# I don't like this kind of thing! \[Baby Snatch Victim Loses Kids to State Custody\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 4, 2009, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-this-kind-of-thing-baby-snatch-victim-loses-kids-to-state-custody/512533 "2009-10-04T08:24:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-this-kind-of-thing-baby-snatch-victim-loses-kids-to-state-custody/512533/41 "2009-10-04T22:44:17Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I think this is a very troubling development in a country that is supposed to be free of unreasonable search and seizure and committed to due process and the public’s right to know. It seems that our freedoms and our protection from overzealous police and child care services are being eroded by the day. Do you have anything else in mind when you say this? I’m really not particularly up on child care service-related law, but so far as I can tell you’ve offered a possible example of this up for us. Is this sort of thing the result of new laws or some new steps taken by police or the like? What I mean to ask, I guess, is why this event in particular is something that would not have happened only up until recently. I mean, at least we know there’s something not to know, if that makes sense. I don’t know your thoughts around this issue, but it could possibly be a sign of the opposite; many cases such as this took place in the past, but it’s only in more recent times that we’re getting to know that information is being withheld. We might not know there was anything _to_ know at all. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-this-kind-of-thing-baby-snatch-victim-loses-kids-to-state-custody/512533/42 "2009-10-04T22:50:29Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > She likely cannot, not without facing contempt of court charges.And since the judge will be the ultimate decider of whether or not her children will be returned, getting on the judge’s bad side by violating the gag rule that’s imposed in these cases will not be in her best interests or conducive toward the reunion of her family. Did I miss the part where there is an actual gag order issued? I haven’t heard that yet, could you help out with a cite? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-this-kind-of-thing-baby-snatch-victim-loses-kids-to-state-custody/512533/43 "2009-10-05T00:44:52Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t know the facts of this case, but just for the record, CPS cannot take kids out of a home. It has to be ordered by a judge. CPS can make a case to a judge as to the why it _thinks_ a household may be unfit, but they don’t make the decison. A court does. If these kids were removed, it was because a judge ordered it done, and the judge ordered it done because the evidence presented fit a prescribed set of criteria. > > The image that CPS workers can, or even want to, just arbitrarily snatch kids away from homes is a bogus one. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I can’t be assed to find every individual statute > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > And this image is completely unsupported by reality. CPS does not have the authority to “swoop in and take kids.” It doesn’t happen. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I can’t be assed. Too bad you can’t be assed to come up with a simple cite to support your assertion, particularly since this is the Great Debates forum. Had you made an effort you would have located the procedure used in the state where the apprehension took place, and you would have realized that you were very wrong in your assertion that an apprehension can only be made after a court order. [http://www.tn.gov/youth/dcsguide/policies/chap14/14.12.pdf](http://www.tn.gov/youth/dcsguide/policies/chap14/14.12.pdf) > [@](#): > > State of Tennessee > Department of Children’s Services > > Administrative Policies and Procedures: 14.12 > > C. Emergency removals > > 1. If the case worker considers a child to be in immediate danger of serious harm based on the Immediate Harm Factors in the SDM Safety Assessment, and reasonable efforts are not possible, the procedures in Section B above will be carried out on an emergency basis in conjunction with the physical removal of the child from the home. > > 2. A Child and Family Team Meeting (CFTM) will be held prior to an emergency removal if possible, but must be held prior to the seventy-two (72) hour Court hearing to consider placement options for the child with input from the family. > > 3. Notify the CFTM facilitator and arrange for all appropriate parties for attendance as outlined in DCS Policy 14.4, Engaging Families/Family Functional Assessments and Child and Family Team Meetings. > > 4. The CFTM will be documented on form CS-0747– Child and Family Team Meeting Summary. > > 5. The decision to file an emergency petition will be made after conferring with the Supervisor and DCS Regional Legal Counsel and/or MSW as applicable. > > 6. When petitions for emergency removals are filed, there will be a Court hearing within seventy-two (72) hours of the removal to consider if there was just cause to conduct the emergency removal. > > 7. If the Court upholds the emergency removal, a future Court date will be set to consider the Department’s petition and to make decisions on the adjudication and disposition of the case. What it comes down to, is that in emergency matters, the worker and the worker’s superiors make the decision to apprehend, not the court. The decision made by CPS is made in accordance with CPS policies and procedures. The emergency apprehension is legally made by CPS without court sanction at that time. Following the emergency apprehension, the court either ratifies the emergency apprehension or the child is returned to the parent. As far as police attendance goes, they are there to keep the peace, while it is still CPS that is legally making the emergency apprehension without a court order. With that, off to the pit you go, Dio: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11628432&postcount=1](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11628432&postcount=1) ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-this-kind-of-thing-baby-snatch-victim-loses-kids-to-state-custody/512533/44 "2009-10-05T00:52:47Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > She likely cannot, not without facing contempt of court charges. And since the judge will be the ultimate decider of whether or not her children will be returned, getting on the judge’s bad side by violating the gag rule that’s imposed in these cases will not be in her best interests or conducive toward the reunion of her family. Please provide a cite that sets out that either there is a gag order on that mother, or that it is routine for gag orders to be placed on parents whose children have been apprehended by CPS in Tennessee, or that it is routine for gag orders to bre placed on parents whose children have been apprehended by CPS in Canada or the USA. While it is common for laws to provide for the protection of the privacy of children in certain legal matters, I have not come across any that put an automatic gag order on a parent that prohibits that parent from screaming long and loud in publilc about CPS apprehending his or her child. I’m not saying that no such law exists, for somewhere it might, but given what I have seen, I think the odds are against it, so I 'd very much like to see a cite for such a law. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-this-kind-of-thing-baby-snatch-victim-loses-kids-to-state-custody/512533/45 "2009-10-05T02:55:54Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I say that a person’s and his/her minor children’s right to privacy should trump the “right to know” of a bunch of nosy drama queens. And, honestly, it surprises me that someone would think otherwise. It surprises me that you believe it is fine for the state to seize a person’s minor children without public oversight. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-this-kind-of-thing-baby-snatch-victim-loses-kids-to-state-custody/512533/46 "2009-10-05T03:17:43Z")
It doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-this-kind-of-thing-baby-snatch-victim-loses-kids-to-state-custody/512533/47 "2009-10-05T03:20:01Z")
General public overshight or judicial oversight? There is a difference. I think that judicial oversight is absolutely necessary, but I don’t think that general public oversight in the context of open courtrooms and open court files is a good thing when balanced against the psychological harm that can be done to a child who already is probobaly living in a world of hurt. So where does one find the balance between protecting against a judge who has a bias supportive of CPS, and protecting against people like Nancy Grace and school yard bullies, who think nothing of causing further upset to a child? I think that balance is found by keeping the the courtroom door and courtroom file sealed, and lettng either parties appeal a biased decision. It’s a good issue for discussion, though. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-this-kind-of-thing-baby-snatch-victim-loses-kids-to-state-custody/512533/48 "2009-10-05T03:39:00Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > It surprises me that you believe it is fine for the state to seize a person’s minor children without public oversight. It surprises ME that you are completely misreading my post. The right to privacy is that of the kids and, less importantly, the family involved. It isn’t the right of the government. Same as with minors and rape victims. There is no need for the public to know the details until and if the people involved want them to. Until then, I am satisfied the courts will do what is right and the publics “need to know” (which in this case given the OP is to make political hay and nothing more) takes a back seat to the rights of the family involved. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-this-kind-of-thing-baby-snatch-victim-loses-kids-to-state-custody/512533/49 "2009-10-05T03:42:43Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > I think that judicial oversight is absolutely necessary, but I don’t think that general public oversight in the context of open courtrooms and open court files is a good thing when balanced against the psychological harm that can be done to a child who already is probobaly living in a world of hurt. I’d like it to be demonstrated that general public oversight does children harm more that it does good for society. > [@](#): > > So where does one find the balance between protecting against a judge who has a bias supportive of CPS, and protecting against people like Nancy Grace and school yard bullies, who think nothing of causing further upset to a child? While your concern is valid, Nancy Grace and bullies are and will be always amongst us, even those of us who are not seized by CPS, yet somehow most of us survive our childhood. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-this-kind-of-thing-baby-snatch-victim-loses-kids-to-state-custody/512533/50 "2009-10-05T04:09:36Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > I’d like it to be demonstrated that general public oversight does children harm more that it does good for society. I have nothing. There is a general direction taken in CPS organizations, in courts, and in legislatures, that assumes that a general airing of the particulars of a child protection matter (or a youth criminal justice matter) is harmful for the child, but I have not come across anything that conclusively prove that assumption. It could be that it is true, or it could be no more than wrong headed common sense along the lines of “don’t go outside with wet socks or you will catch a cold.” On an IMHO level, I expect that it would harm a child who is already going through a messy apprehension to have to further deal with bullies who know the details of what the parents were doing to the child, or to turn on the T.V. or open up the newspaper only to be faced with the public airing of those details. But I have no proof of this. Nor do I think that public sensationalism contributes to a judge coming to a sound decision. Witch hunts do not help a judge make a good decision. Again, however, I do not have any proof of this in the child protection context. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-this-kind-of-thing-baby-snatch-victim-loses-kids-to-state-custody/512533/51 "2009-10-05T06:36:07Z")
Public oversight of aggregated information is essential, publicly airing the facts of individual cases is inappropriate for those involved. Imagine as a six year old you have reason to be involved with CPS, the record is public, do you really want that to come up when your teenage classmates google your name? And also remember that just because CPS is involved doesn’t mean any case is proven - is this “fair” to parents, when you KNOW that there are any number of people out there that will tar and feather someone on the accusation - whether it bears any substance or not. Now, we should be measuring the efficacy of CPS / Judicial involvement. And I would imagine people far more knowledgeable than myself can find better ways. The ones that occur to me are by tracking subsequent interventions, % of cases that end in ultimate prosecution, some metric of “positive” outcomes etc etc ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-this-kind-of-thing-baby-snatch-victim-loses-kids-to-state-custody/512533/52 "2009-10-06T18:15:20Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’m not asking you to prove a negative. I’m asking you to show me a single example of CPS workers unilaterally seizing children from a household without either a court order or the participation of the police. I worked in CPS for eight years and removed many children from their parents’ custdy with neither a court order or the police. It’s true the police were usually called for a removal from a residence, but that was for safety reasons, not because their authority was needed. Legally speaking, the removal of a child from a residence is no different from the removal of that same child from a school or hospital setting, and those removals almost never involved police assistance. I did need to obtain a court order the next day. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-this-kind-of-thing-baby-snatch-victim-loses-kids-to-state-custody/512533/53 "2009-10-06T18:18:16Z")
This has already been resolved in the Pit thread. In my state (Minnesota) The removal has to be performed by law enforcement, but I aready admitted I was wrong to assume that was true in every state. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-this-kind-of-thing-baby-snatch-victim-loses-kids-to-state-custody/512533/54 "2009-10-06T21:42:25Z")
All cleared up. Kids home with their Mom. Somebody (perp?) intimated the mom was trying to sell the kids. She’s cleared. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2009, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-this-kind-of-thing-baby-snatch-victim-loses-kids-to-state-custody/512533/55 "2009-10-06T21:43:45Z")
> [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#): > > All cleared up. > > Kids home with their Mom. > Somebody (perp?) intimated the mom was trying to sell the kids. > > She’s cleared. Thanks, I was about to say that I didn’t want to wade through the other thread to figure out the ending. This is much more concise. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2009, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-this-kind-of-thing-baby-snatch-victim-loses-kids-to-state-custody/512533/56 "2009-10-07T06:51:23Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > It surprises ME that you are completely misreading my post. The right to privacy is that of the kids and, less importantly, the family involved. It isn’t the right of the government. Same as with minors and rape victims. There is no need for the public to know the details until and if the people involved want them to. Until then, I am satisfied the courts will do what is right and the publics “need to know” (which in this case given the OP is to make political hay and nothing more) takes a back seat to the rights of the family involved. I live in a country with a 99% conviction rate and a lapdog press. I don’t have faith in the government, the courts or the media. While the US doesn’t have the same problems as Japan, public oversight of these organizations is critial to ensure that offical or judical abuse does not happen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-like-this-kind-of-thing-baby-snatch-victim-loses-kids-to-state-custody/512533.md?page=2)