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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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’d like it to be demonstrated that general public oversight does children harm more that it does good for society.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.