic about the merits of their cases? Definitely.

Here's the problem--there are two tracks. Reunification and termination. You refuse to stipulate and ask for a jury trial, you'd better be ready to roll the dice. Reunification? Take some classes and you're eventually going to be okay.

There are definitely problems, Dana, but money is a big issue. We should be really troubled that DHS depends so much on *volunteer* work for successful outcomes.

There isn't a state out there that doesn't allow their social services to take children from a home where they are in imminent danger. Of course that is a judgment call but they have to go before a judge within a short period of time to have the judge review the facts and grant an order authorizing taking the child into custody if he agrees with them. Moreover, generally social workers have a strict protocol to follow and taking a child has to be to approved by a supervisor unless there is such an emergency that the child's life is in danger.

You are taking the position that social services wants to grab every child out there off the street. No so. They don't have the money, they lack foster families and frankly, it increases their individual work loads to do that, apart from the impact is has on the child and the child's family.

In my experience, for every over zealous social worker who sees abuse if a mother so much as gives her child "the mom look," there are 75 workers who are over worked, burned out, exhausted or just fooled into not keeping close enough tabs on the situation. And most of our high profile social services cases involve situations where parents harm a child and the outcry involves a judge that made a bad judgment call on custody, or claims that the agency should have kept a closer eye on the situation.

From time to time you hear about children being abused in foster care and, to me, those are some of the most horrendous cases.

It isn't easy to know if a child should stay in the family or go into foster care. Investigations are done but, unfortunately, families turn on each other, they lie, they give mixed messages (especially grandparents who are often ripped between protecting their child or their grandchild), they play gotcha with each other, they encourage children to make things up, they teach children to lie and distrust their social worker and guardian ad litem, they play head games and invariably, they talk openly about all this in front of the kids. Puts the poor things in an emotional blender. I completely understand why social workers mess up in knowing who is telling the truth and who isn't. Most of them try and some of them reach a point where they don't trust anyone, anymore. It is the kind of job where the stakes are high and any day you wake up could be the day you make a decision that is going to end up having your face splashed across the front page of the paper with people calling you a heartless baby killer by making the mistake of trusting the parents to protect their child.Oklahoma allows caseworkers to take kids strickly on their word they don't need proof. Also I didn't say they grab every kid but most of the ones they do take are to get their adoption records up and to keep that Title IV funding coming in. The ones who really need protection are left to fend for themselves because they are considered damaged goods and unadoptable. What you people are being told and what is really happening are 2 different things I have been on the inside and have seen what goes on.

Dana, that may have been true a few years ago, but things have changed.

Oklahoma allows caseworkers to take kids strickly on their word they don't need proof. Also I didn't say they grab every kid but most of the ones they do take are to get their adoption records up and to keep that Title IV funding coming in. The ones who really need protection are left to fend for themselves because they are considered damaged goods and unadoptable. What you people are being told and what is really happening are 2 different things I have been on the inside and have seen what goes on.

Pure fantasy. Mistakes are made anytime you deal with large groups of people in emotional situations filled with the need to make judgment calls but what you are describing is ridiculous. I don't mean to be rude but parental rights are protected by the constitution and there never was a time that the state could just waltz in and take kids with no evidence. I've heard many, many people make that claim when they disagree with what a court does but have seen for myself that the ones saying that have absolutely no idea what they are talking about or simply disagree with the court and are twisting the situation to appeal to a gullible audience and/or save face. What happens is not that there is a lack of evidence, rather, the ones making the claim simply don't agree with what the evidence supports. That is a completely different situation.

Looking back over many hundreds of cases, I have yet to remember there ever being a parent who would admit that the court had good reason to take their child with two stark exceptions. Those two exceptions had been in the court system and had their chidlren taken away multiple times before they finally admitted they couldn't handle parenthood. To be honest, I had to admire them for being truthful to themselves and the world because it is so incredibly rare. Many parents will admit they need help but next to none of them believe their children should be taken from them and that foster care is preferable to being in their home. It is human nature to insist that the court has no reason to take your child. The alternative is to have to look at all your friends, family and neighbors and admit that you were so abusive or neglectful that you were harming your child to the point that taking them out of your care was the only way to keep them safe.

Moreover, you clearly have no comprehension about how many kids and their families are involved in social services or you wouldn't be making outlandish claims that social services is, essentially, trolling for kids to sell. That is just nuts. If parents are so bad that they can't care for the kids, they always try to place children with relatives. If the relatives are as nuts as the parent(s), that doesn't leave a lot of good options short of foster care or adoption. Yes, more babies are adopted than older kids but that isn't because the older kids are damaged goods. That's because they have already formed attachments with relatives and that is something to consider when decisions are made in the best interests of the child. Yes, sometimes the kids are so abused that they need special services and it takes a special parent to be able to provide those services. The kids often stay in foster care in order to recieve those services because it takes longer to find a parent with an appropriate situation and the skill set needed. That isn't about being damaged goods and I am offended that you would toss out that description of children who have been harmed the way you did. To insist that social services sees these children as products to sell is offensive in the extreme. The people caring for these babies didn't go into the business to make a buck and there aren't bucks being made, regardless. The closest thing I've EVER seen is when someone takes in many foster kids for the subsidy and, yes, I agree that is wrong and hurtful. And as a guardian ad litem, that would be something I would hit the ceiling about and let the court know that if I have anything to say about it, none of my kids are going to be placed in what amounts to a warehouse.

I wish you two were right about the system but unfortunately that is not how it works. I know the law says that is how it is supposed to work but caseworkers get around that law all the time. Penny you say I have no idea how the system really works I know a lot more then you think I do and I also see how others sell out to the system just to keep their job and the money flowing in. You may work in the system but you are also blinded by the system I have seen this before when I show others the files and they don't want to believe that they see what they are seeing so they just choose to believe that it doesn't exist.

I wish you two were right about the system but unfortunately that is not how it works. I know the law says that is how it is supposed to work but caseworkers get around that law all the time. Penny you say I have no idea how the system really works I know a lot more then you think I do and I also see how others sell out to the system just to keep their job and the money flowing in. You may work in the system but you are also blinded by the system I have seen this before when I show others the files and they don't want to believe that they see what they are seeing so they just choose to believe that it doesn't exist.
Dana, I don't work for the system and haven't since 2003, although I worked with social services on behalf of children for years after that. If memory serves, you got involved in this because your daughter got crosswise with social services and you don't agree with how they handled it. I don't know your case but let me say this and I ask you to think about it.

When I was working as a guardian ad litem, there was nothing more predictable than a grandmother convinced that her daughter was a good mother who was manhandled by the system. My heart would sink when I was involved in a case like that because, unlike the grandmothers who worked with the system and who you could trust to recognize that her daughter needed help, so many would take the attitude that their daughter was fine and then they would go to war on her behalf. From my perspective, Grandmothers are the absolute best means to help their daughter/son become a better parent and be the person social services can count on, through her love of her grandchild, to keep it safe. A grandmother who you can trust to respect a court order to not allow the parent access to a child until the daughter jumps through hoops is a wonderful way to keep a child safe and in the loving arms of her family. In my experience, when you have a grandmother willing to do that, it is usually not long before the parent is reunited with the child and social services can step back and let the family handle the problem with social services providing assistance and acting as a resource.

A grandmother who you can't trust to do that eliminates that possibility and IMO, is the reason so many kids end up in foster care. Sorry to say that but that is my opinion. I have seen children, many times, needlessly go into foster care because the grandparents, who you would have loved to have been the ones with whom to place a child, have refused to see reason and cut off that possibility. They frequently come across as unstable, unreliable, and, frankly, deemed a likely reason for the parent's inability to parent in the first place. Without a grandparent to step up to the plate and even admit the parent (their child) messed up, bigtime and needs help, keeping the child out of foster care is so much harder.

You see the same dynamic, all the time, with mothers who refuse to protect their child from an abusive father or her significant other. Mothers who protect their child by putting the child first are a no brainer in matters of custody when the father or significant other is abusive. Those children don't go into foster care - they stay with the mother if you can trust her to work with social services and protect the child. Mothers who are conflicted or who refuse to believe the child are simply not going to be allowed to keep the child even though they aren't the abuser. Grandparents are the same way. You'd like to place the child with them but if they give an indication that they think the parent is being railroaded, they are generally not deemed trustworthy in terms of custody. Sad but I've seen way too many grandparents ignore court orders and actively place their grandchild in harm's way (with the best of intentions) to feel anything but frustration when I see grandparents create an awful situation they don't need to.

My son and his wife are fantastic parents. If social services took their child for abuse and neglect, even if I thought it was overreaching, you can bet your bottom dollar I wouldn't waste time and energy arguing with the system. The parents can do that. I would do anything to keep my grandson out of foster care, including obeying to the letter, any court order. Because to be honest, that is the only way a grandparent can do it, realistically. My job as a grandparent, at that point, is to rebuild and strengthen my famiily. Keeping my grandson in the family would be my role because I could keep him safe and loved. Fighting social services would be up to the parent.

Some people believe what they want to believe and don't let facts or the truth get in their way.

Dana, I don't work for the system and haven't since 2003, although I worked with social services on behalf of children for years after that. If memory serves, you got involved in this because your daughter got crosswise with social services and you don't agree with how they handled it. I don't know your case but let me say this and I ask you to think about it.

When I was working as a guardian ad litem, there was nothing more predictable than a grandmother convinced that her daughter was a good mother who was manhandled by the system. My heart would sink when I was involved in a case like that because, unlike the grandmothers who worked with the system and who you could trust to recognize that her daughter needed help, so many would take the attitude that their daughter was fine and then they would go to war on her behalf. From my perspective, Grandmothers are the absolute best means to help their daughter/son become a better parent and be the person social services can count on, through her love of her grandchild, to keep it safe. A grandmother who you can trust to respect a court order to not allow the parent access to a child until the daughter jumps through hoops is a wonderful way to keep a child safe and in the loving arms of her family. In my experience, when you have a grandmother willing to do that, it is usually not long before the parent is reunited with the child and social services can step back and let the family handle the problem with social services providing assistance and acting as a resource.

A grandmother who you can't trust to do that eliminates that possibility and IMO, is the reason so many kids end up in foster care. Sorry to say that but that is my opinion. I have seen children, many times, needlessly go into foster care because the grandparents, who you would have loved to have been the ones with whom to place a child, have refused to see reason and cut off that possibility. They frequently come across as unstable, unreliable, and, frankly, deemed a likely reason for the parent's inability to parent in the first place. Without a grandparent to step up to the plate and even admit the parent (their child) messed up, bigtime and needs help, keeping the child out of foster care is so much harder.

You see the same dynamic, all the time, with mothers who refuse to protect their child from an abusive father or her significant other. Mothers who protect their child by putting the child first are a no brainer in matters of custody when the father or significant other is abusive. Those children don't go into foster care - they stay with the mother if you can trust her to work with social services and protect the child. Mothers who are conflicted or who refuse to believe the child are simply not going to be allowed to keep the child even though they aren't the abuser. Grandparents are the same way. You'd like to place the child with them but if they give an indication that they think the parent is being railroaded, they are generally not deemed trustworthy in terms of custody. Sad but I've seen way too many grandparents ignore court orders and actively place their grandchild in harm's way (with the best of intentions) to feel anything but frustration when I see grandparents create an awful situation they don't need to.

My son and his wife are fantastic parents. If social services took their child for abuse and neglect, even if I thought it was overreaching, you can bet your bottom dollar I wouldn't waste time and energy arguing with the system. The parents can do that. I would do anything to keep my grandson out of foster care, including obeying to the letter, any court order. Because to be honest, that is the only way a grandparent can do it, realistically. My job as a grandparent, at that point, is to rebuild and strengthen my famiily. Keeping my grandson in the family would be my role because I could keep him safe and loved. Fighting social services would be up to the parent.Well to make a long story short I proved where they doctored a drug test to make it look like she smokes pot when she doesn't. I also proved that the caseworker had 2 warrants for her arrest and that her pick up was bogus. I also proved where she committed perjury in court but nobody cares about the laws that DHS broke they only care about the lies she told which I proved in court were lies. DHS decided that my grandson needed to be in the home of a convicted felon who has already tried to kill him once and is also a drug dealer. They thought the convicted felon was better then a person who had committed no crime at all. Of course whatever Oklahoma has to do to get the Title IV funding is ok with the courts. I would love to have you look at all the evidence and then be able to look me straight in the eye and tell me that they didn't break the law and do this without lying which you won't be able to do.

Well to make a long story short I proved where they doctored a drug test to make it look like she smokes pot when she doesn't.

Had you had a lawyer at the time, they would have sent you down to S.O.S. or some well-known drug lab and had an independent hair follicle test done, then requested a jury trial. If we could prove the caseworker was phonying up evidence, it'd be a slam dunk. I wonder whether the D.A. would voluntarily dismiss. I've never had something like this happen to me, but I like to run independent tests, which I keep confidential from DHS in case someone does think they can get away with lying.


I also proved that the caseworker had 2 warrants for her arrest and that her pick up was bogus. I also proved where she committed perjury in court but nobody cares about the laws that DHS broke they only care about the lies she told which I proved in court were lies. DHS decided that my grandson needed to be in the home of a convicted felon who has already tried to kill him once and is also a drug dealer. They thought the convicted felon was better then a person who had committed no crime at all. Of course whatever Oklahoma has to do to get the Title IV funding is ok with the courts. I would love to have you look at all the evidence and then be able to look me straight in the eye and tell me that they didn't break the law and do this without lying which you won't be able to do.

And this would have been easy to prove. The Title IV funding part makes you sound like a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic. The rest is possible. You had your day in court or waived it and lost is what it sounds like.

Had you had a lawyer at the time, they would have sent you down to S.O.S. or some well-known drug lab and had an independent hair follicle test done, then requested a jury trial. If we could prove the caseworker was phonying up evidence, it'd be a slam dunk. I wonder whether the D.A. would voluntarily dismiss. I've never had something like this happen to me, but I like to run independent tests, which I keep confidential from DHS in case someone does think they can get away with lying.



And this would have been easy to prove. The Title IV funding part makes you sound like a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic. The rest is possible. You had your day in court or waived it and lost is what it sounds like.

Well Midtowner I wish that were true. It just so happens that right after they did their phony drug test I took my daughter to S.O.S. An hour later their test revealed that my daughter was clean for all drugs. I still have the cancelled check and a copy of the report from S.O.S but nobody cares. I took the test to Juvenile court and gave a copy to my daughter's lawyer and the judge refused to let it be admitted into court evidence. Even though both tests were taken the same day in fact within an hour and a half of each other. I took her to S.O.S because I knew that it was the facility that the court system trusts but that is district court not juvenile court.

Your excuse about the tin foil hat thing just proves that you have not done research into this nor do you have a copy of pamphlet that shows just how much they get for each child depending on the circumstances with the child. While we are on the subject do you know about the doctors that are being paid by the drug companies to put foster children on psychotropic drugs? We have at least 38 doctors here in Oklahoma that are being paid thousands to do this I also have the list of the doctors and how much they are being paid from one of these drug companies.

Penny you want to say that I never got involved until my grandson was illegally kidnaped but that is not exactly true. I just didn't know a few years ago how powerful the internet could be. When I saw that our lawmakers were not going to do anything to right this wrong that was being done not only to my grandson but to so many other children I decided to use the internet. People want to say that DHS has changed and that my stories are from years ago that just shows how quickly people forget. In 2010 I saved all the stories from the paper that reported a child who died while under the watchful eye of DHS. Now from the ones who actually made it to the newspaper or television I have 52 children in Oklahoma who died just last year. That averages out to one child per week if that is change then I say it is for the worst not the better.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7Se7iswAanA/TPOqmpLbWcI/AAAAAAAANGU/F6WF2yI1ft8/s1600/tin-foil-hat.jpg

Some people believe what they want to believe and don't let facts or the truth get in their way.That is so true many people do ignore the facts especially when the livelyhood is involved ($$$$). How else could a system that is so wrong could have lasted so long?

Well Midtowner I wish that were true. It just so happens that right after they did their phony drug test I took my daughter to S.O.S. An hour later their test revealed that my daughter was clean for all drugs. I still have the cancelled check and a copy of the report from S.O.S but nobody cares. I took the test to Juvenile court and gave a copy to my daughter's lawyer and the judge refused to let it be admitted into court evidence. Even though both tests were taken the same day in fact within an hour and a half of each other. I took her to S.O.S because I knew that it was the facility that the court system trusts but that is district court not juvenile court.

Did you have a sponsoring witness for your report? Did your lawyer object to the admissibility of theirs? I'm guessing they did have a sponsoring witness and you did not.

At any rate, I hear things have really improved over the last 5 years or so.

Penny you want to say that I never got involved until my grandson was illegally kidnaped but that is not exactly true. I just didn't know a few years ago how powerful the internet could be. When I saw that our lawmakers were not going to do anything to right this wrong that was being done not only to my grandson but to so many other children I decided to use the internet. People want to say that DHS has changed and that my stories are from years ago that just shows how quickly people forget. In 2010 I saved all the stories from the paper that reported a child who died while under the watchful eye of DHS. Now from the ones who actually made it to the newspaper or television I have 52 children in Oklahoma who died just last year. That averages out to one child per week if that is change then I say it is for the worst not the better.

I never said anything about when you got involved. I said that I don't know your situation but that if it were me, and my grandchild was the one being taken by social services, I would do everything I could to cooperate with social services and let my child, the parent, defend themselves in court - even if I believed my child, the parent, was a good parent. That is a different situation than when the court is choosing between which of two parents is the better custodian.

When you first starting talking about your case, you insisted that social services had kidnapped your grandchild so they could sell him. According to you, the Judge was going to get a piece of the pie. The gist of your angst at the time was that social services routinely did this. We all pretty much said you were nuts.

At some point, you changed the story from the claim that your grandson had been kidnapped by social services in order to be sold. The new story was that it kidnapped him so they could give him to a convicted felon, known drug dealer who had once tried to kill him (is this the father or just some random drug dealer?)

At this point, you are claiming that your child was merely accused - wrongfully - of smoking pot. You claim the drug test that proved she smoked pot was faked and that you have proof of it but the court won't accept it.

How much bad luck can one person have?

You also claim that the court decided that, because it believed your daughter smoked pot, it decided to give custody of the child to someone who is a convicted felon, known drug dealer who once tried to kill this child.

Why would the court do this, Dana? What could possibly make them decide to take a child from a parent who smokes pot and give him to someone who once tried to kill him, deals drugs and is a convicted felon?

You chose to become an advocate for your daughter and it didn't work out. You are making all kinds of claims that, speaking as someone who has been to court on similar matters many hundreds of times don't make a lick of sense. That the court would place the child with a convicted felon, known drug dealer and someone who had once tried to kill the child because it believed your daughter smoked pot is insane.

If I were a betting woman, and I'm not, here is what I would bet happened: Your daughter, for some reason, came under scrutiny of social services and they determined that she was abusing drugs. I don't know who turned her in but lots of times it is the other parent or a grandmother-in-law (of the equivalent). I'd guess that when they did a wellness visit, your daughter looked stoned out of her mind, several neighbors or friends (trumped up or not) told the investigator that she was a pothead. Due to the appearance of the apartment (or wherever she was living) and her demeanor, they took the child and set the matter for a hearing before the judge to get an order. At some point, you got involved and acted like a crazy woman.

Father shows up, clean. Your daughter tells you all about how he does drugs, beat her, abused the child and you believe her. You think he is the devil incarnate based on what she says and when the investigator says differently, instead of saying it is a difference of opinion or that the social worker is mistaken, you claim she lied - committed perjury. You all but stalk her, personally, and show up to court with all your "evidence." The target of your "investigation" is the social worker - not getting to the bottom of whether your daughter is a fit mother. You don't deal with the facts as presented and try to refute them. You turn this into some sort of crazy claim that social services kidnapped this child to sell him and your come across as mentally unstable. At that point, anything out of your mouth is deemed suspect and you are now the last person the court or social services is going to believe is capable of providing structure for your daughter or any other assistance in helping her to be a better parent or otherwise comply with what the court wants her to do.

At some point, they put your daughter on a plan to get substance abuse treatment and/or counseling and she doesn't comply. With your help, she files all kinds of frivolous, odd pleadings alleging perjury and kidnapping and both of you start making the convicted felon look sane. The felon shows up to court, clean, sober and employed while going to school part-time. Oh sure, he has tattoos but he is wearing appropriate clothing to try to cover them (probably fails) and at least signals the court that he knows how it looks. His family supports his request to get this child. Your daughter is not only not working, she isn't in school. And she dresses like she doesn't know she is going to court. Oh, and her nails look like something an exotic dancer would wear. You take the stand and all you want to talk about is that there is some vast conspiracy by social services to steal kids and you've brought all your documentation. You insist that any evidence against your daughter is a bunch of lies (primarily by the social worker) and that your daughter is a great mother. You claim the felon tried to kill the child but there is no evidence that this was ever reported and you can't really give them a reason why it wasn't other than that your daughter was scared or something. Turns out, after the attempted murder, your daughter didn't break up with him. Your daughter mainly sits on the stand and mutters. The social worker testifies that your daughter hasn't been compliant. A drug test is ordered and she fails it. Final straw, they give custody to the convicted felon who has been acting normal. You take her down for a test and for whatever reason, it comes back negative. Who knows what all that is about but at that point, the order has been issued. I am not sure why this isn't going up on appeal. And if your daughter has an attorney, I hope she is listening to him.

I don't know if this is how it went but, as I said, if I were a betting woman, something like this would be my best bet. I might be all wet but based on my experience, this scenario makes much, much more sense to me than anything you've claimed.

Roadhawg I wish I knew how to post pictures on here I would be glad to show everybody the doctored drug test done by DHS and the other test done by S.O.S the same day.

I never said anything about when you got involved. I said that I don't know your situation but that if it were me, and my grandchild was the one being taken by social services, I would do everything I could to cooperate with social services and let my child, the parent, defend themselves in court - even if I believed my child, the parent, was a good parent. That is a different situation than when the court is choosing between which of two parents is the better custodian.

When you first starting talking about your case, you insisted that social services had kidnapped your grandchild so they could sell him. According to you, the Judge was going to get a piece of the pie. The gist of your angst at the time was that social services routinely did this. We all pretty much said you were nuts.

At some point, you changed the story from the claim that your grandson had been kidnapped by social services in order to be sold. The new story was that it kidnapped him so they could give him to a convicted felon, known drug dealer who had once tried to kill him (is this the father or just some random drug dealer?)

At this point, you are claiming that your child was merely accused - wrongfully - of smoking pot. You claim the drug test that proved she smoked pot was faked and that you have proof of it but the court won't accept it.

How much bad luck can one person have?

You also claim that the court decided that, because it believed your daughter smoked pot, it decided to give custody of the child to someone who is a convicted felon, known drug dealer who once tried to kill this child.

Why would the court do this, Dana? What could possibly make them decide to take a child from a parent who smokes pot and give him to someone who once tried to kill him, deals drugs and is a convicted felon?

You chose to become an advocate for your daughter and it didn't work out. You are making all kinds of claims that, speaking as someone who has been to court on similar matters many hundreds of times don't make a lick of sense. That the court would place the child with a convicted felon, known drug dealer and someone who had once tried to kill the child because it believed your daughter smoked pot is insane.

If I were a betting woman, and I'm not, here is what I would bet happened: Your daughter, for some reason, came under scrutiny of social services and they determined that she was abusing drugs. I don't know who turned her in but lots of times it is the other parent or a grandmother-in-law (of the equivalent). I'd guess that when they did a wellness visit, your daughter looked stoned out of her mind, several neighbors or friends (trumped up or not) told the investigator that she was a pothead. Due to the appearance of the apartment (or wherever she was living) and her demeanor, they took the child and set the matter for a hearing before the judge to get an order. At some point, you got involved and acted like a crazy woman.

Father shows up, clean. Your daughter tells you all about how he does drugs, beat her, abused the child and you believe her. You think he is the devil incarnate based on what she says and when the investigator says differently, instead of saying it is a difference of opinion or that the social worker is mistaken, you claim she lied - committed perjury. You all but stalk her, personally, and show up to court with all your "evidence." The target of your "investigation" is the social worker - not getting to the bottom of whether your daughter is a fit mother. You don't deal with the facts as presented and try to refute them. You turn this into some sort of crazy claim that social services kidnapped this child to sell him and your come across as mentally unstable. At that point, anything out of your mouth is deemed suspect and you are now the last person the court or social services is going to believe is capable of providing structure for your daughter or any other assistance in helping her to be a better parent or otherwise comply with what the court wants her to do.

At some point, they put your daughter on a plan to get substance abuse treatment and/or counseling and she doesn't comply. With your help, she files all kinds of frivolous, odd pleadings alleging perjury and kidnapping and both of you start making the convicted felon look sane. The felon shows up to court, clean, sober and employed while going to school part-time. Oh sure, he has tattoos but he is wearing appropriate clothing to try to cover them (probably fails) and at least signals the court that he knows how it looks. His family supports his request to get this child. Your daughter is not only not working, she isn't in school. And she dresses like she doesn't know she is going to court. Oh, and her nails look like something an exotic dancer would wear. You take the stand and all you want to talk about is that there is some vast conspiracy by social services to steal kids and you've brought all your documentation. You insist that any evidence against your daughter is a bunch of lies (primarily by the social worker) and that your daughter is a great mother. You claim the felon tried to kill the child but there is no evidence that this was ever reported and you can't really give them a reason why it wasn't other than that your daughter was scared or something. Turns out, after the attempted murder, your daughter didn't break up with him. Your daughter mainly sits on the stand and mutters. The social worker testifies that your daughter hasn't been compliant. A drug test is ordered and she fails it. Final straw, they give custody to the convicted felon who has been acting normal. You take her down for a test and for whatever reason, it comes back negative. Who knows what all that is about but at that point, the order has been issued. I am not sure why this isn't going up on appeal. And if your daughter has an attorney, I hope she is listening to him.

I don't know if this is how it went but, as I said, if I were a betting woman, something like this would be my best bet. I might be all wet but based on my experience, this scenario makes much, much more sense to me than anything you've claimed.


So you are saying that even if you knew the system was breaking the law you would go along with it and let them violate your civil rights and the civil rights of your family. Also I told you that the reason this woman did it was because of a personal vendetta she took out against me and because she works for the state the courts went along with it. However just to make things easier my daughter did go along with a drug testing plan she was tested once a week every week for 3 years and came up clean every time. The father continued to test dirty for marijuana and cocaine so they just told him not to test anymore. I know you would like to think that there is no criminal behavior within the juvenile system but unfortunately that is not true. DHS knew what they were getting when they hired this woman she had just been fired from the Attorney Generals office because of her rude and violent behavior.

So you are saying that even if you knew the system was breaking the law you would go along with it and let them violate your civil rights and the civil rights of your family. Also I told you that the reason this woman did it was because of a personal vendetta she took out against me and because she works for the state the courts went along with it. However just to make things easier my daughter did go along with a drug testing plan she was tested once a week every week for 3 years and came up clean every time. The father continued to test dirty for marijuana and cocaine so they just told him not to test anymore. I know you would like to think that there is no criminal behavior within the juvenile system but unfortunately that is not true. DHS knew what they were getting when they hired this woman she had just been fired from the Attorney Generals office because of her rude and violent behavior.

This is pure fantasy. And quite sad.

I never said anything about when you got involved. I said that I don't know your situation but that if it were me, and my grandchild was the one being taken by social services, I would do everything I could to cooperate with social services and let my child, the parent, defend themselves in court - even if I believed my child, the parent, was a good parent. That is a different situation than when the court is choosing between which of two parents is the better custodian.

When you first starting talking about your case, you insisted that social services had kidnapped your grandchild so they could sell him. According to you, the Judge was going to get a piece of the pie. The gist of your angst at the time was that social services routinely did this. We all pretty much said you were nuts.

At some point, you changed the story from the claim that your grandson had been kidnapped by social services in order to be sold. The new story was that it kidnapped him so they could give him to a convicted felon, known drug dealer who had once tried to kill him (is this the father or just some random drug dealer?)

At this point, you are claiming that your child was merely accused - wrongfully - of smoking pot. You claim the drug test that proved she smoked pot was faked and that you have proof of it but the court won't accept it.

How much bad luck can one person have?

You also claim that the court decided that, because it believed your daughter smoked pot, it decided to give custody of the child to someone who is a convicted felon, known drug dealer who once tried to kill this child.

Why would the court do this, Dana? What could possibly make them decide to take a child from a parent who smokes pot and give him to someone who once tried to kill him, deals drugs and is a convicted felon?

You chose to become an advocate for your daughter and it didn't work out. You are making all kinds of claims that, speaking as someone who has been to court on similar matters many hundreds of times don't make a lick of sense. That the court would place the child with a convicted felon, known drug dealer and someone who had once tried to kill the child because it believed your daughter smoked pot is insane.

If I were a betting woman, and I'm not, here is what I would bet happened: Your daughter, for some reason, came under scrutiny of social services and they determined that she was abusing drugs. I don't know who turned her in but lots of times it is the other parent or a grandmother-in-law (of the equivalent). I'd guess that when they did a wellness visit, your daughter looked stoned out of her mind, several neighbors or friends (trumped up or not) told the investigator that she was a pothead. Due to the appearance of the apartment (or wherever she was living) and her demeanor, they took the child and set the matter for a hearing before the judge to get an order. At some point, you got involved and acted like a crazy woman.

Father shows up, clean. Your daughter tells you all about how he does drugs, beat her, abused the child and you believe her. You think he is the devil incarnate based on what she says and when the investigator says differently, instead of saying it is a difference of opinion or that the social worker is mistaken, you claim she lied - committed perjury. You all but stalk her, personally, and show up to court with all your "evidence." The target of your "investigation" is the social worker - not getting to the bottom of whether your daughter is a fit mother. You don't deal with the facts as presented and try to refute them. You turn this into some sort of crazy claim that social services kidnapped this child to sell him and your come across as mentally unstable. At that point, anything out of your mouth is deemed suspect and you are now the last person the court or social services is going to believe is capable of providing structure for your daughter or any other assistance in helping her to be a better parent or otherwise comply with what the court wants her to do.

At some point, they put your daughter on a plan to get substance abuse treatment and/or counseling and she doesn't comply. With your help, she files all kinds of frivolous, odd pleadings alleging perjury and kidnapping and both of you start making the convicted felon look sane. The felon shows up to court, clean, sober and employed while going to school part-time. Oh sure, he has tattoos but he is wearing appropriate clothing to try to cover them (probably fails) and at least signals the court that he knows how it looks. His family supports his request to get this child. Your daughter is not only not working, she isn't in school. And she dresses like she doesn't know she is going to court. Oh, and her nails look like something an exotic dancer would wear. You take the stand and all you want to talk about is that there is some vast conspiracy by social services to steal kids and you've brought all your documentation. You insist that any evidence against your daughter is a bunch of lies (primarily by the social worker) and that your daughter is a great mother. You claim the felon tried to kill the child but there is no evidence that this was ever reported and you can't really give them a reason why it wasn't other than that your daughter was scared or something. Turns out, after the attempted murder, your daughter didn't break up with him. Your daughter mainly sits on the stand and mutters. The social worker testifies that your daughter hasn't been compliant. A drug test is ordered and she fails it. Final straw, they give custody to the convicted felon who has been acting normal. You take her down for a test and for whatever reason, it comes back negative. Who knows what all that is about but at that point, the order has been issued. I am not sure why this isn't going up on appeal. And if your daughter has an attorney, I hope she is listening to him.

I don't know if this is how it went but, as I said, if I were a betting woman, something like this would be my best bet. I might be all wet but based on my experience, this scenario makes much, much more sense to me than anything you've claimed.Just for the record my daughter does not live in an apartment she owns her own home. When the caseworker sent the police out to the house the first time the policeman told her there was no legal valid reason to pick up this child and she told him if you won't take this child I will find someone who will. I also have a copy of the policemans statement that I used in court.

Dana, how was the final disposition handled? Jury trial? Or did your daughter just voluntarily sign termination papers?

Did you have a sponsoring witness for your report? Did your lawyer object to the admissibility of theirs? I'm guessing they did have a sponsoring witness and you did not.

At any rate, I hear things have really improved over the last 5 years or so.

No they have not improved I guess you missed my post about all the dead children just last year.

No they have not improved I guess you missed my post about all the dead children just last year.

Why do you just ignore questions? Did you have a sponsoring witness for your drug report or not?

And what was the final disposition? Agreed termination or jury trial?

Bottom line people you can't really help the children in the system if you are not willing to go into it with your eyes wide open and willing to report when things are done illegally. If you don't have the guts to truly protect the children then don't get mad at me because I put the facts out there for the whole world to see. I am not into word smithing I just state the facts and am still willing to prove what I say at any given time.

But when asked for specifics about your case, you ignore the questions.

Why do you just ignore questions? Did you have a sponsoring witness for your drug report or not?

And what was the final disposition? Agreed termination or jury trial? I have not ignored any of your questions even though you and Penny have both ignored mine. She now shares joint custody with the daddy who is jobless, a convicted felon and a drug dealer. She continues to pay child support even though there is a court order that says she doesn't have to because of the joint custody. We have contacted DHS numorous times about the problem and now they say that if the daddy will call them and release her from paying they will stop. (I guess the court order by the judge means nothing to them). The daddy says that if she will pay him $150.00 a month he will call them and tell them to stop. I know that is extortion but then what else is new another law being broken.