How long can authorities remove kids from parents with no specific explanation given?

[astro]

Re the "Little Hitler’ case it appears the parents are classic “fringe” lifestyle types, but even with that in mind it appears that the kids have been removed without any specific explanation given. It’s been around 2 weeks now since removal , how long (legally) can this state of affairs continue based on what appear to be anonymous accusations?

Deborah said officials have yet to tell her and her husband exactly why the children were removed. But Campbell suspects it has something to do with the names they bestowed upon their kids.

"The names, I believe are the problems. But they just don’t want to come out and say that,” Campbell said.

The couple has defended the names of their children saying they reserve the right to name the kids whatever they like.

The children were taken on Jan. 9 without incident from the family’s home, Sgt. John Harris of the Holland Township Police Department told FOXNews.com on Wednesday.

“I’ve dealt with the family for years and as far as the children are concerned, I have never had any reports of any abuse with the children,” Harris said. Speaking of the children’s father, he said, “As far as I know, he’s always been very good with the children.”

He said the DYFS did not tell police why the children were taken from their parents.

“They’re very confidential when it comes to their dealings because people make accusations and they have to follow up on them and, God forbid, an accusation’s not true,” Harris said Wednesday. “You don’t need to parade people through the media and stuff.”

[Green_Cymbeline]

I think it’s very scary that “authorities” can remove one’s children without any explanation. I hope these parents have a lawyer or that the ACLU is helping them. It’s especially disturbing that it appears the kids were taken because of their names.

[Markxxx]

Did they not have an explination? Or did they not make that explination public? If they have a reason and aren’t releasing it to the public, I can understand that. With kids involved they want to protect them.

[Rigamarole]

Don’t forget this part

Although privacy laws prevent authorities from discussing specifics of the case, DYFS spokeswoman Kate Bernyk reiterated Friday that the agency “would never remove a child simply based on that child’s name.”

They allude to “accusations”. I would guess some neighbors/community members made these accusations and they are investigating.

[astro]

@Markxxx

Did they not have an explanation? Or did they not make that explanation public? If they have a reason and aren’t releasing it to the public, I can understand that. With kids involved they want to protect them.

The parents are claiming absolutely no explanation has been forthcoming so far. The parents lifestyle appears to bea near perfect snapshot of underclass stereotypes so complete it’s almost a parody, but even with that in mind they do have rights as parents.

The Campbells’ neighbors described a family living on the fringe, financially and socially. Mr. Campbell, 35, and his wife, Deborah, 25, do not work and receive disability payments for emphysema and neck pain, respectively. Their landlord, Larry Lippincott, who shares the two-family home, said the family is often up all night.

“I hear the kids playing at 2:30 in the morning and the TV on,” Mr. Lippincott said. “He told me he was a night person and didn’t like to do anything during the day.”

Mr. Lippincott, a truck driver, said Mr. Campbell went through a Confederate flag phase a few years ago, but was now into swastikas, which decorated the apartment and were etched in skull decals on his car.

Mr. Campbell, a collector of German combat knives, also wears Nazi-era boots and, according to Mr. Lippincott, likes to click his heels together. A neighbor, Robert Heckman, said Mr. Campbell had boasted to him about using government money to pay for his cigarettes. Mr. Lippincott said he had decided — before the cake incident — not to renew the Campbells’ lease when it expired in November because, he said, a relative they frequently argue with threatened to “firebomb the house.” He expects to begin eviction proceedings soon.

“They’re not destroying anything, the house is clean and they pay their rent on time,” he said. But, he added, “There comes a point when you say, ‘Enough is enough.’ ”

[Tom_Tildrum]

Deborah said officials have yet to tell her and her husband exactly why the children were removed.

Note the bolded word. This suggests to me that they’ve been given an explanation and they either don’t understand it, don’t like it, or don’t believe it.

[Swallowed_My_Cellphone]

@Tom_Tildrum

Note the bolded word. This suggests to me that they’ve been given an explanation and they either don’t understand it, don’t like it, or don’t believe it.

Yeah, I tend to think the parents are just blustering: “They won’t tell us why!” or are saying “They won’t tell us the real reason!” when in fact they were told something like: “Your family is under investigation due to complaints of child neglect.”

In most jurisdictions, CPS does not remove children without a court order. It’s kind of like an arrest warrant, the reason is listed in the paperwork.

ETA: In most jurisdictions there are procedures for emergency removal without a court order if there is probably cause for urgency (and cops are called in that case), but in this case, it doesn’t sound like that’s what happened.

[Little_Nemo]

Mr. Lippincott, a truck driver, said Mr. Campbell went through a Confederate flag phase a few years ago, but was now into swastikas

It’s like we’ve been saying: Confederate heritage is a gateway racism - it can lead to the hard stuff.

[Swallowed_My_Cellphone]

@Swallowed_My_Cellphone

ETA: In most jurisdictions there are procedures for emergency removal without a court order if there is probably cause for urgency (and cops are called in that case), but in this case, it doesn’t sound like that’s what happened.

“Probably cause”? :smack: That was supposed to be probable cause.

[brujaja]

In California, they can have an “ex parte” hearing (which means that the parent is not there at all) and award “temporary emergency guardianship” – and never tell them why it was awarded, or what was said at the hearing.

Also in California, there is a program financed by the State bar and Legal Aid which pays for free lawyers for third parties (private individuals) who wish to remove someone’s children. (and/or receive any welfare money involved.)

The parents themselves are not entitled to an attorney.

PM me if you want a cite.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@brujaja

PM me if you want a cite.

Why?
If you really have a cite*, why don’t you just include it in your post, like is usually done around here?

*And we’d want a real cite, like California Statutes or Regulations, not a link to the website of some anti-CPS group.