Damn CPS!!!! At it again!!

[steveh_131]

A court isn't going to sign off on a home search without justification. We operate under the rule of law. The advocate in the other thread was trying to explain the process, but the paranoid/conspiracy crowd ran him off. Kirk was doing the same, but you didn't want to "play". You have all of the answers.

The 'process' of DCS falls under 'rule of man'. Not 'rule of law'. Being run by government bureaucrats does not put it in the category of 'rule of law'. It is completely personal and subjective.

 

[88GT]

CPS/DCS is a crappy government organization IMO. But thats because of the 4 occasions I have had to deal with them. But most of it is because CPS/DCS workers have to jump through so many hoops to be able to remove a child/children from parent/parents. They have to prove to the CPS/DCS supervisor or a judge that removing the child/children is necessary.

My oldest sons mother was investigated 4 times by CPS/DCS. And they would never remove my son or her other child from her because her mother would step in and say the children lived with her. My sons mother is Bi-polar and a confirmed drug user. One time she quit taking her bi-polar medication and took off with her children. Me and her mother aka my sons grandma went down to CPS/DCS headquarters and they refused to help us. So instead of dealing with them and not seeing any positive results I hired a well know family practice lawyer. It took a year in court and thousands of dollars but I finally proved her unfit in court and won custody of my son. But in that year I was terrified that my son was gonna be one of these news stories were CPS/DCS failed to remove a child and something bad happened to that child.

See, I don't get this attitude about being so upset that I see my children as property in terms of legal consequences. The state does too. Obviously. If it didn't, then why would you as the father have to petition for custody. We have rules like that for property, not people. This whole feigned indignation from level11 on this would be laughable were it not for the fact that he advocates state ownership rather than parental ownership.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

In all fairness this is an area that I am a bit fuzzy on, but I have noticed something in reading this thread and others that does give me some concern.

It would appear to me that much of what CPS is able to do is based upon very subjective standards while still operating under the cover of law.

I will make myself the badguy and pick on Steve (sorry Steve, you're available.) Say I get mad at Steve and hit him. Someone sees this and calls Denny. When Denny investigates whether I have committed a crime he has very clear and objective criteria he must follow to arrest me. Did I break the law? If everyone agrees that I did physically hit Steve then I have commtted Battery and Denny can arrest me and interfere with my life. Denny doesn't get to be a "judge" and apply subjective standards.

Now, say I have child and feed them goats milk. CPS is called to investigate. It seems that CPS can make up - on the spot - whether or not my child is being abused! There is no "specific" law against feeding my child goats milk, but the CPS gets to decide based upon some articles whether or not to take my child.

Or, true story, years ago my mother forgot to spray the dog with anti-flea spray. The dog got fleas and the house was infested for a week or two before we got serious about bug bombing. This was SSSOOOO embarrassing to me! Anytime friends wanted to come over I had to warn them they were welcome but better not because we had fleas. What if someone reported my mother to CPS and they decided to take me from this "potentially disease laden flea invested house?" In all of my years the ONLY time we had this problem was for about two (2) weeks and never again. Yet it seems that CPS could, without specific code, remain within the law and subjectively interpret this lone, isolated incident to cost my parents thousands of dollars in legal fees along with disrupting my life.

It is THIS subjective interpretation that gives me concern. If CPS is to remain I believe it needs great transparency as all government does and it needs to move toward a limited, specific, objective criteria from which to operate.

If it already does and my ignorance is interfering with my concern please correct me on this, especially from those with firsthand experience. However, after seeing the story about interfering with goats milk along with taking a child from two (2) loving parents who smoked a little pot (other thread) AND were attentive, caring and loving with no evidence of harm to their child, this seems to allow too much credence, at least anectdotally, to give me concern.

Regards,

Doug

 

[level.eleven]

See, I don't get this attitude about being so upset that I see my children as property in terms of legal consequences. The state does too. Obviously. If it didn't, then why would you as the father have to petition for custody. We have rules like that for property, not people. This whole feigned indignation from level11 on this would be laughable were it not for the fact that he advocates state ownership rather than parental ownership.

Parental authority is the one right I believe is absolute 100% completely up to the parents and no one else. And as unsettling as it is to some, I give a lot of leeway to use of force that most people today in America find intolerable. Think of me what you will, but children as chattel is how I view parental authority from a legal standpoint.

Could you tell us more about the use of force that most of society finds unacceptable?

Are we talking To Train Up a Child style force?

To Train Up a Child: Michael Pearl, Debi Pearl: 9781892112002: Amazon.com: Books

The HSDLA referred to a client as a "hero" even though he kept his chattel in cages made of chicken wire with alarms on the door so they couldn't get out. The chattel began defecating in their cages because tripping the alarm meant the use of force. Can human chattel be kept in cages? Or is that too much leeway?

 

[level.eleven]

As an aside, women, you are not the chattel of your husbands. Your husband does not own you.

You can vote, regardless of the vocal home "school" movement that wishes to repeal the 19th amendment.

You have rights. Exercise those rights. You are a person. Don't let someone con you into believing you are property.

The rule of law does not designate humans as chattel.

 

[steveh_131]

The HSDLA referred to a client as a "hero" even though he kept his chattel in cages made of chicken wire with alarms on the door so they couldn't get out. The chattel began defecating in their cages because tripping the alarm meant the use of force. Can human chattel be kept in cages? Or is that too much leeway?

Since we are repeating arguments, I'll ask you again.

What are we going to do to prevent this from happening? Those kids were still kept in cages for a period of time. Obviously, the current levels of government intrusion are insufficient if bad things are still happening to children. Right?

 

[steveh_131]

You can vote, regardless of the vocal home "school" movement that wishes to repeal the 19th amendment.

You're gonna have to provide a source for this one. Never heard of any mainstream portions of the homeschool movement using any of their influence or resources trying to repeal the 19th amendment. Never even heard any of them comment on it at all.

 

[88GT]

You're gonna have to provide a source for this one. Never heard of any mainstream portions of the homeschool movement using any of their influence or resources trying to repeal the 19th amendment. Never even heard any of them comment on it at all.

He's referring to me. But I can't figure out what the constant reference to homeschooling is all about.

 

[level.eleven]

Steve, with regard to your other post, I'm not going to argue with you why a driver can stop and break, swerve all over the road, and speed before he is pulled over. Perfection isn't an excuse for inaction. I'm not going to argue why you can't drive you car in reverse on I65 along as long as you aren't "injuring someone". That position is facile.

Source? Read anything from Pearl (both), Hess (both), Mary Price, check out the Vision Forum - all prominent fixtures of a portion of the homeschool crowd. Research the resurgence of the patriarchy movement and its leaders. Check the conventions and conferences and take note of the speakers. Better yet, go to one. Gary North's views were applauded right here on IGNO and some were very interested in his homeschool program.

 

[level.eleven]

He's referring to me. But I can't figure out what the constant reference to homeschooling is all about.

Parental authority is the one right I believe is absolute 100% completely up to the parents and no one else. And as unsettling as it is to some, I give a lot of leeway to use of force that most people today in America find intolerable. Think of me what you will, but children as chattel is how I view parental authority from a legal standpoint.

Are you not comfortable explaining this use of force that society deems unacceptable? Are you uncomfortable explaining your own words in public? Do you employ force that society finds unacceptable? Tell us about this leeway, please. Why would we be unsettled? Or, aren't gun owners normal, most "people today in America"?

 

[steveh_131]

Steve, with regard to your other post, I'm not going to argue with you why a driver can stop and break, swerve all over the road, and speed before he is pulled over. Perfection isn't an excuse for inaction. I'm not going to argue why you can't drive you car in reverse on I65 along as long as you aren't "injuring someone". That position is facile.

Ahh, and here we are. Because in the absence of a law against it, we'd have nutcases driving down I65 in reverse on a daily basis.

This level of paranoia over liberty will always be a mystery to me.

 

[88GT]

Driving is a horrible analogy for pretty much anything. I wish people would stop using it.

 

[level.eleven]

Another blow to the chattel crowd.

This poor child was denied food to such an extreme that her body went into shock and forgot how to walk. The child had be taught to crawl again. Eventually, she relearned how to walk. The judge invoked concentration camps in his ruling.

http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20130815/NEWS01/308150037/child-neglect

Come on chattel crowd. Should this be legal? This happened right here in Indiana. How would a state that has abolished DCS handle this? Should it be legal to starve your chattel?

The kids refer to their foster care as new Mom and Dad. Why?

Because they feed me.

This is just one example of the 500 calls per day DCS receives about abuse and neglect. Most originate from police, health care professionals, family, or neighbors.

Stats are right here - http://www.in.gov/dcs/

Steve, if you actually wish to learn about the process, that link is a great place to start.

 

[Lex Concord]

home "school" movement .

Wondering why school appears in quotes. It must be because, for the most part, homeschooled children achieve an education without enduring the many detrimental aspects that define "schooling" in this country these days. Actually being a part of it (you know, real world experience, as opposed to simply reading a book, or excerpts from a few books selected by folks sharing my "favored" viewpoint), I can't think of any other logical conclusion.

I've read Mary Price and numerous other widely read homeschool writers and don't recall seeing any calls for the repeal of the 19th. If you've cited it, I'm sure they're out there...maybe I saw it and don't recall because I'm intelligent enough to take what I need from sources, and can recognize one person's opinion as exactly that, rather than assume it is a defining facet of any group or "movement" of which they happen to be a part.

 

[level.eleven]

Wondering why school appears in quotes. It must be because, for the most part, homeschooled children achieve an education without enduring the many detrimental aspects that define "schooling" in this country these days. Actually being a part of it (you know, real world experience, as opposed to simply reading a book, or excerpts from a few books selected by folks sharing my "favored" viewpoint), I can't think of any other logical conclusion.

I've read Mary Price and numerous other widely read homeschool writers and don't recall seeing any calls for the repeal of the 19th. If you've cited it, I'm sure they're out there...maybe I saw it and don't recall because I'm intelligent enough to take what I need from sources, and can recognize one person's opinion as exactly that, rather than assume it is a defining facet of any group or "movement" of which they happen to be a part.

How far do you take Price's patriarchy?

 

[88GT]

Wondering why school appears in quotes. It must be because, for the most part, homeschooled children achieve an education without enduring the many detrimental aspects that define "schooling" in this country these days. Actually being a part of it (you know, real world experience, as opposed to simply reading a book, or excerpts from a few books selected by folks sharing my "favored" viewpoint), I can't think of any other logical conclusion.

I've read Mary Price and numerous other widely read homeschool writers and don't recall seeing any calls for the repeal of the 19th. If you've cited it, I'm sure they're out there...maybe I saw it and don't recall because I'm intelligent enough to take what I need from sources, and can recognize one person's opinion as exactly that, rather than assume it is a defining facet of any group or "movement" of which they happen to be a part.

I do believe he's referring to yours truly with that comment. I've proposed repealing the 19th (some in jest and and some not) in various other threads. His use of it in this manner would lead one to believe that he is not as skilled in the discernment of others' words--written or spoken--as you. It certainly isn't a strong enough plank in my own personal platform to put a nail in, let alone hang an entire movement on it.

 

[Lex Concord]

How far do you take Price's patriarchy?

I don't take it anywhere. It's her opinion. My family does what suits my family, the personal opinions of vaunted and/or demonized well-known homeschoolers notwithstanding.

 

[level.eleven]

I do believe he's referring to yours truly with that comment. I've proposed repealing the 19th (some in jest and and some not) in various other threads. His use of it in this manner would lead one to believe that he is not as skilled in the discernment of others' words--written or spoken--as you. It certainly isn't a strong enough plank in my own personal platform to put a nail in, let alone hang an entire movement on it.

Well, amending the Constitution of the United States of America isn't something that "skilled" folks just casually toss around. You could have clarified and chose not to. Several folks asked why you think women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

[level.eleven]

I don't take it anywhere. It's her opinion. My family does what suits my family, the personal opinions of vaunted and/or demonized well-known homeschoolers notwithstanding.

That is a great response. Honestly. Thank you for discussion. But, we are now drifting into INGO no-no land. Her followers don't exactly view it as "her opinion". It becomes a problem when that opinion is used a form of government where the governed can'tconsent. Or, so they believe. And, lets not forget, a lot of this discussion could be headed off at the pass if some basic questions where answered. Its easy to say we do what is best for our family. Is discipline with plumbing equipment the best for your family?

Are you a people as chattel adherent?

 

[level.eleven]

I don't take it anywhere. It's her opinion. My family does what suits my family, the personal opinions of vaunted and/or demonized well-known homeschoolers notwithstanding.

Can you provide comment about the instances linked in this thread? Cages, cockroaches in diapers, starvation x2.

How should these be handled? Short of anarchy, I would wager we are on the same page.