PDA

View Full Version : Why doesn't CPS take away the minor children?



Pages : [1] 2

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 05:03 PM
I couldn't find a thread where this should specifically be, so please feel free to move if there is a better place.

I am really surprised that with all that is going on, that these boys have not been removed from the home. I would think that it would be helpful to LE as well in getting them access to the children for interview, etc. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

iamnotagolem
11-01-2011, 05:08 PM
Maybe DB's claim to be drunk was disproved and there is no reason to remove the children?

LadyPirate
11-01-2011, 05:09 PM
There could be a lot of reasons why not. There isn't enough "real" evidence to remove them. If the mom was lying about being drunk and passing out, there would be no evidence of neglect. There is no actual proof that Lisa wasn't abducted. If she was, the parents couldn't help that, at least not at that moment.

Also, the children, up until now, have been living in a house where there were other adults, presumably responsible adults, so why take them out of there and place them in unknown territory? They were safe where they were and also, consider the turmoil these kids have already been through. To take them away would definitely add to that.

Other than the missing baby, I don't think there have been any signs of abuse or reason to remove them. The parents not letting LE interview isn't really grounds for removal.

Amster
11-01-2011, 05:14 PM
Using them for a media stunt last night seems reason enough for me.

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 05:17 PM
I would think that her claims to have been blacked out when she was caring for 3 children OR the alternative - that she lied about the extent of her drunkenness to hide something worse, would be grounds for at least an investigation.

Amster
11-01-2011, 05:21 PM
I would think, I would hope, that the bio dad of DB's son would be attempting to get custody. But, that's in my perfect world fantasy where all parents love and care for their children....

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 05:22 PM
Using them for a media stunt last night seems reason enough for me.

Don't get me wrong, I want these little boys to lead as normal of a life as possible. BUT, the parents are complaining that the media is hurting the children, yet they themselves bring the media into the home they are living in to follow the boys around while they Trick or Treat? I'm sorry, but a normal parent would not do that. And, I use the word "normal" with tongue in cheek.

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 05:24 PM
If they keep it up, there will reach a point where they are investigated. It's a form of child abuse to do this to their children, especially when it doesn't really help in any way to find out what happened to Lisa.

katydid23
11-01-2011, 05:25 PM
Don't get me wrong, I want these little boys to lead as normal of a life as possible. BUT, the parents are complaining that the media is hurting the children, yet they themselves bring the media into the home they are living in to follow the boys around while they Trick or Treat? I'm sorry, but a normal parent would not do that. And, I use the word "normal" with tongue in cheek.

I agree with you completely. I think the main reason that CPS has left the boys in the family is because there are other family members living with them right now. I bet if they stayed in the same house and were alone with the boys that they might have been moved to a safer family.

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 05:28 PM
I agree with you completely. I think the main reason that CPS has left the boys in the family is because there are other family members living with them right now. I bet if they stayed in the same house and were alone with the boys that they might have been moved to a safer family.

Good point!

Abby Normal
11-01-2011, 05:30 PM
Simply stated, they don't have enough. I know that offends a lot of people, but it is what it is. If they jump the gun, or treat them more aggressively than the standard dictates, they can be sued for damages.

They have to show that (regardless of her sobriety) she made a decision that (as a result) caused harm to come to Lisa. Like it or not, alcohol is legal and there are no limits on how much a parent can or can't drink. Also, they have no proof of patterned neglect.

In addition to that, there is little evidence of "imminent danger" applying to the wellbeing of the boys.

We could debate this all day. It's not enough. But she ADMITTED she was drunk. But they need to show HOW she is directly or indirectly endangered her daughter, not just that her drunken state may have contribute to harm. But she ADMITTED she 'may have been' passed out. It's circular.

With FBI and LE on this, they aren't going to jump ahead of normal procedure- and they aren't going to ignore it if there is legal reason to remove the kids. They can't just take kids, they have to weigh if it would hold up in court or be considered overly aggressive.

PS- if parading your kids in front of media is enough, then we need to get some celebrities locked up! (light-hearted, I understand the implied sentiment)

ETA- even if they were to be taken from DB, they could be put in the care of JI or grandparents. Not much would change.

Abby Normal
11-01-2011, 05:33 PM
I know people aren't going to agree with the above, but that is my opinion as a foster parent and child advocate. It's JMO, and you don't have to agree. :)

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 05:34 PM
Simply stated, they don't have enough. I know that offends a lot of people, but it is what it is. If they jump the gun, or treat them more aggressively than the standard dictates, they can be sued for damages.

They have to show that (regardless of her sobriety) she made a decision that (as a result) caused harm to come to Lisa. Like it or not, alcohol is legal and there are no limits on how much a parent can or can't drink. Also, they have no proof of patterned neglect.

In addition to that, there is little evidence of "imminent danger" applying to the wellbeing of the boys.

We could debate this all day. It's not enough. But she ADMITTED she was drunk. But they need to show HOW she is directly or indirectly endangered her daughter, not just that her drunken state may have contribute to harm. But she ADMITTED she 'may have been' passed out. It's circular.

With FBI and LE on this, they aren't going to jump ahead of normal procedure- and they aren't going to ignore it if there is legal reason to remove the kids. They can't just take kids, they have to weigh if it would hold up in court or be considered overly aggressive.

PS- if parading your kids in front of media is enough, then we need to get some celebrities locked up! (light-hearted, I understand the implied sentiment)

ETA- even if they were to be taken from DB, they could be put in the care of JI or grandparents. Not much would change.

You're right...it does offend me. YOU personally don't offend me...just the truth of what you said makes me uncomfortable. I just think that there are far too many cases that we hear about every day where CPS doesn't take a child out of the home and then the child dies. It's sickening really! If this isn't enough reason to at least investigate them, then I think that it is a very sad day for the kids.

Kimberlyd125
11-01-2011, 05:38 PM
They can't just take kids out of a home without proving those children are in danger.

I see no reason at this point to take the children. Nothing has been proven yet.

captivagrl
11-01-2011, 05:40 PM
If she wanted her "adult time" to drink "more than 5 drinks", she should NOT have picked the night that JI was not home. Parents are held to a lower standard than other caregivers. Could you imagine a nanny, daycare worker, or anyone else (other than the parent) not being arrested? She had 3 young children in her care and Lisa is gone! I'm shocked that child services has not opened a case.

melissasmom
11-01-2011, 05:47 PM
They can't just take kids out of a home without proving those children are in danger.

I see no reason at this point to take the children. Nothing has been proven yet.

Exactly. I know no one is going to like when I say this, but truthfully the title of this thread got my blood boiling a little. WHY would CPS remove the children form this home? Because DB admitted that she was drunk that night? Once? (and no, I'm not saying that that was ok for her to do that, I think that was very irresponsible).

I mean seriously, what evidence of abuse or neglect is there to say that these poor kids need to be taken away from their parents? Is there any? I don't see it.

Ok, rant over. I just hate this. :furious:

Melanie
11-01-2011, 05:49 PM
I, too, find it odd. Especially in light of DB saying on national tele that she may have been black out drunk with 3 other minor children in the home.

• In the Jhessye Shockley, Missing Arizona Child case: Three remaining siblings were removed from mother’s (Jerice Hunter) home for reasons unknown.

*Sure, CPS could say mommy left the children unattended, but a 13 year old was home. I babysat at 13, along with many of my friends.

Source: http://opalfusionmag.com/2011/10/27/jhessye-shockley-missing-arizona-child/

And, in the Aliyah Lunsford case:

The siblings of missing 3-year-old Aliayah Lunsford from Weston, West Virginia have been removed from the family home on Dennison Street on Saturday, according to the State Journal.

The W.VA. Dept. of Health ad Human Resources did not give a reason.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Aliayah Lunsford: Sibling removed from home of missing Weston girl - National missing persons | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/missing-persons-in-national/aliayah-lunsford-sibling-removed-from-home-of-missing-weston-girl#ixzz1cUcI6Ki0

Both recent cases, both children supposedly kidnapped, and all other children removed.

I'm scratching my neck as to why DB and JI still have the two boys.

MOO

Mel

MarthaM
11-01-2011, 05:51 PM
I haven't seen any reason whatsoever for CPS to take the other children.

josie1986
11-01-2011, 05:52 PM
If she wanted her "adult time" to drink "more than 5 drinks", she should NOT have picked the night that her husband was not home. Parents are held to a lower standard than other caregivers. Could you imagine a nanny, daycare worker, or anyone else (other than the parent) not being arrested? She had 3 young children in her care and Lisa is gone! I'm shocked that child services has not opened a case.

i totally agree with you.

IMO a parent that decides to have "adult" time (which results in him/her being so drunk that he/she doesn't know if theye blacked out or not) while they are the sole caregiver to 3 young children is a bad one,and to add to the mix that one of these children go missing well....there are no words.

to me that is a form of neglect.

where i live,if this happened they kids would have been gone long ago.


this is my opinion and i know that people won't agree but we can't all have the same views or the world would be a boring place :)


JMO MOO!!

Melanie
11-01-2011, 05:52 PM
Exactly. I know no one is going to like when I say this, but truthfully the title of this thread got my blood boiling a little. WHY would CPS remove the children form this home? Because DB admitted that she was drunk that night? Once? (and no, I'm not saying that that was ok for her to do that, I think that was very irresponsible).

I mean seriously, what evidence of abuse or neglect is there to say that these poor kids need to be taken away from their parents? Is there any? I don't see it.Ok, rant over.

I just hate this. :furious:

I didn't see any in the Aliyah or Jhessye case either. In this case mommy admitted on national tele that she was drunk!

I don't understand it!

MOO

Mel

katydid23
11-01-2011, 05:53 PM
You're right...it does offend me. YOU personally don't offend me...just the truth of what you said makes me uncomfortable. I just think that there are far too many cases that we hear about every day where CPS doesn't take a child out of the home and then the child dies. It's sickening really! If this isn't enough reason to at least investigate them, then I think that it is a very sad day for the kids.

But it is a catch-22. Sadly, kids are sometimes more at risk in some of the foster homes than they are in their 'abusive' original home. Obviously that is not always true, but just moving a child into a foster home does not assure their safety, unfortunately. And I say that with a heavy heart, as an adoptive mom.

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 05:54 PM
If she wanted her "adult time" to drink "more than 5 drinks", she should NOT have picked the night that JI was not home. Parents are held to a lower standard than other caregivers. Could you imagine a nanny, daycare worker, or anyone else (other than the parent) not being arrested? She had 3 young children in her care and Lisa is gone! I'm shocked that child services has not opened a case.

That's exactly what I think. Even if she is not guilty of doing anything herself, she is at the very least a horrible mother.

LadyPirate
11-01-2011, 05:54 PM
I, too, find it odd. Especially in light of DB saying on national tele that she may have been black out drunk with 3 other minor children in the home.

• In the Jhessye Shockley, Missing Arizona Child case: Three remaining siblings were removed from mother’s (Jerice Hunter) home for reasons unknown.

*Sure, CPS could say mommy left the children unattended, but a 13 year old was home. I babysat at 13, along with many of my friends.

Source: http://opalfusionmag.com/2011/10/27/jhessye-shockley-missing-arizona-child/

And, in the Aliyah Lunsford case:

The siblings of missing 3-year-old Aliayah Lunsford from Weston, West Virginia have been removed from the family home on Dennison Street on Saturday, according to the State Journal.

The W.VA. Dept. of Health ad Human Resources did not give a reason.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Aliayah Lunsford: Sibling removed from home of missing Weston girl - National missing persons | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/missing-persons-in-national/aliayah-lunsford-sibling-removed-from-home-of-missing-weston-girl#ixzz1cUcI6Ki0

Both recent cases, both children supposedly kidnapped, and all other children removed.

I'm scratching my neck as to why DB and JI still have the two boys.

MOO

Mel

Obviously there were other signs of abuse and neglect, other than the fact that a Mom says she was drinking and MIGHT have blacked out. I don't think the children were taken because another child disappeared. They were taken because there were obvious signs of abuse. These children may also have been on CPS radar before the disappearance.

MaryAnn
11-01-2011, 05:54 PM
I couldn't find a thread where this should specifically be, so please feel free to move if there is a better place.

I am really surprised that with all that is going on, that these boys have not been removed from the home. I would think that it would be helpful to LE as well in getting them access to the children for interview, etc. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

DB and JI are not even suspects, why on earth would they take away their children? How cruel!!

josie1986
11-01-2011, 05:55 PM
Exactly. I know no one is going to like when I say this, but truthfully the title of this thread got my blood boiling a little. WHY would CPS remove the children form this home? Because DB admitted that she was drunk that night? Once? (and no, I'm not saying that that was ok for her to do that, I think that was very irresponsible).

I mean seriously, what evidence of abuse or neglect is there to say that these poor kids need to be taken away from their parents? Is there any? I don't see it.

Ok, rant over. I just hate this. :furious:

she admitted to being this drunk once,but how do any of us know this isn't something that happens often? i know this was the first night that JI had worked that shift but if Lisa hadn't of disappeared no one knows if she would have kept doing it when he worked nights.

JMO MOO

TheDuchess
11-01-2011, 05:55 PM
There is no proof that the living conditions for the boys is not at standard levels. She admitted being drunk while home with the children. She admitted that it was a possibility that she may have blacked out. If that is enough to remove children from homes, there would be kids taken out of homes all over the country. I am a licensed foster home and trust me-when kids are removed from the home, there is a really good reason. We are talking-the children have not been bathed, parents are selling drugs out of the home, there is verifiable signs of abuse, the home is in squalor, etc... Having a few too many and being-at this point-a victim of a child abduction, is not even close to being grounds to remove children from their home.

And allowing their children to be videoed trick or treating by one camera that was arranged exclusively in exchange for allowing the media to follow their kids everywhere is hardly child abuse.

There is no evidence of abuse or neglect in the home, other than the mother admitting she drank 5 or more glasses of wine in one evening and entertained the fact that she may have blacked out. Just not enough. Sorry.

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 05:57 PM
Obviously there were other signs of abuse and neglect, other than the fact that a Mom says she was drinking and MIGHT have blacked out. I don't think the children were taken because another child disappeared. They were taken because there were obvious signs of abuse. These children may also have been on CPS radar before the disappearance.

Respectfully...she didn't say she was "drinking." She said she was drunk. So drunk, in fact, that now her child is missing.

stilettos
11-01-2011, 05:58 PM
Exactly. I know no one is going to like when I say this, but truthfully the title of this thread got my blood boiling a little. WHY would CPS remove the children form this home? Because DB admitted that she was drunk that night? Once? (and no, I'm not saying that that was ok for her to do that, I think that was very irresponsible).

I mean seriously, what evidence of abuse or neglect is there to say that these poor kids need to be taken away from their parents? Is there any? I don't see it.

Ok, rant over. I just hate this. :furious:

That is neglect...being blackout drunk (admittedly) while caring for three minor children, one a sick infant is neglect and sufficient reason for opening a CPS investigation.

http://library.adoption.com/articles/definitions-of-child-abuse-and-neglect-kansas.html
'Neglect' means acts or omissions by a parent, guardian or person responsible for the care of a child resulting in harm to a child or presenting a likelihood of harm and the acts or omissions are not due solely to the lack of financial means of the child's parents or other custodian. Neglect may include but shall not be limited to:

Failure to provide the child with food, clothing or shelter necessary to sustain the life or health of the child;

Failure to provide adequate supervision of a child

TheDuchess
11-01-2011, 05:58 PM
But it is a catch-22. Sadly, kids are sometimes more at risk in some of the foster homes than they are in their 'abusive' original home. Obviously that is not always true, but just moving a child into a foster home does not assure their safety, unfortunately. And I say that with a heavy heart, as an adoptive mom.

Katydid-as an adoptive mom myself, I couldn't agree more. I have seen some cases of foster children being so neglected and abused. It's not always a safe place. It's a slippery slope to begin removing kids from their homes with no proof of anything criminal or abusive going on in the home. And I'm sorry, but admitting to drinking 5 glasses or more of wine and possibly blacking out just isn't enough.

katydid23
11-01-2011, 05:58 PM
If we can take DB at her word, then we can see evidence of neglect. She put her sick infant into her crib at 6:40 pm, and never checked on her again, before falling into a drunken slumber, without locking the front door or closing the window. She was drunk enough to not hear an abductor, even with the baby monitor on. I think that is evidence that she was pretty negligent that evening. imoo

MaryAnn
11-01-2011, 05:58 PM
If they took children away from their parents for getting drunk I can't even imagine how many children would be in foster care!!

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 05:59 PM
DB and JI are not even suspects, why on earth would they take away their children? How cruel!!

Because DB admitted that she was drunk and possibly blacked out and now one of her children is missing...as a direct result of her being drunk.

Melanie
11-01-2011, 06:01 PM
Obviously there were other signs of abuse and neglect, other than the fact that a Mom says she was drinking and MIGHT have blacked out. I don't think the children were taken because another child disappeared. They were taken because there were obvious signs of abuse. These children may also have been on CPS radar before the disappearance.

Obviously? How does anyone know there were obvious reasons or there were signs of abuse and neglect in the other 2 cases? :waitasec:

In this case, there are OBVIOUS reasons. Mommy was blackout drunk whilst caring for 3 other minor children.

MOO

Mel

katydid23
11-01-2011, 06:01 PM
Katydid-as an adoptive mom myself, I couldn't agree more. I have seen some cases of foster children being so neglected and abused. It's not always a safe place. It's a slippery slope to begin removing kids from their homes with no proof of anything criminal or abusive going on in the home. And I'm sorry, but admitting to drinking 5 glasses or more of wine and possibly blacking out just isn't enough.

I agree that it is not enough to take the children, but I think it should be enough to open a file and monitor them for awhile. She put a sick infant into her crib, then got drunk and ignored her totally. That sucks, imo.

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 06:01 PM
If they took children away from their parents for getting drunk I can't even imagine how many children would be in foster care!!

If one of their children went missing while they were passed out drunk, I would think they should go to Foster Care as well.

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 06:03 PM
I agree that it is not enough to take the children, but I think it should be enough to open a file and monitor them for awhile. She put a sick infant into her crib, then got drunk and ignored her totally. That sucks, imo.

That's what my thought is. At the very least...an investigation...

Melanie
11-01-2011, 06:03 PM
If they took children away from their parents for getting drunk I can't even imagine how many children would be in foster care!!

In all seriousness, if I was black out drunk and my child disappeared, I would absolutely expect CPS to remove my other children.

Many parents get drunk...but not many have strangers come into their home and snatch their children! Maybe if mommy was sober she'd be alert enough to hear someone!

MOO

Mel

ETA: DB also failed to provide the basic security measures for her children as well, by admitting to leaving the window open, front door open, while proceeding to get hammered. What if there was a house fire or one of the children got sick. She was in no condition to handle even the most minor of crisis'.

stilettos
11-01-2011, 06:03 PM
I know people aren't going to agree with the above, but that is my opinion as a foster parent and child advocate. It's JMO, and you don't have to agree. :)

As a Foster Parent, Child Advocate and 25 plus year DFCS worker I can say that in GA and FL children have been taken out of the home for just such behavior. It is well within the statute for child neglect, what DB has admitted to...I do believe that because the children are not left alone with DB at this time, they may be watching and waiting. IF JI were to continually knowingly leave a woman to care for minor children that drinks to blackout stage...he too could find a case opened....just saying.

LadyPirate
11-01-2011, 06:04 PM
If CPS took away all kids that WE think should be taken away, there would only be 2 kids on my street. Parents are neglectful, don't watch them like they should, yet CPS would say because they are fed, clothed, a clean bed to sleep in and no signs of abuse, they should stay where they are.

IF DB is proven to be involved in this, THEN and only then will CPS step in and make other arrangements for the boys. For hers, that would probably mean he would be sent back to his Dad. For JI's son, he may get to keep him as long as DB isn't around.

captivagrl
11-01-2011, 06:05 PM
she admitted to being this drunk once,but how do any of us know this isn't something that happens often? i know this was the first night that JI had worked that shift but if Lisa hadn't of disappeared no one knows if she would have kept doing it when he worked nights.

JMO MOO

Just wanted to add that in the interview, the one she admits to the drinking, she stated that she did it regularly 2-3 times per week. She stated that she may have blacked out and she doesn't think that she has a drinking problem.
If she drinks and JI cares for the children it's a different situation.
Removing children isn't the only option. I just think a case should be opened and the situation investigated. IMO, it's in the best interest of the children.

LadyPirate
11-01-2011, 06:05 PM
That's what my thought is. At the very least...an investigation...

Maybe they have. We don't know because CPS isn't given to sharing with the public very much, and since it involves minors, I doubt LE would share that with anybody either.

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 06:07 PM
I find it interesting that people who are in support of DB's story always say that she was "drinking" rather than she was "drunk," even though DB herself said she was drunk. She admitted to drinking 5-10 glasses of wine. It is a well-known fact that people who admit to a number of drinks, always underestimate and it is usually at least double that. She was neglectful of those children...especially little innocent Lisa.

sterlingrat77
11-01-2011, 06:09 PM
In all seriousness, if I was black out drunk and my child disappeared, I would absolutely expect CPS to remove my other children.

Many parents get drunk...but not many have strangers come into their home and snatch their children! Maybe if mommy was sober she'd be alert enough to hear someone!

MOO

Mel

Maybe if she was sober Lisa STILL would have been snatched. You don't know that baby Lisa's disappearance was a result of her drinking.

To me, the drinking is a non issue. It doesn't make her a bad mother per se. Everyone makes mistakes and I wouldn't want to be judged. DB has paid the ultimate price already, I see no need to kick her while she is down, but that's me and I think she is innocent and I am in the minority :(

melissasmom
11-01-2011, 06:10 PM
If they took children away from their parents for getting drunk I can't even imagine how many children would be in foster care!!

Indeed. I would be one of them. My father was an alcoholic, he was alone with myself and my 4 siblings on a regular basis while drunk.

Respectfully, my OPINION is that people who are saying that the other children need to be removed because of this drinking incident are those that feel DB is guilty as sin, and she either hid Lisa's body after an accident or killed her or something along those lines. Anyone who feels this way will find justification in their own mind for CPS involvement.

My opinion only.

Jacie Estes
11-01-2011, 06:11 PM
If they keep it up, there will reach a point where they are investigated. It's a form of child abuse to do this to their children, especially when it doesn't really help in any way to find out what happened to Lisa.

Trick or Treating with a cameraman along is abuse? :gasp:

josie1986
11-01-2011, 06:12 PM
"Neglect
Neglect is frequently defined as the failure of a parent or other
person with responsibility for the child to provide needed food,
clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision to the degree
that the child’s health, safety, and well-being are threatened
with harm"

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.pdf#Page=2&view=Fit

IMO this applies to this situation

Jacie Estes
11-01-2011, 06:13 PM
Maybe if she was sober Lisa STILL would have been snatched. You don't know that baby Lisa's disappearance was a result of her drinking.

To me, the drinking is a non issue. It doesn't make her a bad mother per se. Everyone makes mistakes and I wouldn't want to be judged. DB has paid the ultimate price already, I see no need to kick her while she is down, but that's me and I think she is innocent and I am in the minority :(

There are more of us who believe her to be innocent. :seeya:


:welcome4:

ynotdivein
11-01-2011, 06:18 PM
This thread will ONLY work as long as we don't get into bashing one another for our beliefs, avoid name-calling and assumptions (about case players, and about one another), and focus the conversation on understanding how CPS works in MO and how that interfaces with this case.

I think we can do that. Please help prove me right.

Where this post lands is random.

Melanie
11-01-2011, 06:18 PM
Maybe if she was sober Lisa STILL would have been snatched. You don't know that baby Lisa's disappearance was a result of her drinking.

To me, the drinking is a non issue. It doesn't make her a bad mother per se. Everyone makes mistakes and I wouldn't want to be judged. DB has paid the ultimate price already, I see no need to kick her while she is down, but that's me and I think she is innocent and I am in the minority :(

We'll have to agree to disagree. If mommy was sober the chances are she would have been more mindeful to baby Lisa. I can't say that with 100% accuracy, but the percentages are in my favor. Black out drunks and basic child care do not go hand in hand.

And, yes, black out drinking absolutely makes you a bad mother. There are hundreds of thousands of Al-Anon stories that will back this up. I'd be hard pressed to find a positive story written by a someone who lives with a black-out-drunk who admits to this behaviour 2-3 times a week...but I'll give it a go.

MOO

Mel

captivagrl
11-01-2011, 06:19 PM
DB was the caregiver on that evening.

IF the caregiver was a babysitter and the same scenario.....the irresponsible, drunken, blacked-out sitter would likely be arrested immediately for child endangerment.

That's what I mean when I say that parents are held to a lower standard.

annalia
11-01-2011, 06:20 PM
Her two sons were also in the home when she was getting plastered. Did they take care of themselves, put themselves to bed?

ynotdivein
11-01-2011, 06:25 PM
This thread will ONLY work as long as we don't get into bashing one another for our beliefs, avoid name-calling and assumptions (about case players, and about one another), and focus the conversation on understanding how CPS works in MO and how that interfaces with this case.

I think we can do that. Please help prove me right.

Where this post lands is random.

Bumping... please read.

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 06:25 PM
Trick or Treating with a cameraman along is abuse? :gasp:

Respectfully...if you are going to quote me, please at least quote me for what I am actually saying. I didn't that just media alone is child abuse. But put it all together with what she has done and hasn't done and now has media in her home...yes...it's abuse to me.

LadyPirate
11-01-2011, 06:26 PM
I definitely think this mother will never win a mother of the year award. From what I have read, she doesn't really seem like she is motherhood material. I think she shouldn't have been drinking with children in the house, or smoking pot, or doing drugs, or any of those things that go along with it.

However, I do think the reason CPS hasn't done more, is that at this point in time, the children have been in a safer environment. We really don't know what they have waiting in the wings, if anything.

I do believe we all see this situation as parents or caregivers, who are actually responsible people. We see the whole picture as to how WE would handle things. In the world of CPS, things don't always happen like we think it should, which is why, a lot of times, children are left in the home and they end up dying, or they are taken away, put in foster care and are abused there and sometimes die. Sometimes it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing.

katydid23
11-01-2011, 06:27 PM
:welcome::fireworks:

I am not sure I agree with you. In my opinion, if she had been sober, she would have closed the window and locked the front door. Maybe just by doing those two normal things that most parents do before going to bed at night, the baby would still be safe at home.

Also, she never checked on the baby after 06:40 pm. And the baby was sick. Most sober moms would check in on a sick infant a couple of times at least.

And she never heard any dogs barking, or any noise on the baby monitor. again, a sober parent might have heard those things, imo.

MarthaM
11-01-2011, 06:28 PM
And what's next? CPS taking kids away if a Mom took Nyquil before going to bed because she had a bad cold? Or what about a Mom who's just a really really deep sleeper? Should CPS march into that home and yank the kids away?

I do agree that animosity toward DB and/or belief in her guilt in Lisa's disappearance can influence how people view the CPS question. If you take her out of it, or even look at it without considering this specific situation, how many people would really want CPS to take away their neighbor's or relative's kids because the mom had had several glasses of wine?

Scamperoo
11-01-2011, 06:29 PM
There could be a lot of reasons why not. There isn't enough "real" evidence to remove them. If the mom was lying about being drunk and passing out, there would be no evidence of neglect. There is no actual proof that Lisa wasn't abducted. If she was, the parents couldn't help that, at least not at that moment.

Also, the children, up until now, have been living in a house where there were other adults, presumably responsible adults, so why take them out of there and place them in unknown territory? They were safe where they were and also, consider the turmoil these kids have already been through. To take them away would definitely add to that.

Other than the missing baby, I don't think there have been any signs of abuse or reason to remove them. The parents not letting LE interview isn't really grounds for removal.


I respectfully disagree with your post

This reasoning just minimized everything that is pertinent in the case..

There is no actual proof she was drunk...how about I empty box of wine and the fact that she admitted to having + 5 glasses of wine and may well have blacked out on national tv.

There is no evidence of neglect..

She was admittedly drunk in charge of minor children, the youngest of which she didn't check on from early evening until Lisa was removed from the home by supposed persons unknown on her watch.

Other than the missing baby, I don't think there have been any signs of abuse or reason to remove them...

I think there is plenty of reason, how do we know the other children aren't in danger of disappearing, just like Lisa.

And on top of all this LE can't get an interview with the parents who seem to feel finding their baby daughter isn't that high a priority.

TxLady2
11-01-2011, 06:29 PM
But it is a catch-22. Sadly, kids are sometimes more at risk in some of the foster homes than they are in their 'abusive' original home. Obviously that is not always true, but just moving a child into a foster home does not assure their safety, unfortunately. And I say that with a heavy heart, as an adoptive mom.

You're absolutely right!! DB's drinking that night might not have had a thing to do with Lisa's disappearance, just may have been a horrible coincidence. If it DID, then she will have them taken soon enough anyway and that will be a big enough shock to them. These boys are not being abused or mistreated, it's better to leave them where they are for the time being.

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 06:30 PM
I will add on the side of DB that there has been no proof of her doing anything other than alcohol. I have never accused her of doing any type of drugs. I wonder if this might be a line that CPS would cross if that were the case, which it doesn't seem to be.

katydid23
11-01-2011, 06:31 PM
Her two sons were also in the home when she was getting plastered. Did they take care of themselves, put themselves to bed?

And it was a school night for them. Did they have any homework? Were they prepared for school the next morning? It is hard to believe so if mom was hung over, with a black out. Was she really going to be able to get them off to school in an organized, punctual way? If she did truly drink 3 or 4 nights a week then I think there were some issues for the boys to deal with. imoo

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 06:32 PM
And what's next? CPS taking kids away if a Mom took Nyquil before going to bed because she had a bad cold? Or what about a Mom who's just a really really deep sleeper? Should CPS march into that home and yank the kids away?

I do agree that animosity toward DB and/or belief in her guilt in Lisa's disappearance can influence how people view the CPS question. If you take her out of it, or even look at it without considering this specific situation, how many people would really want CPS to take away their neighbor's or relative's kids because the mom had had several glasses of wine?

This is all hypothetical...DB herself admitted to be so drunk that she could have blacked out. That's a totally different story to me.

annalia
11-01-2011, 06:33 PM
And what's next? CPS taking kids away if a Mom took Nyquil before going to bed because she had a bad cold? Or what about a Mom who's just a really really deep sleeper? Should CPS march into that home and yank the kids away?

I do agree that animosity toward DB and/or belief in her guilt in Lisa's disappearance can influence how people view the CPS question. If you take her out of it, or even look at it without considering this specific situation, how many people would really want CPS to take away their neighbor's or relative's kids because the mom had had several glasses of wine?

But who blacks out after just several glasses of wine? I'm not a drinker but even I wouldn't black out if it was just several glasses of wine.

That being said, I don't know much about exactly how CPS operates, but I can understand the children not being taken from the home, not yet anyway. LE is still building their case, it doesn't appear that the boys are in immediate danger living with family members.

Jacie Estes
11-01-2011, 06:33 PM
Respectfully...if you are going to quote me, please at least quote me for what I am actually saying. I didn't that just media alone is child abuse. But put it all together with what she has done and hasn't done and now has media in her home...yes...it's abuse to me.

IF she were abusive wouldn't the children have been removed already? IMHO Foster care would not be the best place for the boys right now and the mother isn't even a POI/Suspect..


Some people see a candlestick and others see 2 faces. :)

not_my_kids
11-01-2011, 06:34 PM
From my limited experience:

There has to be proof or a strong belief that a child is in danger of physical harm or death in order to remove children. Here, there is neither. If charges start coming around the bend against the parents, or the boys are ever given the opportunity to disclose some type of abuse or severe neglect, that could change. But, as of right now, there is no proof that either child's life is in danger while in their parents custody.

When there are certain things in place within a family, CPS is less likely to remove children. They are a two parent home. They have strong community and family supports in place in the local area. They are able to maintain housing, send their kids to school, take them to the doctor on time, keep them fed, bathed, and presumably, safe from future harm. These all work in their favor.

They likely have had no prior contact with CPS, which also works in their favor.

Even if DB admitted to being drunk, CPS has to prove that she was, and alcohol only stays in the system a very short time, so in order to prove it through a urine test, which is what they use almost exclusively, they would have to get her to take the test while she was still drunk, or very recently sobered up.

Those are just my thoughts, and I've seen enough of their operations to have a decent understanding of how it works. I was in and out of foster care my entire childhood, and I asked a lot of questions.

Jacie Estes
11-01-2011, 06:36 PM
I definitely think this mother will never win a mother of the year award. From what I have read, she doesn't really seem like she is motherhood material. I think she shouldn't have been drinking with children in the house, or smoking pot, or doing drugs, or any of those things that go along with it.
However, I do think the reason CPS hasn't done more, is that at this point in time, the children have been in a safer environment. We really don't know what they have waiting in the wings, if anything.

I do believe we all see this situation as parents or caregivers, who are actually responsible people. We see the whole picture as to how WE would handle things. In the world of CPS, things don't always happen like we think it should, which is why, a lot of times, children are left in the home and they end up dying, or they are taken away, put in foster care and are abused there and sometimes die. Sometimes it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing.

BBM Do you have a link for that?

melissasmom
11-01-2011, 06:37 PM
And what's next? CPS taking kids away if a Mom took Nyquil before going to bed because she had a bad cold? Or what about a Mom who's just a really really deep sleeper? Should CPS march into that home and yank the kids away?

I do agree that animosity toward DB and/or belief in her guilt in Lisa's disappearance can influence how people view the CPS question. If you take her out of it, or even look at it without considering this specific situation, how many people would really want CPS to take away their neighbor's or relative's kids because the mom had had several glasses of wine?

I apologize for making assumptions (just jumping off this post), I am just SO frustrated. One thing I hate most is when people are so judgemental and , as I see it, holier-than-thou)

I have lost a child. When the police investigated my daughters' death, they would have called CPS immediately and had my other children removed from my care based on what I have seen posted about assumptions on Deborahs parenting. And no, I was not drunk on the night of her death nor did I drink on a regular basis. Actually she didn't die at home anyways, but you get what Im saying(I hope)

Sorry, I have just learned in the years since my childs death to be a little more compassionate and not so judgemental of others. That's just how I feel.

ALso sorry if this is O/T for this thread.

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 06:40 PM
IF she were abusive wouldn't the children have been removed already? IMHO Foster care would not be the best place for the boys right now and the mother isn't even a POI/Suspect..


Some people see a candlestick and others see 2 faces. :)

To me...abuse = neglect. And DB was beyond a doubt, by her own admission, horribly neglectful.

highflyer
11-01-2011, 06:41 PM
If she was drunk to the point of blacking out and left sick baby unattended and school age boys to fend for themselves then IMHO she is a negligent parent. If this was a story concocted, frequently changed and stammered about it would explain the deceptiveness and awkwardness of the interviews. In this case who came up with scenario? What a train wreck.

Jacie Estes
11-01-2011, 06:42 PM
I apologize for making assumptions (just jumping off this post), I am just SO frustrated. One thing I hate most is when people are so judgemental and , as I see it, holier-than-thou)

I have lost a child. When the police investigated my daughters' death, they would have called CPS immediately and had my other children removed from my care based on what I have seen posted about assumptions on Deborahs parenting. And no, I was not drunk on the night of her death nor did I drink on a regular basis. Actually she didn't die at home anyways, but you get what Im saying(I hope)

Sorry, I have just learned in the years since my childs death to be a little more compassionate and not so judgemental of others. That's just how I feel.

ALso sorry if this is O/T for this thread.


Compassion is always needed.


I am so sorry for your loss.:rose:

IrishMist
11-01-2011, 06:44 PM
From my limited experience:

There has to be proof or a strong belief that a child is in danger of physical harm or death in order to remove children. Here, there is neither. If charges start coming around the bend against the parents, or the boys are ever given the opportunity to disclose some type of abuse or severe neglect, that could change. But, as of right now, there is no proof that either child's life is in danger while in their parents custody.

When there are certain things in place within a family, CPS is less likely to remove children. They are a two parent home. They have strong community and family supports in place in the local area. They are able to maintain housing, send their kids to school, take them to the doctor on time, keep them fed, bathed, and presumably, safe from future harm. These all work in their favor.

They likely have had no prior contact with CPS, which also works in their favor.

Even if DB admitted to being drunk, CPS has to prove that she was, and alcohol only stays in the system a very short time, so in order to prove it through a urine test, which is what they use almost exclusively, they would have to get her to take the test while she was still drunk, or very recently sobered up.

Those are just my thoughts, and I've seen enough of their operations to have a decent understanding of how it works. I was in and out of foster care my entire childhood, and I asked a lot of questions.

IMO, it is right that CPS is cautious about removing children from their parents. Regardless of what some may think, there are no perfect parents, every single one makes mistakes; some of those mistakes could have serious repercussions, but by the grace of God, didn't.

I'm not sure how the foster system worked for you, Not_My, but for the vast majority of people I've talked with, it didn't work out so well. Taking children away from their family is huge; it's not to be taken lightly by any means. And those that are advocating for it should be well aware of the situation they may be putting those children in before screaming too loudly for that action.

:twocents:

captivagrl
11-01-2011, 06:45 PM
From my limited experience:

There has to be proof or a strong belief that a child is in danger of physical harm or death in order to remove children. Here, there is neither. If charges start coming around the bend against the parents, or the boys are ever given the opportunity to disclose some type of abuse or severe neglect, that could change. But, as of right now, there is no proof that either child's life is in danger while in their parents custody.

When there are certain things in place within a family, CPS is less likely to remove children. They are a two parent home. They have strong community and family supports in place in the local area. They are able to maintain housing, send their kids to school, take them to the doctor on time, keep them fed, bathed, and presumably, safe from future harm. These all work in their favor.

They likely have had no prior contact with CPS, which also works in their favor.

Even if DB admitted to being drunk, CPS has to prove that she was, and alcohol only stays in the system a very short time, so in order to prove it through a urine test, which is what they use almost exclusively, they would have to get her to take the test while she was still drunk, or very recently sobered up.

Those are just my thoughts, and I've seen enough of their operations to have a decent understanding of how it works. I was in and out of foster care my entire childhood, and I asked a lot of questions.

I agree. I'd like to add that many cases do not include removing the children. Sometimes child services offer a case plan for the parent to complete while the children stay in the home. For instance, alcohol evaluations and therapy. Once complete the case closes. But, while it's ongoing the children are visited and interviewed regularly :)

Jacie Estes
11-01-2011, 06:46 PM
To me...abuse = neglect. And DB was beyond a doubt, by her own admission, horribly neglectful.

It would appear that MO CPS doesn't share that sentiment; the boys are still with them, where they should be. IMHO

mck16
11-01-2011, 06:50 PM
:welcome::fireworks:

I am not sure I agree with you. In my opinion, if she had been sober, she would have closed the window and locked the front door. Maybe just by doing those two normal things that most parents do before going to bed at night, the baby would still be safe at home.

Also, she never checked on the baby after 06:40 pm. And the baby was sick. Most sober moms would check in on a sick infant a couple of times at least.

And she never heard any dogs barking, or any noise on the baby monitor. again, a sober parent might have heard those things, imo.

What about the boys. We have heard nothing about them hearing or seeing anyone. Were they drunk too? I hardly think so. I read that they heard clicking but did they try to wake their mother or did they get up and go see what the noise was. And one of the boys was in the bed with her.

Also what about the girl that was drinking with DB should her children be taken away also? jmo

LadyPirate
11-01-2011, 06:52 PM
Originally Posted by LadyPirate
I definitely think this mother will never win a mother of the year award. From what I have read, she doesn't really seem like she is motherhood material. I think she shouldn't have been drinking with children in the house, or smoking pot, or doing drugs, or any of those things that go along with it.
However, I do think the reason CPS hasn't done more, is that at this point in time, the children have been in a safer environment. We really don't know what they have waiting in the wings, if anything.

I do believe we all see this situation as parents or caregivers, who are actually responsible people. We see the whole picture as to how WE would handle things. In the world of CPS, things don't always happen like we think it should, which is why, a lot of times, children are left in the home and they end up dying, or they are taken away, put in foster care and are abused there and sometimes die. Sometimes it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing.

BBM Do you have a link for that?

I'm sorry, I meant that as an either or thing. Meaning she shouldn't have been drinking, or doing drugs, or smoking pot. Not that she WAS doing all those. Just that NONE of those should be done by anybody in charge of children. Sorry for not making it more clear.

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 06:53 PM
It would appear that MO CPS doesn't share that sentiment; the boys are still with them, where they should be. IMHO

Yes, you are right that MO CPS doesn't share mine and many other people's sentiment. It's unfortunate that so many CPS agencies are just lazy and take the easy way out in many cases. I am NOT saying that happened here, but we hear every day where they are negligent...and the little children are the one who pays the price.

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 06:56 PM
What about the boys. We have heard nothing about them hearing or seeing anyone. Were they drunk too? I hardly think so. I read that they heard clicking but did they try to wake their mother or did they get up and go see what the noise was. And one of the boys was in the bed with her.

Also what about the girl that was drinking with DB should her children be taken away also? jmo

The woman drinking with DB didn't black out. She took her daughter home. None of her children were "kidnapped" in the night either.

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 06:59 PM
I apologize for making assumptions (just jumping off this post), I am just SO frustrated. One thing I hate most is when people are so judgemental and , as I see it, holier-than-thou)

I have lost a child. When the police investigated my daughters' death, they would have called CPS immediately and had my other children removed from my care based on what I have seen posted about assumptions on Deborahs parenting. And no, I was not drunk on the night of her death nor did I drink on a regular basis. Actually she didn't die at home anyways, but you get what Im saying(I hope)

Sorry, I have just learned in the years since my childs death to be a little more compassionate and not so judgemental of others. That's just how I feel.

ALso sorry if this is O/T for this thread.

I'm so sorry for your loss. I can't even imagine the pain that one must go through.

NancyA
11-01-2011, 07:10 PM
The woman drinking with DB didn't black out. She took her daughter home. None of her children were "kidnapped" in the night either.

How do you know that? It's quite possible she went home and blacked out but we'd never know unless SHE admitted to it just as DB did.

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 07:13 PM
How do you know that? It's quite possible she went home and blacked out but we'd never know unless SHE admitted to it just as DB did.

Honestly...this is all O/T. However, I will say that if she did black out, she's lucky because her child is still with her.

nursebeeme
11-01-2011, 07:16 PM
This thread will ONLY work as long as we don't get into bashing one another for our beliefs, avoid name-calling and assumptions (about case players, and about one another), and focus the conversation on understanding how CPS works in MO and how that interfaces with this case.

I think we can do that. Please help prove me right.

Where this post lands is random.

bumping up randomly and it lands at random.. but this is serious business here...

NancyA
11-01-2011, 07:17 PM
I agree. I'd like to add that many cases do not include removing the children. Sometimes child services offer a case plan for the parent to complete while the children stay in the home. For instance, alcohol evaluations and therapy. Once complete the case closes. But, while it's ongoing the children are visited and interviewed regularly :)

Well said. I think this is the way it should be handled in cases where there is no evidence of physical abuse and/or deprivation stemming from the dependency issues of the parents rather than a rush to remove the children.

mck16
11-01-2011, 07:23 PM
Honestly...this is all O/T. However, I will say that if she did black out, she's lucky because her child is still with her.

You are right she is lucky. I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that she didn't black out though. The point I was trying to make was that no one in that house heard anything and they all weren't drunk. Now if more comes out in the interview with the boys that will definitly be something to be explained. jmo

CHICANA
11-01-2011, 07:38 PM
I couldn't find a thread where this should specifically be, so please feel free to move if there is a better place.

I am really surprised that with all that is going on, that these boys have not been removed from the home. I would think that it would be helpful to LE as well in getting them access to the children for interview, etc. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Children aren't supposed to be removed from homes to benefit LE.

Sherbie
11-01-2011, 07:41 PM
I apologize for making assumptions (just jumping off this post), I am just SO frustrated. One thing I hate most is when people are so judgemental and , as I see it, holier-than-thou)

I have lost a child. When the police investigated my daughters' death, they would have called CPS immediately and had my other children removed from my care based on what I have seen posted about assumptions on Deborahs parenting. And no, I was not drunk on the night of her death nor did I drink on a regular basis. Actually she didn't die at home anyways, but you get what Im saying(I hope)

Sorry, I have just learned in the years since my childs death to be a little more compassionate and not so judgemental of others. That's just how I feel.

ALso sorry if this is O/T for this thread.

I'm so sorry your precious girl was taken from you. :hug:

raeann
11-01-2011, 07:41 PM
Simply stated, they don't have enough. I know that offends a lot of people, but it is what it is. If they jump the gun, or treat them more aggressively than the standard dictates, they can be sued for damages.

They have to show that (regardless of her sobriety) she made a decision that (as a result) caused harm to come to Lisa. Like it or not, alcohol is legal and there are no limits on how much a parent can or can't drink. Also, they have no proof of patterned neglect.

In addition to that, there is little evidence of "imminent danger" applying to the wellbeing of the boys.

We could debate this all day. It's not enough. But she ADMITTED she was drunk. But they need to show HOW she is directly or indirectly endangered her daughter, not just that her drunken state may have contribute to harm. But she ADMITTED she 'may have been' passed out. It's circular.

With FBI and LE on this, they aren't going to jump ahead of normal procedure- and they aren't going to ignore it if there is legal reason to remove the kids. They can't just take kids, they have to weigh if it would hold up in court or be considered overly aggressive.

PS- if parading your kids in front of media is enough, then we need to get some celebrities locked up! (light-hearted, I understand the implied sentiment)

ETA- even if they were to be taken from DB, they could be put in the care of JI or grandparents. Not much would change.

:great:
ahhh YES....parading your kids in front of a camera to make money....well, then Brad and Angie, Tom and Katie, Madonna, ummmm NANCY GRACE and it goes on and on........

CHICANA
11-01-2011, 07:43 PM
Well said. I think this is the way it should be handled in cases where there is no evidence of physical abuse and/or deprivation stemming from the dependency issues of the parents rather than a rush to remove the children.

I don't think parents should agree to a case plan when there is no evidence of abuse. Make them take you to court & prove their case

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 07:45 PM
Please...guys...I don't want this thread to be locked. Let's stay on topic here.

ynotdivein
11-01-2011, 07:46 PM
We're doing ok in here so far... I'd like to hear more from some of our posters who have worked in the CPS system in MO or other states, or had other experiences with these agencies.

Also, recognizing that this topic is pretty emotional, remember that keeping "you" and "I" out of posts will help keep the conversation to the facts as we know them and reduce the chance of posters getting into personal confrontations here. Which is a good thing. Because while we might disagree on small matters, we all agree on one thing: bringing Baby Lisa home.

Where this post falls is random, and :tyou:

norest4thewicked
11-01-2011, 07:51 PM
My son-in-law is a CPS worker in Nebraska, so I do know a very little bit about some of the things that they do. I did ask him about this case and I really can't even post what he said. But, I'd like to hear from MO CPS also to get their opinions. We have had a couple of CPS people up thread give opinions on this.

raeann
11-01-2011, 08:11 PM
It should be noted that Jeremy reported that he was scheduled to be off work by 10pm....so DB had every reason to believe at 10:30 that he would be home at any minute to also be there for the kids. Not being a drinker myself, I would never say that it was to be excused, but she did believe he was going to be home soon. She didn't pass out on the front steps or the kitchen floor.....she got all the kids in bed and went there herself.

flipflop
11-01-2011, 08:16 PM
What reason would CPS have to take the kids away?????????? From the facts that I know of this case, I see no reason for CPS to take the boys away.

jadejazzkayla
11-01-2011, 09:01 PM
I haven't seen any reason whatsoever for CPS to take the other children.

I agree.

Melanie
11-01-2011, 09:09 PM
What reason would CPS have to take the kids away?????????? From the facts that I know of this case, I see no reason for CPS to take the boys away.

1. drinking to a stage of black out drunk.
2. admitting to drinking 2-3 times per week
3. not locking front door
4. not closing window
5. putting a sick child to bed at 6:40 PM, checking on her once, and not remembering to check on her again.
6. 10 month old child kidnapped from home

Each one individually doesn't warrant removal. However, combined, adds up to much more than reasonable removal IMHO. Add to that a child kidnapped (by the parents account) from the home during this time increases the reasonibility factor. I would expect simple safety measures to be applied while caring for your children (ie, locking door and windows).

My opinion only. Thank you.

Mel

gwenabob
11-01-2011, 09:20 PM
They can't just take kids out of a home without proving those children are in danger.

I see no reason at this point to take the children. Nothing has been proven yet.

CPS takes children out of homes before allegations are "proven" all the time. They can't just leave endangered children in an abusive home until the case goes through the court system. That would never work. Just wanted to point that out.

not_my_kids
11-01-2011, 09:29 PM
1. drinking to a stage of black out drunk.
2. admitting to drinking 2-3 times per week
3. not locking front door
4. not closing window
5. putting a sick child to bed at 6:40 PM, checking on her once, and not remembering to check on her again.
6. 10 month old child kidnapped from home

Each one individually doesn't warrant removal. However, combined, adds up to much more than reasonable removal IMHO. Add to that a child kidnapped (by the parents account) from the home during this time increases the reasonibility factor. I would expect simple safety measures to be applied while caring for your children (ie, locking door and windows).

My opinion only. Thank you.

Mel

The problem with this is that you can go on national TV and say that you worship Satan, drink the blood of innocents, sell your children by the hour and dance naked with them under the harvest moon, and CPS still has to prove it. It's not a crime to lie on TV. It's not a crime to lie on TV about what you tell LE. Therefore, you can tell the news that you told LE that you were black out drunk, and it's proof of nothing. Drinking 2-3 times a week, when there is a perfectly suitable other parent in the home, (as JI was every night but the one in question) is not illegal, abusive or neglectful, in the eyes of most courts. Not locking the door, okay, that's iffy, and if one of the kids had been found wandering the neighborhood, yeah, that's a case. But that didn't happen. Not locking a window, well, for that, CPS better come get my kids, as they are at risk...and so are just about everyone else's for that reason. And being the victim of a crime, which the parents are at this point, at least until LE brings some charges, does not equal being abusive or neglectful.

Just my opinion.

jjenny
11-01-2011, 09:34 PM
Yea, the kid hasn't been found wandering the neighborhood. She is gone and no one seem to know where she is.

Abby Normal
11-01-2011, 09:40 PM
DB was the caregiver on that evening.

IF the caregiver was a babysitter and the same scenario.....the irresponsible, drunken, blacked-out sitter would likely be arrested immediately for child endangerment.

That's what I mean when I say that parents are held to a lower standard.

They are! In simplest terms, a mother can spank. A babysitter can not. They have different "rights" when it comes to said child. But they should. That's right and appropriate. My babysitter does not have equal rights in determining what is in the best interest of my child. In any direction.

flipflop
11-01-2011, 09:42 PM
1. drinking to a stage of black out drunk.
2. admitting to drinking 2-3 times per week
3. not locking front door
4. not closing window
5. putting a sick child to bed at 6:40 PM, checking on her once, and not remembering to check on her again.
6. 10 month old child kidnapped from home

Each one individually doesn't warrant removal. However, combined, adds up to much more than reasonable removal IMHO. Add to that a child kidnapped (by the parents account) from the home during this time increases the reasonibility factor. I would expect simple safety measures to be applied while caring for your children (ie, locking door and windows).

My opinion only. Thank you.

Mel

Obviously if CPS had a reason to take the boys away, they would have already. They are with their parents, therefore, they have NO reason to take them away.

amydew51
11-01-2011, 09:42 PM
Hi,
I just joined the forums so I could post on this. I have been lurking on this site since a few days after Lisa went missing. I do not watch the news, but get all of my news from the internet, so I came upon this site when googling what Starbucks JI was working on.

I live in KC. I am a stay at home mom to a 3 1/2 year old and 7 month old. I have a masters in counseling psychology and was a high school counselor for 4 years, and a parent educator to low income families for 2 years.

CPS is called DFS(Dept of Family Services) or DSS (dept of Social Services) in MO. I have hotlined mutiple familes. DFS RARELY takes children away in our area. When I was a counselor, I had several students that had marks on their bodies from parents - one child was beaten with a broom. He was not taken away. I would hotline, sit in while the social worker interviewed them, and then the social worker would just come up with a plan on how they could stay safe if needed.

As a parent educator, I was in AWFUL homes. I actually quit because I did not feel safe. Cigarette butts on the floor with crawling babies, awful diaper rashes, parents with no teeth because they are on meth, etc. One family I hotlined because they were on meth. They had 4 young daughters. There was poop on the walls. Neighbors said baby would cry all day, and she left the baby and a toddler in a play yard all day while she got high in the garage. One time I thought that toddler had just had a bath, because her hair looked wet. Turns out it was so greasy and dirty, it looked wet. DFS did not take the kids away. Several months later the police arrested them for drugs, THEN the kids were taken away. IMO, parents have to be arrested or a child has to sexually abused for a child to get taken away here.

Kids are not taken away because the parents drink, even if they are alcoholics. With my experience, I almost want to laugh when I see the reasons for why they think the kids should be taken away. Very minor in the real world. DB did get drunk, but it's not like she passed out while the kids were awake. My dh and I have sat on our deck and both drank enough to get pretty tipsy while the kids were asleep. They sleep through the night, I don't think that is a big deal.

A couple more points - I am a heavy sleeper. I do not hear my husband come in sometimes if I am asleep, my 3 year old does not wake up, and I do not hear our alarm beeping. Also, my baby goes to bed between 6:30 and 7 pm every night and sleeps until 7 am. Many sleep books suggest an early bedtime. I have a baby monitor, and I do not check on her otherwise. If she had a cold or a cough, honestly I don't know if I would check on her as long as I could hear her on the monitor, especially if it were something she had had a few days. I wouldn't want to wake her up. But, my baby has not been sick yet, and my 3 year old is rarely sick, so I am not an expert on that.

I am on the fence, but just thought you might be interested in my thoughts!

Nixie
11-01-2011, 09:44 PM
I can say from personal experience that CPS does not always pull a child from a home when heavy drinking on a regular basis is involved. My dad was a heavy drinker and my grandma called CPS they came and interviewed me they asked 3 questions
Do you have access to food when you are hungry?
Do you have access to shelter
Any physical/sexual abuse

Because my answer was I had shelter, food and i was not beaten or sexually abused the case was closed. It didn't matter that my dad drank all the time because it wasn't enough to remove me from the home. My grandparents tried so hard to get me from my dads care and it was always the same I wasn't being abused therefore I wasn't removed from the home.Not saying I agree but just saying its not enough. I am not sure if this vary s by state, county or whatever but where I lived they just opened and after 90 days closed the case. I talked to them one time and my dad spoke to them once. He even admitted he drank so it wasn't like they thought it was a lie, he might not have told them how often, but he did say he drank more then 3 times a week at home and that he was the only one taking care of me. They didn't consider it neglect or abuse, they just didn't really even seem to care.

amydew51
11-01-2011, 09:44 PM
And my husband has come home drunk after a night out with the boys (after getting a ride home) and left his house keys in the door. So anyone would have access to our house and children. But he is a good dad otherwise, and that is not grounds for taking our children away.

gwenabob
11-01-2011, 09:51 PM
IMO, it is right that CPS is cautious about removing children from their parents. Regardless of what some may think, there are no perfect parents, every single one makes mistakes; some of those mistakes could have serious repercussions, but by the grace of God, didn't.

I'm not sure how the foster system worked for you, Not_My, but for the vast majority of people I've talked with, it didn't work out so well. Taking children away from their family is huge; it's not to be taken lightly by any means. And those that are advocating for it should be well aware of the situation they may be putting those children in before screaming too loudly for that action.

:twocents:

To use your post as a diving board:

Just because a child is removed from the custody of their mother does not necessarily equal foster care. JI's son can certainly stay with him as long as DB is not the sole caretaker. DB's son can certainly go live with other family members until DB can get her act together and get some reality based alcohol education and treatment. I think all children deserve a home with attentive parents who are not crippled with substance abuse, but foster care should be the last resort.

Pensfan
11-01-2011, 09:52 PM
Simply stated, they don't have enough. I know that offends a lot of people, but it is what it is. If they jump the gun, or treat them more aggressively than the standard dictates, they can be sued for damages.


Respectfully shortened-
I spend several hours/week answering medical questions and locating medical information/documentation for those falsely accused of child abuse/neglect by CPS. Many of these individuals desperately want to sue CPS. Finding an attorney that will agree to take such a case and sue CPS is very difficult even in areas with well known CPS corruption. Society has been indoctrinated that CPS is a group of "child saviors" and attorneys do not want the reputation of suing "child saviors" and financially harming the county that employed the caseworker.

MagnoliaMom
11-01-2011, 09:54 PM
The woman drinking with DB didn't black out. She took her daughter home. None of her children were "kidnapped" in the night either.

We really don't know that she didn't black out do we? I had a friend who didn't remember driving someone home all the way across town. If someone can drive in a black out surely they can walk. Not saying she did just that we don't really know.

Marple
11-01-2011, 09:58 PM
I don't think CPS needs to remove the children from their parents in this case. Haven't they been through enough? CPS will most certainly investigate this situation when the time is right but now is not the time. I believe the children are secure and safe for now.

MOO

gliving
11-01-2011, 10:09 PM
Rowen Ford of Stella MO was hotlined to DFS as an endangered child more than once and she was never removed.

DFS is swamped with children in need. They aren't going to remove children from the home because mommy likes to get her buzz on drinking wine, even to the point of drunkenness.

flipflop
11-01-2011, 10:28 PM
To the commenter that stated (maybe tongue in cheek), that parents who take nyquil for a cold or are heavy sleepers don't have their kids taken away...
well you are wrong...
I'm a heavy sleeper and was home alone with my kids, one teething horribly (I hadn't had more than 4 hours of sleep in one night in a week) and he was sleeping on my chest and my 5 yr old special needs son left our home in the middle of the night, I didn't hear a dang thing until the police woke me up....
My children were removed from the home for failure to supervise....
So yes sometimes kids get removed because a parent is a heavy sleeper and is suffering from exhaustion...
I really feel there is sufficient evidence to open an investigation into JI and DB..
MOO

Not sure about CPS in your area, but where I live if the police found a child wondering and returned them to their home, they would only call CPS if they found unsafe conditions or observed abuse or signs of abuse. I have heard on the news of several cases where a child is found wondering in the streets at night alone. When police return them, they wake parents up - who had no idea the child left the home. It is at this time that police would call in CPS if they felt the child was unsafe due to conditions of the home or abuse. If CPS everywhere took children away from heavy sleeping parents....the system would be flooded. Children who are mildly physically abused do not get taken away, so IMO I don't feel CPS would even look at heavy sleeping parents JMO

CHICANA
11-01-2011, 10:34 PM
1. drinking to a stage of black out drunk.
2. admitting to drinking 2-3 times per week
3. not locking front door
4. not closing window
5. putting a sick child to bed at 6:40 PM, checking on her once, and not remembering to check on her again.
6. 10 month old child kidnapped from home

Each one individually doesn't warrant removal. However, combined, adds up to much more than reasonable removal IMHO. Add to that a child kidnapped (by the parents account) from the home during this time increases the reasonibility factor. I would expect simple safety measures to be applied while caring for your children (ie, locking door and windows).

My opinion only. Thank you.

Mel

Plenty of guys come home from work & knock back a couple of beers a few times a week without putting their kids at risk. IDK about the door being unlocked, I check & double check the doors every night, but if the next morning I found one unlocked, I would certainly have doubts about my diligence. The older I get, the more I forget. I've only been really drunk a few times in my many moons, I wish I could have blacked out. After a couple of hours I was worshipping the porcelain goddess. Would a box of wine drunk over a period of 4-5 hours get two people that drunk ?

CHICANA
11-01-2011, 10:52 PM
CPS takes children out of homes before allegations are "proven" all the time. They can't just leave endangered children in an abusive home until the case goes through the court system. That would never work. Just wanted to point that out.

There's supposed to be evidence to support the allegations. I fully believe CPS violates the law all the time by removing children without evidence, that's why it's so important that Lisa's parents have legal representation.

MOO

vlpate
11-01-2011, 10:54 PM
And my husband has come home drunk after a night out with the boys (after getting a ride home) and left his house keys in the door. So anyone would have access to our house and children. But he is a good dad otherwise, and that is not grounds for taking our children away.

Not the same thing. Put your husband in the same scenario - sick infant and 2 children under the age of 7 in his care. He gets drunk, blacks out, baby's missing.....nope, not the same thing.

CHICANA
11-01-2011, 10:55 PM
Rowen Ford of Stella MO was hotlined to DFS as an endangered child more than once and she was never removed.

DFS is swamped with children in need. They aren't going to remove children from the home because mommy likes to get her buzz on drinking wine, even to the point of drunkenness.

I really think they would try in this case on behalf of LE, IF the parents didn't have a good attorney.

amydew51
11-01-2011, 10:57 PM
Not the same thing. Put your husband in the same scenario - sick infant and 2 children under the age of 7 in his care. He gets drunk, blacks out, baby's missing.....nope, not the same thing.

I'm not saying it's the same thing. I am just saying that we have left the door unlocked, I am a heavy sleeper, there are 2 children in our home, he is drunk, etc. Someone could have stolen our children.

gwenabob
11-01-2011, 10:59 PM
There's supposed to be evidence to support the allegations. I fully believe CPS violates the law all the time by removing children without evidence, that's why it's so important that Lisa's parents have legal representation.

MOO

I was responding to someone who said they couldn't remove children until something is "proven." Yes, there should definitely be evidence before CPS removes children. Evidence does not equal Proof.

Abby Normal
11-01-2011, 11:00 PM
Respectfully shortened-
I spend several hours/week answering medical questions and locating medical information/documentation for those falsely accused of child abuse/neglect by CPS. Many of these individuals desperately want to sue CPS. Finding an attorney that will agree to take such a case and sue CPS is very difficult even in areas with well known CPS corruption. Society has been indoctrinated that CPS is a group of "child saviors" and attorneys do not want the reputation of suing "child saviors" and financially harming the county that employed the caseworker.
absolutely 100% agreed. I just think that with DB, JT, wealthy benefactor she may have more exposure to some more influential resources now because of how everything has evolved.

But you're absolutely right.

ETA- I have HUGE issues with DHS. Please don't ever think that I am blind to the mess that exists. I get it. Half of the homes I went in to were couples in it for the check, and were worse than my bio home. I work with them because I can't not work with them. CASA is a huge part of my life, both for getting kids home when they should be and getting them out when they should be. I tolerate DHS, I don't adore them.

CHICANA
11-01-2011, 11:01 PM
Not the same thing. Put your husband in the same scenario - sick infant and 2 children under the age of 7 in his care. He gets drunk, blacks out, baby's missing.....nope, not the same thing.

She just had a cold, right ? Sounds like she was coherent enough to get the kids in bed at a reasonable hour. If she was a true partier, she wouldn't have stopped at 10:30.The 6:40 bedtime for Lisa bothers me though. I don't see anything wrong with putting the kids to bed and having a few glasses of wine.

Abby Normal
11-01-2011, 11:01 PM
Rowen Ford of Stella MO was hotlined to DFS as an endangered child more than once and she was never removed.

DFS is swamped with children in need. They aren't going to remove children from the home because mommy likes to get her buzz on drinking wine, even to the point of drunkenness.

I have worked closely to this topic in 4 states. In this region (MO & surrounding) we are especially hit hard right now with a very large meth problem. The children in these homes are among the most dire cases I've ever experienced. And we are swamped.

vlpate
11-01-2011, 11:15 PM
There's supposed to be evidence to support the allegations. I fully believe CPS violates the law all the time by removing children without evidence, that's why it's so important that Lisa's parents have legal representation.

MOO
This statement is patently false. CPS does not have the manpower, the time, nor the facilities to take children, without reason, from homes without any sort of evidence. Does it happen? Yes, but "all the time" is an overstatement. I would rather err on the side of caution in child abuse cases. More often than not, CPS fails to take children from homes where the child(ren) end up dead.

Lisa blacked out, she left three children in harm's way. One didn't make it to the next morning. Has it occurred to the poster that those two children may know something? They may have witnessed something and they may be afraid. If so, they need to be removed until a complete investigation has taken place, and that includes LE representatives speaking with them.

What if one of the family is involved and the boys are afraid they are next. The boys were there that night and they weren't drunk - there's a good possibility they saw or heard something.

vlpate
11-01-2011, 11:19 PM
She just had a cold, right ? Sounds like she was coherent enough to get the kids in bed at a reasonable hour. If she was a true partier, she wouldn't have stopped at 10:30.The 6:40 bedtime for Lisa bothers me though. I don't see anything wrong with putting the kids to bed and having a few glasses of wine.

A true partier would have put Lisa to bed at 6:40 so she could get the party started. As far as going to bed herself at 10:30, we don't know that - even Deborah doesn't know that. The neighbor said the lights went off....well, we all know, at some point, they came back on.

A few glasses of wine is fine....blacking out drunk, not so much.

amydew51
11-01-2011, 11:30 PM
I actually think the 6:40 bedtime is common and signals a good mom. I at first thought DB put her to bed at 10:30 and thought poorly of that. I have read many sleep books and an early bedtime is best especially if they don't take a late afternoon nap. My 7 month old and many of my friends babies go to bed this early.

gwenabob
11-01-2011, 11:37 PM
Personally, I don't care what time a baby goes to bed as long as it gets enough sleep. I used to keep my babies up until 11 or 12, then let them sleep until noon. What difference does it make which hours they sleep as long as there are enough hours slept? I am a night owl, and hate getting up early. So I allowed the kids to sleep my hours until they started school. Everyone was happy.

Abby Normal
11-01-2011, 11:42 PM
The latest from sleep experts is that early bedtimes create better sleep habits. This sort of bedtime is becoming common among those who read studies and expert opinions. At her age my kids went to bed when they began showing signs (rubbing eyes, etc) which was usually around 7. They are big now (all over 7) and still go down somewhere between 7:30-8:30 depending on the night/activities. Summer we stay up later now that they are big and aware that all the other kids still get to be outside ;)

I truly believe that all the developments so important to children are more easily acquired with proper sleep and nutrition.

Abby Normal
11-01-2011, 11:45 PM
Personally, I don't care what time a baby goes to bed as long as it gets enough sleep. I used to keep my babies up until 11 or 12, then let them sleep until noon. What difference does it make which hours they sleep as long as there are enough hours slept? I am a night owl, and hate getting up early. So I allowed the kids to sleep my hours until they started school. Everyone was happy.

yes, obviously it's about quantity, quality and routine of sleep and not hours. We just have school to insist we get all the sleep we need by 6:30am. haha. Before that we didn't, but they just seemed at their best "peak" for good sleep at around that time. Who knows.

I think I just mean that 6:40 can be common depending on your circles.

gwenabob
11-01-2011, 11:50 PM
I certainly believe in proper sleep and nutrition. I just disagree that "good mothers" put their children down at 7 and get up at 6 am and "bad mothers" allow their babies to sleep the same number of hours, but on a different schedule. I think the main thing is "enough" sleep.

FWIW, two of my children are grown and nearly completed with their college degrees, hold jobs, and have families of their own and aren't damaged at all by their parents' lack of enforcement for bedtimes. They always put themselves down when they were tired and got up on time. I let them self-regulate their bedtimes and they did just fine. There was never a struggle. If they were grouchy the next morning, we would discuss what they could do differently that night so they wouldn't feel grouchy the next morning. It worked. My last daughter is a night owl like me, but gets herself up for school on her own every morning. I, on the other hand, have to drag myself out of bed and am still a grouch for the first 3 hours I'm up. I think people are just born night owls or morning larks and you can't program that out any more than you can force a lefty to be a righty. They might do it, but their brain won't like it at all. JMO and all kids are different.

CHICANA
11-01-2011, 11:54 PM
This statement is patently false. CPS does not have the manpower, the time, nor the facilities to take children, without reason, from homes without any sort of evidence. Does it happen? Yes, but "all the time" is an overstatement. I would rather err on the side of caution in child abuse cases. More often than not, CPS fails to take children from homes where the child(ren) end up dead.

Lisa blacked out, she left three children in harm's way. One didn't make it to the next morning. Has it occurred to the poster that those two children may know something? They may have witnessed something and they may be afraid. If so, they need to be removed until a complete investigation has taken place, and that includes LE representatives speaking with them.

What if one of the family is involved and the boys are afraid they are next. The boys were there that night and they weren't drunk - there's a good possibility they saw or heard something.

It happens too often and workers, erring on the side of caution give children to couple's like the Barahona's or the foster parents of Marcus Feisel. If only children were really safer in foster care. IMO, an investigation needs to be done before taking a child from their home. Isn't it illegal to take a child based on an unfounded (uninvestigated) accusation that can be made anonymously by anybody ? They questioned the boys right after this happened, if they had said anything indicating they were afraid for their lives or at risk, they should have done something then. Another thing that many people don't know is that you don't have to cooperate with CPS. You don't have to let them in your house to find out the fridge is empty because you haven't made it to the store or the house is a mess because you've been caring for a sick baby who currently has snot running down her nose. You don't have to talk to them. You can show them that your child is safe from your doorway, tell them they should check out whoever is making false allegations against you and politely tell them that you are only exerting your fourth amendment right against illegal search and seizure. That right does apply to CPS cases.

Abby Normal
11-02-2011, 12:02 AM
Gwenabob, I agree 100% with your thoughts on self regulating, as odd as that may sound considering we keep a steady routine. Bedtime has never been a battle for us either. The kids LIKE bedtime, because they LIKE sleep. From my posting habits, it's clear they do not get that from me! I always just watched for sleep signs, bedtime was early but child-led.

Totally off topic, but I wasn't ever meaning to imply that early is the only good way, just that it isn't a bad way :)

CHICANA
11-02-2011, 12:10 AM
The latest from sleep experts is that early bedtimes create better sleep habits. This sort of bedtime is becoming common among those who read studies and expert opinions. At her age my kids went to bed when they began showing signs (rubbing eyes, etc) which was usually around 7. They are big now (all over 7) and still go down somewhere between 7:30-8:30 depending on the night/activities. Summer we stay up later now that they are big and aware that all the other kids still get to be outside ;)

I truly believe that all the developments so important to children are more easily acquired with proper sleep and nutrition.

I agree with the experts and yet I'm still up & setting a horrible example for my children. My almost 12 year old son was on a halloween sugar high & was up talking to me til 1 AM on a school night ! Every time I told him to go to bed, he'd have one more thing to say. I just went with it since I know one day soon, talking to his mom won't rank very high on his list. I don't know what Lisa's schedule was, but my kids never went to bed that early. They also slept in my room til they were 3-4 years old so I really don't have a lot of room to talk about proper parenting.

liz b.
11-02-2011, 12:14 AM
I was a foster parent for many years,in a few different states. As of right now, most states are almost broke, and CPS has had budget cuts in almost every state... it is my understanding that at this time CPS is overwhelmed with cases of severe child abuse and neglect. I mean children who are abandoned,starved and/or beaten on a regular basis.

The two boys did not appear to be abused. In fact, at the very beginning of the case, a local who saw the family ouside in their yard a lot, commented on how well cared for the children seemed to be.

The two little boys have to be so traumatized by the events surrounding their sister's disappearance. Why send them to be with strangers,however well meaning they might be ? MOO

ynotdivein
11-02-2011, 12:51 AM
Idealist that I am, I want this thread to survive. So I am bumping these two posts as a final reminder. Thread closure and individual TO's are the next available options. Where this post falls is random.


This thread will ONLY work as long as we don't get into bashing one another for our beliefs, avoid name-calling and assumptions (about case players, and about one another), and focus the conversation on understanding how CPS works in MO and how that interfaces with this case.

I think we can do that. Please help prove me right.

Where this post lands is random.


We're doing ok in here so far... I'd like to hear more from some of our posters who have worked in the CPS system in MO or other states, or had other experiences with these agencies.

Also, recognizing that this topic is pretty emotional, remember that keeping "you" and "I" out of posts will help keep the conversation to the facts as we know them and reduce the chance of posters getting into personal confrontations here. Which is a good thing. Because while we might disagree on small matters, we all agree on one thing: bringing Baby Lisa home.

Where this post falls is random, and :tyou:

CHICANA
11-02-2011, 01:08 AM
I experienced Jackson County's CPS when I had an issue with my teenaged daughter and it's something I wouldn't wish on anybody.

captivagrl
11-02-2011, 01:28 AM
I was a foster parent for many years,in a few different states. As of right now, most states are almost broke, and CPS has had budget cuts in almost every state... it is my understanding that at this time CPS is overwhelmed with cases of severe child abuse and neglect. I mean children who are abandoned,starved and/or beaten on a regular basis.

The two boys did not appear to be abused. In fact, at the very beginning of the case, a local who saw the family ouside in their yard a lot, commented on how well cared for the children seemed to be.

The two little boys have to be so traumatized by the events surrounding their sister's disappearance. Why send them to be with strangers,however well meaning they might be ? MOO

Budget cuts are in full swing here in FL. In my experience, from a Guardian ad Litem stand point, removing children from a parent's legal custody for a time rarely means foster care. Usually a family member or friend can provide suitable placement for the child(ren). Unfortunately in some cases no one on the parent's list can pass a general home study or background test.

Btw, not saying these children should be removed. Just thinking that a case should have been opened and investigated given Mom's statements, IMO. I believe it's in the best interest of all three children in the home.

CanManEh
11-02-2011, 01:31 AM
Why would they step in and take the children away .Just because the parents aren't talking to the police and your frustrated thats why u take children away from the parents now adays .Everyone is feeling the same way we wanna bring lisa home but as of right now the parents have not done anything wrong to have them taken from them is she not allowed to have a few drinks on the patio . why not take the neibhours kids away too she was on the deck with her drinking that night how do we know her husband doesn't work a night shift job and her kids were also home alone god forbid she were to have a few drinks on a patio . What a joke. and not funny haha kinda joke either .

Abby Normal
11-02-2011, 01:32 AM
Sorry if I said/did anything rude. Trying to be polite :)

MO guideline for children at meth labs
http://www.mjja.org/images/publications/MOguidelines_sm.pdf
First assess need for medical problems from chemical exposure, assess need for decontamination (yes, the child), child to safe place, then start collecting evidence of exposure to chemicals, drugs, abuse, neglect, availability of food, etc.

I know this is pretty much the bottom of the bottom, but I'm just trying to exemplify how "imminent danger" often actually means "imminent danger". If there isn't such a determination, then usually cases are opened and parents are worked with without removal of children whenever possible. And frankly, I believe that is more times than not the right decision.

IMO if LE had evidence they are in danger, they would remove them. We may feel like we have enough information, but they ultimately have way more information and way more experience to make the call. JMO.

Abby Normal
11-02-2011, 01:39 AM
Budget cuts are in full swing here in FL. In my experience, from a Guardian ad Litem stand point, removing children from a parent's legal custody for a time rarely means foster care. Usually a family member or friend can provide suitable placement for the child(ren). Unfortunately in some cases no one on the parent's list can pass a general home study or background test.

Btw, not saying these children should be removed. Just thinking that a case should have been opened and investigated given Mom's statements, IMO. I believe it's in the best interest of all three children in the home.

Here they are usually removed and placed in temporary foster care while a familial home is sought. Background checks, etc. Unfortunately, many kids don't have anyone step up to the plate to work for them.

I would respectfully disagree that it "rarely" means foster care. But that is just based on my experience. I would say it doesn't always mean foster care. When there is an involved, loving, extended family I would agree. Unfortunately dysfunction often breeds dysfunction.

gwenabob
11-02-2011, 01:48 AM
I agree with the experts and yet I'm still up & setting a horrible example for my children. My almost 12 year old son was on a halloween sugar high & was up talking to me til 1 AM on a school night ! Every time I told him to go to bed, he'd have one more thing to say. I just went with it since I know one day soon, talking to his mom won't rank very high on his list. I don't know what Lisa's schedule was, but my kids never went to bed that early. They also slept in my room til they were 3-4 years old so I really don't have a lot of room to talk about proper parenting.

bbm

I have a lot to say on the subject of "family beds" as well, and I think the current research would say that allowing young children to sleep with their parents is NOT improper parenting. Most human cultures consider it completely normal and expected. But I don't want to go all OT.

captivagrl
11-02-2011, 01:51 AM
Here they are usually removed and placed in temporary foster care while a familial home is sought. Background checks, etc. Unfortunately, many kids don't have anyone step up to the plate to work for them.

I would respectfully disagree that it "rarely" means foster care. But that is just based on my experience. I would say it doesn't always mean foster care. When there is an involved, loving, extended family I would agree. Unfortunately dysfunction often breeds dysfunction.

I have limited experience. Thank you for your input. I guess just reading through the threads in this case it seams that some believe that: allegations are made, children are removed from parents, children are placed in foster care, and it's a bad situation. Just trying to convey that child services tries to help children and in most cases children aren't pulled from homes. The goal in cases is usually reunification with parents.

EarlyT79
11-02-2011, 02:55 AM
I haven't read anything about where the children are staying at this time. Is there a possibility the boys are with other family members? Maybe the children are in a safe loving environment and CPS doesn't want the children subjected to any more stress.

BritsKate
11-02-2011, 04:48 AM
Indeed. I would be one of them. My father was an alcoholic, he was alone with myself and my 4 siblings on a regular basis while drunk.

Respectfully, my OPINION is that people who are saying that the other children need to be removed because of this drinking incident are those that feel DB is guilty as sin, and she either hid Lisa's body after an accident or killed her or something along those lines. Anyone who feels this way will find justification in their own mind for CPS involvement.

My opinion only.

I'm not caught up on this thread but wanted to ask, out of curiosity, do you feel as though you and your 4 siblings should have been removed from the home?

I'm an ACOA as well (post regarding on another thread) and can say unequivocally I and my sibs should have been removed from our home. With the 'blackout drunk' adult time came a lot of fear, uncertainty, chaos, and unintended neglect. By the time I was the age of the elder son I was responsible for making dinner, doing laundry, ironing and cleaning for my parents. I was forced to parent my parents...because they were incapacitated and unable to care for themselves let alone their children.

It was a family secret no one was allowed to discuss - ever. The one time I tried to reach out I was nine and begged the paramedics to take my mother to the hospital. I was told, when she'd regained consciousness and refused treatment, that there was nothing they could do. Teachers suspected, neighbors were aware, family members colluded but it was different times and long before an emphasis on mental well being of children.

I'm by no means a perfect parent and have made loads of my own mistakes but I would never, could never, allow my kids to go through what I went through. I don't know if DB is an alcoholic but if she is drinking to 'blackout status' several times a week my warning is that a lot of other things come with it...it isn't a parent relaxing and enjoying a couple of glasses of wine...it's forcing children to become caretakers, setting the stage for a potential accident that a parent would be incapable of handling, and possible (if unintended) emotional and psychological neglect and abuse. A lowering of inhibitions opens the doors for all sorts.

Living with an alcoholic parent is akin to riding a roller coaster you just cannot wait to get off...yet every time it slows and you think you might it just picks up speed again.

Based solely on my experiences I do feel an investigation is warranted if her claims of drinking to blackout status are indeed accurate. I am not saying the boys should be removed unless an investigation turns up more. I do feel given the circumstances involved they need whatever normalcy and continuity is available. I just think so much more is possible when you have a parent who is repeatedly incapacitated. It at least warrants a 'look at' IMO.

vlpate
11-02-2011, 07:44 AM
I'm not caught up on this thread but wanted to ask, out of curiosity, do you feel as though you and your 4 siblings should have been removed from the home?

I'm an ACOA as well (post regarding on another thread) and can say unequivocally I and my sibs should have been removed from our home. With the 'blackout drunk' adult time came a lot of fear, uncertainty, chaos, and unintended neglect. By the time I was the age of the elder son I was responsible for making dinner, doing laundry, ironing and cleaning for my parents. I was forced to parent my parents...because they were incapacitated and unable to care for themselves let alone their children.

It was a family secret no one was allowed to discuss - ever. The one time I tried to reach out I was nine and begged the paramedics to take my mother to the hospital. I was told, when she'd regained consciousness and refused treatment, that there was nothing they could do. Teachers suspected, neighbors were aware, family members colluded but it was different times and long before an emphasis on mental well being of children.

I'm by no means a perfect parent and have made loads of my own mistakes but I would never, could never, allow my kids to go through what I went through. I don't know if DB is an alcoholic but if she is drinking to 'blackout status' several times a week my warning is that a lot of other things come with it...it isn't a parent relaxing and enjoying a couple of glasses of wine...it's forcing children to become caretakers, setting the stage for a potential accident that a parent would be incapable of handling, and possible (if unintended) emotional and psychological neglect and abuse. A lowering of inhibitions opens the doors for all sorts.

Living with an alcoholic parent is akin to riding a roller coaster you just cannot wait to get off...yet every time it slows and you think you might it just picks up speed again.

Based solely on my experiences I do feel an investigation is warranted if her claims of drinking to blackout status are indeed accurate. I am not saying the boys should be removed unless an investigation turns up more. I do feel given the circumstances involved they need whatever normalcy and continuity is available. I just think so much more is possible when you have a parent who is repeatedly incapacitated. It at least warrants a 'look at' IMO.
Excellent post and thank you for sharing. I'm not saying DB is an alcoholic, and I'm not saying the kids should be moved to Alcatraz - I just think maybe they should be gently asked if they are ok - taken to a relative until things are sorted out.

There are indications a dead body was by their mother's bed - that should be cleared up.

Abby Normal
11-02-2011, 08:59 AM
Excellent post and thank you for sharing. I'm not saying DB is an alcoholic, and I'm not saying the kids should be moved to Alcatraz - I just think maybe they should be gently asked if they are ok - taken to a relative until things are sorted out.

There are indications a dead body was by their mother's bed - that should be cleared up.

IMO, opposed to the drinking, that's the big ticket item here.

For all we know it has been cleared up. They went in for 17 hours, so if there was any validity to that finding, I have no doubt they know. we just have no way of knowing just yet.

But if she is found to have harmed Lisa or contributed to her being harmed, that is the point at which there will be more to work with. And FBI and LE are working tirelessly to get to the bottom of that.

cityslick
11-02-2011, 09:05 AM
Excellent post and thank you for sharing. I'm not saying DB is an alcoholic, and I'm not saying the kids should be moved to Alcatraz - I just think maybe they should be gently asked if they are ok - taken to a relative until things are sorted out.

There are indications a dead body was by their mother's bed - that should be cleared up.

Haven't read the whole thread, but IMO in most cases it's more traumatic to remove the children from the parents then not. I hear stories all the time where CPS steps in and takes kids away (in many cases where it's warranted) and the kids are flipping out, screaming and crying. I think CPS (and LE for that matter) try to do everything in their power to avoid that situation and in their mind, taking children out of the home is a last resort option. The main question I think CPS asks is 'Are the children being endangered'? At this point in time, I don't think you can answer yes to that question, no matter how you feel about DB.

You bring up the dead body 'hit' but the fact the matter is we are almost approaching a month and LE has not moved on that circumstance yet. I think because it's still (among other things) unresolved, you can't jump to the end result of 'get the kids out of there' yet.

CHICANA
11-02-2011, 01:31 PM
bbm

I have a lot to say on the subject of "family beds" as well, and I think the current research would say that allowing young children to sleep with their parents is NOT improper parenting. Most human cultures consider it completely normal and expected. But I don't want to go all OT.

For the first several months or so they slept in a bassinet right next to me, I mean touching the edge of my bed. When they were too big for that, and mobile enough that I wasn't afraid I'd roll over and suffocate them they slept with us. My youngest are only 1-1/2 yrs apart so we had two sleeping with us. My best friend's baby died of SIDS at 4 months and that funeral was the worst experience of my life, I wanted my babies close. I don't think I slept soundly the first six months after they were born.
I'll get back on topic now...

linda505
11-02-2011, 02:34 PM
I think CPS is not taking the boys because they do not think the boys are currently in any danger and that removing them would do more harm than good. Just think - these poor little guys believe that someone took their sister and now imagine if someone came and "took" them. Unbelievably tramatic for them.

melissasmom
11-02-2011, 02:39 PM
[QUOTE=BritsKate;7309854]I'm not caught up on this thread but wanted to ask, out of curiosity, do you feel as though you and your 4 siblings should have been removed from the home?

I snipped this for space reasons.

I guess myself personally, no, I definitely do not feel that we should have been removed from our home. I know some people would be aghast at that as my father was pretty much drunk about 50% of the time he was not at work. But I have always felt that my childhood was fine, alcoholic father aside. He wasnt like a mean drunk or anything, and my siblings and I had SO much fun with our dad. He was a good dad-he played games with us, took us places, actually talked to us about our hopes and dreams, etc. Yes I do recall a few times that he passed out, but Im pretty sure that my mom was home those times. No he shouldnt have been drinking so much, but I have nothing but good memories of my daddy. I think we would have been traumatized if we had been taken away.

I am SO sorry about your experience. I have been to some ACOA meetings with my mom(her father was also an alcoholic)and yes, substance abuse can destroy families, and does every day. It is heatbreaking. I have heard too many stories similar to yours. People in that state should not be caring for children.

I just think that unless we know all the details of how much DB drinks, does she leave the children unattended, have black outs, etc., I don't think it is for us to say that those children do not belong with their parents.

4Jacy
11-02-2011, 02:46 PM
Why would they step in and take the children away .Just because the parents aren't talking to the police and your frustrated thats why u take children away from the parents now adays .Everyone is feeling the same way we wanna bring lisa home but as of right now the parents have not done anything wrong to have them taken from them is she not allowed to have a few drinks on the patio . why not take the neibhours kids away too she was on the deck with her drinking that night how do we know her husband doesn't work a night shift job and her kids were also home alone god forbid she were to have a few drinks on a patio . What a joke. and not funny haha kinda joke either .

Because DB is Lisa's mother, because DB is the adult, because DB should be responsible for all children in her care. Because DB didn't check on that baby since 6:30 PM.

colie077
11-02-2011, 03:15 PM
:twocents:I know each state is different but where I live (TX), there was a situation recently with my step son's mom and step dad where someone told CPS that they were possibly selling prescription drugs out of there home, and they took both the boys away. They are now with us. My point is, CPS didn't have to prove anything, there was never any proof that they were actually doing what they were accused of at all and they still took them, and fast at that.

RANCH
11-02-2011, 03:24 PM
:twocents:I know each state is different but where I live (TX), there was a situation recently with my step son's mom and step dad where someone told CPS that they were possibly selling prescription drugs out of there home, and they took both the boys away. They are now with us. My point is, CPS didn't have to prove anything, there was never any proof that they were actually doing what they were accused of at all and they still took them, and fast at that.

Wow. That's scary. So if someone calls CPS and says your doing something illegal, they will come and take the children from you also? Seems like if someone has it out for a particular family they can cause all sorts of grief.

colie077
11-02-2011, 03:33 PM
Wow. That's scary. So if someone calls CPS and says your doing something illegal, they will come and take the children from you also? Seems like if someone has it out for a particular family they can cause all sorts of grief.

I can only speak for our certain situation, but yes, that is what happened. They actually think that an estranged friend of hers is the one that called. I don't know if they were doing anything or not, I would like to think not. But, we ended up with the boys and have had them for 1 year. Of course, when we ended up in court a few more things had happened with the mom by then.

TorisMom003
11-02-2011, 03:40 PM
A few things that I have seen mentioned in this thread that I feel should be cleared up and not be viewed as fact since we do not know if they are fact or not.

1. We only have JIs word that the lights were left on and the front door left unlocked that night when he came home.

2. We do not know if DB blacked out or not that night as she has said that it is possible, not that it did happen.

3. DB was drinking that night (for those that insist, she said she was drunk) and had expected JI to be home around 10:30 pm, instead he works later and doesn't make it home until around 3:30 almost 4 am. DB could have expected the children's other parent to be home alot earlier than he was and therefor she saw nothing wrong with drinking some wine with a friend. This does not excuse her actions but IMO they are not prison worthy nor are they worthy of having her other child taken away.

I also would ask a question for anyone that has major problems with DBs actions that night. Has anyone ever gone out to a party or a club for say New Year's Eve while their children were at home with a sitter? What happened when arriving home? Did the sitter stay the night to take care of the children? Did the sitter go home and leave the parents, that had been drinking, to take care of their own children? Is this action more honorable or right than what DB did?

Personally I am very thankful that CPS or whatever the intials are in each state do not have the power to just remove children from a home without proof of neglect or abuse. If they were able to then many, many parents would loose their children. The boys are with their parents and will only be removed if and when CPS feels a need to do so. For the public to make demands that the children be removed in this situation, one that we do not have all of the facts, is akin to a witch hunt IMO and thank goodness that I am not in the public eye so that perfect strangers can judge me on my parenting skills and decide that I am a parent who needs to have my children taken away from me.

MOO

EllaMae
11-02-2011, 04:01 PM
A few things that I have seen mentioned in this thread that I feel should be cleared up and not be viewed as fact since we do not know if they are fact or not.

1. We only have JIs word that the lights were left on and the front door left unlocked that night when he came home.

2. We do not know if DB blacked out or not that night as she has said that it is possible, not that it did happen.

3. DB was drinking that night (for those that insist, she said she was drunk) and had expected JI to be home around 10:30 pm, instead he works later and doesn't make it home until around 3:30 almost 4 am. DB could have expected the children's other parent to be home alot earlier than he was and therefor she saw nothing wrong with drinking some wine with a friend. This does not excuse her actions but IMO they are not prison worthy nor are they worthy of having her other child taken away.

I also would ask a question for anyone that has major problems with DBs actions that night. Has anyone ever gone out to a party or a club for say New Year's Eve while their children were at home with a sitter? What happened when arriving home? Did the sitter stay the night to take care of the children? Did the sitter go home and leave the parents, that had been drinking, to take care of their own children? Is this action more honorable or right than what DB did?

Personally I am very thankful that CPS or whatever the intials are in each state do not have the power to just remove children from a home without proof of neglect or abuse. If they were able to then many, many parents would loose their children. The boys are with their parents and will only be removed if and when CPS feels a need to do so. For the public to make demands that the children be removed in this situation, one that we do not have all of the facts, is akin to a witch hunt IMO and thank goodness that I am not in the public eye so that perfect strangers can judge me on my parenting skills and decide that I am a parent who needs to have my children taken away from me.

MOO




I agree 100%. There is a little bit of a lynch mob mentality going on based on a lot of rumors and unproven tidbits being repeated as facts.

I think this thread is very premature. The boys are in no danger, and they don't need any more upheaval in their lives than they have experienced already.

EllaMae
11-02-2011, 04:10 PM
I would think, I would hope, that the bio dad of DB's son would be attempting to get custody. But, that's in my perfect world fantasy where all parents love and care for their children....


Since the bio Dad is deployed.....that might be a little hard to do.

And just because SB is serving his country, it does not mean he does not love his son. That's a very unfair statement to make, and it's a little insulting to those who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other hot spots around the world. Military parents can love their children as much as civilian parents, even when deployed.

deoneta
11-02-2011, 04:29 PM
I can't speak to CPS being overwhelmed with a huge workload, of dealing with situations much more dire than a parent drinking to excess, the lack of suitable foster homes or the snares of red tape an investigation or removal might entail. I don't have that information although I suspect that if MO is like most states, all of that might factor in. I do know that nobody liked to party more than my husband and me. When I was ready to have a baby, all that stopped. We were both terrified that our little girl would get sick, need to be rushed to the hospital, a fire could break out, a break in could occur, and we wanted to be alert to any signs of illness, prepared to drive her to the ER or react quickly and intelligently to any accident or emergency. Our daughter is twenty now and we still feel the same. What if she ends up with someone who's too impaired to drive or gets pressured to do something she doesn't want to do and has no way home, or has car trouble and is stranded on the side of the road somewhere? Maybe we are obsessive, and I guess am guilty of being judgemental, but I think getting black out drunk when you are the sole caretaker of three small children is irresponsible and neglectful no matter how common it may be or how long the odds are that an emergency situation will arise. All MOO.

Cheewawa007
11-02-2011, 04:48 PM
A few things that I have seen mentioned in this thread that I feel should be cleared up and not be viewed as fact since we do not know if they are fact or not.

1. We only have JIs word that the lights were left on and the front door left unlocked that night when he came home.

2. We do not know if DB blacked out or not that night as she has said that it is possible, not that it did happen.

3. DB was drinking that night (for those that insist, she said she was drunk) and had expected JI to be home around 10:30 pm, instead he works later and doesn't make it home until around 3:30 almost 4 am. DB could have expected the children's other parent to be home alot earlier than he was and therefor she saw nothing wrong with drinking some wine with a friend. This does not excuse her actions but IMO they are not prison worthy nor are they worthy of having her other child taken away.

I also would ask a question for anyone that has major problems with DBs actions that night. Has anyone ever gone out to a party or a club for say New Year's Eve while their children were at home with a sitter? What happened when arriving home? Did the sitter stay the night to take care of the children? Did the sitter go home and leave the parents, that had been drinking, to take care of their own children? Is this action more honorable or right than what DB did?

Personally I am very thankful that CPS or whatever the intials are in each state do not have the power to just remove children from a home without proof of neglect or abuse. If they were able to then many, many parents would loose their children. The boys are with their parents and will only be removed if and when CPS feels a need to do so. For the public to make demands that the children be removed in this situation, one that we do not have all of the facts, is akin to a witch hunt IMO and thank goodness that I am not in the public eye so that perfect strangers can judge me on my parenting skills and decide that I am a parent who needs to have my children taken away from me.

MOO

YOU GO GIRL!!!!!!!!!:rocker::rocker:

belleyes
11-08-2011, 06:46 PM
This subject is very near and dear to my heart. I speak MOO as a previous caseworker (contracted by CPS to provide in-home services), and now as a foster/adoptive mom. The following is from MY experience in MY state. Every state is different and even county to county is different but some regs. are universal....

1. CPS does not have the same burden of proof as the criminal system. (what might not be a criminal act does not mean it is not a child abuse/neglect case. Cases that are also criminal are referred to as "aggrivated circumstances"--not good for parents in family court)

2. They do have to have a court order to remove children. They cannot just walk in and remove without due cause. In an emergency the court order is temporary (72hrs IIRC) until a judge sees the case and hears the evidence. LE can take custody until a court order is obtained if needed CPS cannot. CPS will tell you to call LE if a child is in immediate risk and then LE will take custody and call CPS

3. An investigation ALWAYS takes place no matter how CPS got involved with the family.(ex: LE, report from school, or private citizen)

4. When a report is made to CPS the report is ranked according to the severity of abuse/neglect, and the vulnerability of the victim. (ie: a baby being shaken vs a teenager being shaken with the same force: baby ranks higher)

5. Certain time frames are then applied to determine when a C.W. MUST see the child named in the accusation (anywhere from immediately for major bodily harm to 60days--or not at all if the report is inaccurate or lacks enough info to investigate)

6. Many, Many times a case can be opened without a child being removed. CPS helps and monitors the family. (example of services: parenting classes, D&A eval, Family Therapy, Food Bank referrals, job training, bus passes to get to appt. etc)

7. Removal is the last resort not first. When removal is required the family is asked to give names of anyone they feel would be able to care for the child so they do not have to enter foster care. CPS then contacts that individual/s and does criminal/child abuse clearances on anyone living in the perspective house. If cleared the child goes with that family member (more to it but you get the idea). If the accused refuses to name any family members (this happens out of spite) or the family is too dysfunctional themselves then the child is places in foster care.

8. After placement the parent is given a detailed plan of what is expected of them.(aka a "plan") Every 6 months a judge reviews the progress of the parent and the need for the child to stay in care.

I hope this helps clarify a little.
CASEWORKERS: I'm a little rusty with the CW side, so please correct me if I am wrong, (regs and laws change so often)

Ora Macc
11-09-2011, 02:27 AM
Since the mom stated she was drunk the night Lisa disappeared and the mom admitted she may be could have passed out or blacked out, doesn't that send the message to LE that the mom isn't the one who should be caring for the other children?

Straitfan
11-09-2011, 02:55 AM
As a person in the middle of a CPS case with temporary custody of my grandbaby, I can say I was in for a very rude awaken as what is required to remove a child and how easily they are returned...It is NOTHING like I nor most "think" it should be... CPS is just a government office, with guidelines, ie is there a bed, food....nothing else... I could go on forever about what I have learned... it is very sad... CPS would not take children if she was drunk everyday in her home..Now if she was "caught" driving drunk with kids, maybe... Normal people do not see it like CPS does, a child has to be practically dead for any action to be taken.

Ora Macc
11-09-2011, 03:03 AM
As a person in the middle of a CPS case with temporary custody of my grandbaby, I can say I was in for a very rude awaken as what is required to remove a child and how easily they are returned...It is NOTHING like I nor most "think" it should be... CPS is just a government office, with guidelines, ie is there a bed, food....nothing else... I could go on forever about what I have learned... it is very sad... CPS would not take children if she was drunk everyday in her home..Now if she was "caught" driving drunk with kids, maybe... Normal people do not see it like CPS does, a child has to be practically dead for any action to be taken.

I had no idea CPS was like that Straitfan. Wishing you the best of luck with your grandbaby.

Ora Macc
11-09-2011, 03:22 AM
posted by torismom,

therefor she saw nothing wrong with drinking some wine with a friend. This does not excuse her actions but IMO they are not prison worthy nor are they worthy of having her other child taken away.

Knocking back a box or around 5 to 10 glasses of wine IMO is far from drinking some wine with friends.
I can't defend a mother who broadcast she was drunk when her innocent baby disappeared off the face of the earth.

jjenny
11-09-2011, 03:27 AM
The woman who claims she left her child in the car when it run out of gas-CPS took her second child and put that child in foster car. But here is DB who admits to drinking, her baby gone missing, and yet she is keeping both kids, one of whom is not even hers (but JI's). I frankly don't get it.

angelmom
11-09-2011, 08:42 AM
The woman who claims she left her child in the car when it run out of gas-CPS took her second child and put that child in foster car. But here is DB who admits to drinking, her baby gone missing, and yet she is keeping both kids, one of whom is not even hers (but JI's). I frankly don't get it.

I am certainly not excusing Debbie, because I'm right there with the folks who don't like to drink much anyway, especially when I'm responsible for my kids, but I think drinking 5 glasses of wine over several hours with dinner in between is a FAR CRY from leaving a toddler in an unlocked car on the side of the road and walking away.

I would be on the floor with that much wine, but I know people who can easily put away a bottle (about 4 glasses) by themselves without being falling down drunk.

Even people who are caught with their kids in the car while they are driving drunk don't always have their kids taken away. As for her keeping both kids, it's not like she has them by herself - I believe they are together. Probably with lots of family, lawyers, etc. around.

Jacie Estes
11-09-2011, 09:06 AM
The woman who claims she left her child in the car when it run out of gas-CPS took her second child and put that child in foster car. But here is DB who admits to drinking, her baby gone missing, and yet she is keeping both kids, one of whom is not even hers (but JI's). I frankly don't get it.

BBM
That woman has refused to take a polygraph; DB has taken one. LE said she failed but even John Walsh said that emotions of a missing child will skew the test.


"She has so far declined to take a polygraph examination; neither she nor her lawyer returned calls or emails seeking comment Monday and Tuesday."

Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/11/08/1869126/police-only-mom-sis-had-seen-wash.html?storylink=fb#ixzz1dDFYnVge

John Walsh on polygraph:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/45074429#45074429


CPS must feel that there is no reason for the boys to be removed.

Abby Normal
11-09-2011, 09:14 AM
Additionally, leaving kids in cars unattended has become an actual crime in many states, whereas there are no "drinking while being a caretaker" laws.

cityslick
11-09-2011, 10:12 AM
Additionally, leaving kids in cars unattended has become an actual crime in many states, whereas there are no "drinking while being a caretaker" laws.

This is the truth. I don't even think it's comparable to leaving the kid in the car. First of all the child is still in your home. Second of all, as you stated there is no law that says you must be sober while there are children in the house. Third, there would have to be multiple, recorded instances of this situation (parent constantly getting drunk with no child supervision) before CPS would get involved.

Jacie Estes
11-09-2011, 10:23 AM
This is the truth. I don't even think it's comparable to leaving the kid in the car. First of all the child is still in your home. Second of all, as you stated there is no law that says you must be sober while there are children in the house. Third, there would have to be multiple, recorded instances of this situation (parent constantly getting drunk with no child supervision) before CPS would get involved.

BBM

Wouldn't the house also have to be dirty, unsanitary or unsafe [no heat/running water]. JI/DB's house was neat and clean, certainly no 'pig sty' where someone was so drunk they neglected house. For that matter, Lisa is clean, attentive and appropriately dressed in pics/videos. Her medical records might well attest to the fact that she was a healthy, well cared for baby.

cityslick
11-09-2011, 11:08 AM
BBM

Wouldn't the house also have to be dirty, unsanitary or unsafe [no heat/running water]. JI/DB's house was neat and clean, certainly no 'pig sty' where someone was so drunk they neglected house. For that matter, Lisa is clean, attentive and appropriately dressed in pics/videos. Her medical records might well attest to the fact that she was a healthy, well cared for baby.

A divorce lawyer (who practices in MO) told me to my face that in order for a mother to lose custody of her child in that state, one of three things have to be going on.

1. Drugs in and out of the home
2. Abuse
3. Unsafe enviroment that's harmful to the child.

All of those points need to be fully documented, in some cases collaborated by multiple people. It's not out the realm of possibility that CPS also adheres to those standards.

not_my_kids
11-09-2011, 11:37 AM
Here's the situation the way I see it: Every police officer in this country is a mandated reporter. That means that if any officer had seen evidence that the boys were being abused, neglected, molested, underfed, unsupervised, endangered, at risk, or any other single criteria, CPS would have been notified. We don't know if CPS was notified by LE, but because the family is living under a microscope and CPS must ALWAYS meet with the children in question to verify their well being, it is highly unlikely that a referral was made by LE or anyone else, because the media would eat it up. Logically, no referral means no evidence was found, either because LE had nothing to report or the call was screened out at the CPS triage level.

CPS cannot just show up at your home. There must be a referral, either by a member of the general public or from a mandated reporter. (Please, for the love of all that is holy, don't take this as my way of inviting anyone to get involved and make that referral, because that is not what I am doing, in any way.) In MI, you can do nothing but be poor and lose your kids. By that I mean that if you live in a neighborhood where there is an active meth lab next door to your home, and LE doesn't do their job to bust the lab, CPS can legally remove your kids. I discovered that lovely little tidbit during my last CPS case. (I average about one open case a year, because I have people that call them for revenge against me, and because I have an autistic son that self injures and goes to school with a teacher that doesn't believe autistic kisd really injure themselves.) And in some cases, kids can show clear signs of abuse, live in a filthy home, and not see a doctor for years on end, and the worker will think that the family shows promise and institute a case plan and that's it. Do your classes and clean your house and it all goes away.

It all depends on the worker. Not the judge, not the system's protocol, because protocol basically tells the worker to do what they feel is right, and the judge almost always follows the worker's recommendation. So, even if a referral were made, and not weeded out at the triage level, whether to open a case and/or remove the boys would still rest on the worker themselves. That's a lot of channels to go through, a lot of people that have to depend on their gut and not much else before deciding what to do. And a lot of people that know that if they do remove a kid, their decisions will be questioned. If they decide not to, their decisions will be questioned.

No matter what the workers do, it's a losing proposition. We have a system that never worked in the first place, that has essentially been frozen, making it completely useless.

menmo
11-09-2011, 12:15 PM
A divorce lawyer (who practices in MO) told me to my face that in order for a mother to lose custody of her child in that state, one of three things have to be going on.

1. Drugs in and out of the home
2. Abuse
3. Unsafe enviroment that's harmful to the child.

All of those points need to be fully documented, in some cases collaborated by multiple people. It's not out the realm of possibility that CPS also adheres to those standards.

Well, that divorce lawyer is wrong. I live in MO and in a county I live near, I have seen Mother's lose custody of their child(ren) three times in the last 7 months. I kid you not. The mothers were not into drugs, they were not abusive, and the children were not in an unsafe environment. It came down to who has the most money. I watched it, and sat through it playing out in court, for support. Sometimes I think that it seems the attorneys figure it out between themselves while they're eating lunch together or going to happy hour together. :waitasec:

MOO

cityslick
11-09-2011, 12:28 PM
Well, that divorce lawyer is wrong. I live in MO and in a county I live near, I have seen Mother's lose custody of their child(ren) three times in the last 7 months. I kid you not. The mothers were not into drugs, they were not abusive, and the children were not in an unsafe environment. It came down to who has the most money. I watched it, and sat through it playing out in court, for support. Sometimes I think that it seems the attorneys figure it out between themselves while they're eating lunch together or going to happy hour together. :waitasec:

MOO

As someone who got a divorce in MO, I can tell you for certain that case you cited is the exception, not the rule. The lawyer was speaking from the perspective of how a majority judges rule custody cases.

belleyes
11-09-2011, 02:59 PM
kind of O/T sorry
I was reading on WS about another missing child who's siblings have subsequently been removed. People were commenting about the need to have a National CPS database and/or Protocals. I think this is a fabulous idea. So many times kids get "lost in the system". I hear the frustration from everyone on this thread. The system is broken and needs fixed. Unfortunately every experience with CPS is different.

When I was in College we were told social work is and Art and a Science. To some extent you have to go with your gut and/or read between the lines, and on the other hand you have to follow certain regulations even when you gut tell you otherwise(*see below*) Parents doe desperate things when faced with the risk of loosing their children so Social Workers walk a very thin line when determining between keeping kids safe and keeping families intact

*my story*
I took my adopted son home from the hospital. He was #6 child to be removed from this married couple. They had twins born crack addicted and my son was born addicted. They're were also other very disturbing (and substantiated )reports. Fast forward 4yrs---bio-mom escapes her half-way house after her burglary convition, gets high, gets pregnant (how this happens in 1wk is beyond me??? when I've tried for 10yrs),gets locked up again. She maxed her time out and is released 2month prior to the birth where she promptly moves to another county known for its lax CPS system. She contacts me via cell (which is her only contact info for us) and asks me to "get ready" b/c they're gonna take the baby. We get ready and .....NOTHING!!!
The NEW county had no record of her so they let her keep the baby. It is even unlikely that the baby was drug tested. In spite of reports (at my urging) directly from our county to the "new" county. If she lived 10 miles closer she would have lost her child probably without a plan (due to the prior circumstances). I still wait b/c I know its a matter of time before we get a call to pick up the precious angel. I just hope its not too late.
I have talked to her 2x and both times the baby "fell" and hit her head while I was on the phone(to the point of not being able to keep the baby awake--she did call DR. though). Coincidence maybe??? but unlikely. CPS did have an open "keep an eye on the family" case. (probably b/c the baby wasnt gaining weight, and mom told the Dr. that baby wasnt hungry for formula and that baby was "jealous" because everyone was eating chips (baby was 2wks old) and the baby wanted some.:ohwow:

I share this story to show you how absurd some people are and they still have unsupervised custody.

belleyes
11-11-2011, 02:04 PM
Bumping up ----Maybe the boys interview was overseen by CPS and the family "voluntarily" allowed the boys to stay with relatives while an investigation takes place------JUST MOO (speculation)

stilettos
11-11-2011, 02:14 PM
A divorce lawyer (who practices in MO) told me to my face that in order for a mother to lose custody of her child in that state, one of three things have to be going on.

1. Drugs in and out of the home
2. Abuse
3. Unsafe enviroment that's harmful to the child.

All of those points need to be fully documented, in some cases collaborated by multiple people. It's not out the realm of possibility that CPS also adheres to those standards.

BBM It is an unsafe enviornment to leave minor children under the age of 12 (and an 11 month old sick infant) unsupervised. You cannot supervise children in a black out drunk and this was harmful to the child as the child was allegedly abducted while parent unable to protect. Neglect is abuse. In my state black out drunks documented while the sole care provider of the children would have a case opened in DFCS. My educated and informed opinion only.

curiousc
11-11-2011, 03:04 PM
The interesting thing is that the boys are now staying with relatives after their interviews. Perhaps CPS is now involved?

Not saying this is what's happened, but you never know.

MyBelle
11-11-2011, 03:40 PM
This is the truth. I don't even think it's comparable to leaving the kid in the car. First of all the child is still in your home. Second of all, as you stated there is no law that says you must be sober while there are children in the house. Third, there would have to be multiple, recorded instances of this situation (parent constantly getting drunk with no child supervision) before CPS would get involved.

bbm. You are incorrect. There are laws about child endangerment and neglect. Plenty of drunks have been prosecuted for child neglect/abuse and rightly so. In this case, the mother went on national television and announced she was outside the house for hours while her children were inside unsupervised, she admitted she was intoxicated to the point of blacking out, her daughter disappeared and hasn't been found and the other children have not been living alone in the mother's care since then. I think it is more than obvious CPS is involved in this case. LE had a duty to get them involved. CPS investigations are not a matter of public record.

JMO

Sparklin
11-11-2011, 03:53 PM
BBM It is an unsafe enviornment to leave minor children under the age of 12 (and an 11 month old sick infant) unsupervised. You cannot supervise children in a black out drunk and this was harmful to the child as the child was allegedly abducted while parent unable to protect. Neglect is abuse. In my state black out drunks documented while the sole care provider of the children would have a case opened in DFCS. My educated and informed opinion only.

Well, I"m thinking of thousands of moms that go to bed at night and are sound sleepers, taking cold meds because they are sick, taking sleeping aid because they are insomniacs....that need to have their children taken away. We don't KNOW that if Lisa was still in that house and woke crying for mama at any time after Deb fell asleep, she wouldn't have heard her. We don't KNOW!

southern_comfort
11-11-2011, 04:13 PM
I haven't read this entire thread, and so maybe this has been said already - but I'll say it anyway.

Sometimes when I read WS, my jaw hits the floor because I honestly cannot believe the low threshold some people have for government intrusion. As a person who wants the government to stay as far, far away from me and my family as I can possibly keep them, I have some serious comprehension problems when it comes to people wishing CPS would just barge into private homes and take children away when there are perfectly competent adults to care for them.

I'm at the front of the line when it comes to being critical of drinking while parenting and neglecting the kids. But, there are lots of things that can be done in the way of child protection short of removing kids from a home, and to my knowledge, nobody here knows what has or has not been done with regard to the kids in this case. Removing kids is an awful experience for everyone, especially the kids, and should be a dead-last resort, when there is nobody else in the family to care for them. In this case, we've got a father who (as far as I can tell) hasn't admitted to anything untoward, as well as a plethora of other perfectly competent relatives. For all we know, there may be an order that DB is not to be left alone in charge of the kids. Maybe that's why the family has been living with relatives. We don't know - nor should we know, as a matter of privacy.

The idea that the government should take the other children away, based on what we know, disgusts me. Blech.

MyBelle
11-11-2011, 04:16 PM
Well, I"m thinking of thousands of moms that go to bed at night and are sound sleepers, taking cold meds because they are sick, taking sleeping aid because they are insomniacs....that need to have their children taken away. We don't KNOW that if Lisa was still in that house and woke crying for mama at any time after Deb fell asleep, she wouldn't have heard her. We don't KNOW!

Yes, we do know DB admitted to being drunk. We also know Lisa disappeared while in her mother's care. Mothers do have their other children removed from their care when something bad happens to another child. Mothers who care about their children don't allow themselves to become incapacitated for any reason, whether it be drugs or alcohol.

JMO

mom2four717
11-14-2011, 03:49 PM
If this story has a happy ending and baby Lisa comes home, will she be allowed to stay? I hope that it will be with some supervision from CPS.

highflyer
11-14-2011, 04:44 PM
I haven't read this entire thread, and so maybe this has been said already - but I'll say it anyway.

Sometimes when I read WS, my jaw hits the floor because I honestly cannot believe the low threshold some people have for government intrusion. As a person who wants the government to stay as far, far away from me and my family as I can possibly keep them, I have some serious comprehension problems when it comes to people wishing CPS would just barge into private homes and take children away when there are perfectly competent adults to care for them.

I'm at the front of the line when it comes to being critical of drinking while parenting and neglecting the kids. But, there are lots of things that can be done in the way of child protection short of removing kids from a home, and to my knowledge, nobody here knows what has or has not been done with regard to the kids in this case. Removing kids is an awful experience for everyone, especially the kids, and should be a dead-last resort, when there is nobody else in the family to care for them. In this case, we've got a father who (as far as I can tell) hasn't admitted to anything untoward, as well as a plethora of other perfectly competent relatives. For all we know, there may be an order that DB is not to be left alone in charge of the kids. Maybe that's why the family has been living with relatives. We don't know - nor should we know, as a matter of privacy.

The idea that the government should take the other children away, based on what we know, disgusts me. Blech.

Southern Comfort would you of allowed LE or the FBI to of searched your house for baby Lisa like over 200 households did?

scmom
11-16-2011, 10:27 PM
Fascinating read on deaths of children by neglectful parents.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v100/n2/807/LR100n2Collins.pdf

Jaxson
11-16-2011, 11:35 PM
Fascinating read on deaths of children by neglectful parents.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v100/n2/807/LR100n2Collins.pdf


Wow, yes it is!

Jacie Estes
11-17-2011, 07:30 AM
"Why doesn't CPS take away the minor children?"

Because there is no evidence to show that this must be done. :)

Jacie Estes
11-17-2011, 07:50 AM
I haven't read this entire thread, and so maybe this has been said already - but I'll say it anyway.

Sometimes when I read WS, my jaw hits the floor because I honestly cannot believe the low threshold some people have for government intrusion. As a person who wants the government to stay as far, far away from me and my family as I can possibly keep them, I have some serious comprehension problems when it comes to people wishing CPS would just barge into private homes and take children away when there are perfectly competent adults to care for them.

I'm at the front of the line when it comes to being critical of drinking while parenting and neglecting the kids. But, there are lots of things that can be done in the way of child protection short of removing kids from a home, and to my knowledge, nobody here knows what has or has not been done with regard to the kids in this case. Removing kids is an awful experience for everyone, especially the kids, and should be a dead-last resort, when there is nobody else in the family to care for them. In this case, we've got a father who (as far as I can tell) hasn't admitted to anything untoward, as well as a plethora of other perfectly competent relatives. For all we know, there may be an order that DB is not to be left alone in charge of the kids. Maybe that's why the family has been living with relatives. We don't know - nor should we know, as a matter of privacy.

The idea that the government should take the other children away, based on what we know, disgusts me. Blech.

BBM Frightening, isn't it?

Lillith
11-17-2011, 08:07 AM
Exactly. I know no one is going to like when I say this, but truthfully the title of this thread got my blood boiling a little. WHY would CPS remove the children form this home? Because DB admitted that she was drunk that night? Once? (and no, I'm not saying that that was ok for her to do that, I think that was very irresponsible).

I mean seriously, what evidence of abuse or neglect is there to say that these poor kids need to be taken away from their parents? Is there any? I don't see it.

Ok, rant over. I just hate this. :furious:

Having grown up with an alcoholic parent I would like to argue that getting "blackout drunk" with three small children in one's sole care is at the very least neglect and quite possibly abuse...... It certainly felt like it to me....

Jacie Estes
11-17-2011, 08:08 AM
The woman who claims she left her child in the car when it run out of gas-CPS took her second child and put that child in foster car. But here is DB who admits to drinking, her baby gone missing, and yet she is keeping both kids, one of whom is not even hers (but JI's). I frankly don't get it.

Elizabeth Smart's mother brought a homeless man, Brian David Mitchell, off of the streets in Salt Lake City into their home to do work. He kidnapped Elizabeth and raped her repeatedly in a 'camp' not far from their home. Was Mrs. Smart neglectful? Were her other children taken away?

oh_gal
11-17-2011, 08:27 AM
Exactly. I know no one is going to like when I say this, but truthfully the title of this thread got my blood boiling a little. WHY would CPS remove the children form this home? Because DB admitted that she was drunk that night? Once? (and no, I'm not saying that that was ok for her to do that, I think that was very irresponsible).

I mean seriously, what evidence of abuse or neglect is there to say that these poor kids need to be taken away from their parents? Is there any? I don't see it.

Ok, rant over. I just hate this. :furious:

Just out of curiosity, do you feel that her "adult time", then, was a one-time thing?

Because, to me, personally, having a parent say, "Yeah, I had "X" number of drinks (enough to be impaired), but hey, it's all good! It's Adult Time, and I don't see anything wrong with me having my Adult Time!" would send up a giant red flag.

I remember a few years ago, there was a news story that showed these 20- and 30-something moms, who would gather at someone's house, let their kids play (this was in the middle of the day) and they'd knock back some drinks and "unwind". They, like DB, saw absolutely nothing wrong with this. They would then pack their kids back up in their car, and drive, and some of them were probably impaired. But hey, it was Adult Time!

When I need Adult Time, I go wander the aisles of Walmart aimlessly (I live in the sticks, there's nowhere else to go), while my husband stays home with the kids, and I decompress.

While I "get" the "there's no hard evidence that DB did something to her child, so why would the kids be taken away", line of reasoning, sometimes there are other reasons to look into the stability of a household or parents, one being....drinking the night away with very young children under your care, and seeing nothing wrong with it. As someone else mentioned, if it was your nanny or babysitter having some Adult Time while your kids were under her care, I bet a lot people would have a problem with that, and they would say that that caregiver was unfit. They might even go so far as to have the police brought in. Probably because a Nanny or babysitters job is to watch and take care of the children....kinda like a...oh, I don't know....parent, maybe?

IMO, Adult Time is a regularly occurring theme in this house.

Jacie Estes
11-17-2011, 08:41 AM
Just out of curiosity, do you feel that her "adult time", then, was a one-time thing?

Because, to me, personally, having a parent say, "Yeah, I had "X" number of drinks (enough to be impaired), but hey, it's all good! It's Adult Time, and I don't see anything wrong with me having my Adult Time!" would send up a giant red flag.

I remember a few years ago, there was a news story that showed these 20- and 30-something moms, who would gather at someone's house, let their kids play (this was in the middle of the day) and they'd knock back some drinks and "unwind". They, like DB, saw absolutely nothing wrong with this. They would then pack their kids back up in their car, and drive, and some of them were probably impaired. But hey, it was Adult Time!

When I need Adult Time, I go wander the aisles of Walmart aimlessly (I live in the sticks, there's nowhere else to go), while my husband stays home with the kids, and I decompress.

While I "get" the "there's no hard evidence that DB did something to her child, so why would the kids be taken away", line of reasoning, sometimes there are other reasons to look into the stability of a household or parents, one being....drinking the night away with very young children under your care, and seeing nothing wrong with it. As someone else mentioned, if it was your nanny or babysitter having some Adult Time while your kids were under her care, I bet a lot people would have a problem with that, and they would say that that caregiver was unfit. They might even go so far as to have the police brought in. Probably because a Nanny or babysitters job is to watch and take care of the children....kinda like a...oh, I don't know....parent, maybe?

IMO, Adult Time is a regularly occurring theme in this house.

'Adult time' is subjective; what works for some, doesn't for others.

oh_gal
11-17-2011, 08:47 AM
'Adult time' is subjective; what works for some, doesn't for others.

And one could say the same for "discipline." As in, I spank my child on the bottom with an open hand, but you (not you, personally) strike them with a belt. I feel my form of discipline is fine, and yet, so do you! Yet, CPS has been known to come into houses and remove children for the way they were being "disciplined, a "subjective" issue.

What would have happened if one of those children required medical attention? For all we know, one of them did.

Truthwillsetufree
11-17-2011, 08:57 AM
'Adult time' is subjective; what works for some, doesn't for others.

Well, it didn't work out so well for Lisa.

Lillith
11-17-2011, 09:02 AM
'Adult time' is subjective; what works for some, doesn't for others.

I don't believe it's as simple as this. Alcohol is not an illegal substance but there are laws relating to it's consumption in inappropriate circumstances ie: Driving.
I don't know of many employers who would continue your employment if you were drunk at work amidst your responsibilities.
There are laws relating to inappropriate behavior whilst drunk etc etc -
Alcohol is a legal substance, yes, but it comes with many restrictions and the question of which circumstances are unsuitable for inebriation is valid for discussion.
Being drunk whilst in the sole care of 3 children might "work for some" adults - I promise you, it doesn't work for the children.....

spamelope
11-17-2011, 09:17 AM
Here's one mom whose "adult time" didn't work out so well for her.
Napa Police: Drunk Mom Arrested for Child Neglect

She passed out on her 5-year-old and 2-year-old kids, according to police.
http://napa.patch.com/articles/napa-police-drunk-mom-arrested-for-child-neglect

And another: http://www.tmz.com/2011/06/11/in-plain-sight-actress-nichole-hiltz-arrested-child-neglect-911-call/#.TsUJtVa8A3g

These are cases where there isn't any other evidence of abuse or neglect-simply being drunk while in charge of children is enough in itself. While both of these cases are in CA, if this happened in my state, the results would be the same. I don't understand how anyone can think that it's not child neglect for the sole caretaker of children to be blackout drunk. Being fumblestuck drunk is not the same as being asleep.

Jacie Estes
11-17-2011, 09:37 AM
DB was in her home; her partner, JI, was coming home soon. There was another adult there, as well as another child. There were 4 children in the house that night, only one was abducted. Lisa was targeted by a bald headed, sprinkler turning off, fire setting homeless drifter who was in the area of JI/DB's house that night. IMHO

Abby Normal
11-17-2011, 09:41 AM
And one could say the same for "discipline." As in, I spank my child on the bottom with an open hand, but you (not you, personally) strike them with a belt. I feel my form of discipline is fine, and yet, so do you! Yet, CPS has been known to come into houses and remove children for the way they were being "disciplined, a "subjective" issue.

What would have happened if one of those children required medical attention? For all we know, one of them did.
And then there are people like me, who don't believe in striking children at all. One day, people with my mindset could set the standard, we wouldn't be the first society to ban spanking. Only then would we lose the subjective nature of children's services on the matter of force and discipline. Those are the sorts of things that happen when we decide that it needs to be black and white.

Think of it this way- any act, or failure to act that results in imminent risk or excessive harm.

She may very well lose her children, but first they have to find out how she acted on something, or didn't act on something that caused risk or harm. Obviously her child came to risk or harm, that's not debatable. But there is nothing to say that if she had done things differently, it wouldn't have happened. However, we have a whole camp of people trying to show just that. Which is honestly more than most kids get.

Lillith, I hear you loud and clear. I was raised my first 4/5 years by a druggie and my next so many by a drunk. I really do hear you. I was also in and out of foster care my whole life too, though. I feel that there is excessive heartache in both avenues. That's as far as I can get into it on a personal level, but I hear you and I don't disagree. It's such a hard line to walk, and such a gray area to navigate.

cityslick
11-17-2011, 09:59 AM
And one could say the same for "discipline." As in, I spank my child on the bottom with an open hand, but you (not you, personally) strike them with a belt. I feel my form of discipline is fine, and yet, so do you! Yet, CPS has been known to come into houses and remove children for the way they were being "disciplined, a "subjective" issue.

What would have happened if one of those children required medical attention? For all we know, one of them did.

What gets lost in this whole debate about her being drunk is if her story is true, DB expected JI to be at the home earlier. So that may have influenced her thinking in that she thought all would be fine because he'll be home soon anyway. So the intent never was, I'm going to get drunk and pass out and leave the kids unattended.

If you don't believe her story is true, then obviously you don't believe she was drunk to pass out anyway and the debate is moot.

Nixie
11-17-2011, 10:02 AM
I think Jeremy was usually home for her "adult time" not making excuses for her, just saying that I don't think it was regularly occurring that she was home alone with the children during her adult time. I think more often then not she would have a few drinks and he was home to supervise the children. I am not sure if he drank also but I haven't seen it reported that he did so I can only assume when she said she had adult time a couple times a week Jeremy was usually there. Also I am confused on the timeline was it Jeremy who was home with the children or did the neighbor watch them when DB went to get her wine? Did he know she would be drinking that night or did he assume that she wouldn't be because he would be working? I know his overtime job was kind of a one time thing so maybe that is why CPS hasn't taken the children........

scmom
11-17-2011, 10:03 AM
And then there are people like me, who don't believe in striking children at all. One day, people with my mindset could set the standard, we wouldn't be the first society to ban spanking. Only then would we lose the subjective nature of children's services on the matter of force and discipline. Those are the sorts of things that happen when we decide that it needs to be black and white.

Think of it this way- any act, or failure to act that results in imminent risk or excessive harm.

She may very well lose her children, but first they have to find out how she acted on something, or didn't act on something that caused risk or harm. Obviously her child came to risk or harm, that's not debatable. But there is nothing to say that if she had done things differently, it wouldn't have happened. However, we have a whole camp of people trying to show just that. Which is honestly more than most kids get.

Lillith, I hear you loud and clear. I was raised my first 4/5 years by a druggie and my next so many by a drunk. I really do hear you. I was also in and out of foster care my whole life too, though. I feel that there is excessive heartache in both avenues. That's as far as I can get into it on a personal level, but I hear you and I don't disagree. It's such a hard line to walk, and such a gray area to navigate.

I think the problem is that children aren't given the same rights as adults as far as who gets to hit them or not. If an adult hits another adult it's regarded as an assault, but the same standard does not apply if an adult hits one of their children. While I have never seen an open-hand spanking as child abuse, it is a slippery slope. I think the law right now still sees children as chattel, much as women were regarded in the past.

Lillith
11-17-2011, 07:43 PM
DB was in her home; her partner, JI, was coming home soon. There was another adult there, as well as another child. There were 4 children in the house that night, only one was abducted. BBM

Ummmm, isn't one enough?

As for the "other adult" - she was also drinking so no one was actually on duty. I know I'm getting into uncomfortable territory for many people here as drinking around kids is not uncommon - however, this situation is a good example of what can happen when parents are being negligent - and yes, I sincerely believe that getting drunk without a nominated 'sober adult' is negligent when in charge of small children.

Marshmallow
11-17-2011, 07:55 PM
"Why doesn't CPS take away the minor children?"

Because there is no evidence to show that this must be done. :)



society feels it's okay for a parent to get so drunk they pass out when they're supposed to be tending to and protecting their minor children. it's their home, their kids and if they want to spend their parenting time being drunk and passing out while the children fend for thermselves then who are we to point the finger at them? and if one child turns up missing well it's okay, it's the parent's right to have it happen. They deserve high priced attys, tv programs, pity , and of course money for life. After all they have a right to drink and if they chose to drink to the point of blacking out whn their kids are on their watch... oh well.

Lillith
11-17-2011, 08:00 PM
And then there are people like me, who don't believe in striking children at all. One day, people with my mindset could set the standard, we wouldn't be the first society to ban spanking. Only then would we lose the subjective nature of children's services on the matter of force and discipline. Those are the sorts of things that happen when we decide that it needs to be black and white.

Think of it this way- any act, or failure to act that results in imminent risk or excessive harm.

She may very well lose her children, but first they have to find out how she acted on something, or didn't act on something that caused risk or harm. Obviously her child came to risk or harm, that's not debatable. But there is nothing to say that if she had done things differently, it wouldn't have happened. However, we have a whole camp of people trying to show just that. Which is honestly more than most kids get.

Lillith, I hear you loud and clear. I was raised my first 4/5 years by a druggie and my next so many by a drunk. I really do hear you. I was also in and out of foster care my whole life too, though. I feel that there is excessive heartache in both avenues. That's as far as I can get into it on a personal level, but I hear you and I don't disagree. It's such a hard line to walk, and such a gray area to navigate.

Thanks Abbey, I'm sorry to hear you've dealt with such hardship. I believe you re: Foster care - seems the best solution is to be a totally focused, devoted parent in the first place. Parents who think that being mentally absent through substances but physically present is good enough, are kidding themselves. Not only do kids need your very best judgement at all times but they also find 'altered adults' confusing and scary.
I also agree with the smacking. I've had 3 kids and couldn't imagine hitting them ever. Plenty of other ways to discipline like 'time out' - reward systems - stickers etc that don't send contradictory messages (I'd never let them hit each other, so why would I ?).

Rosemarie
11-17-2011, 09:06 PM
'Adult time' is subjective; what works for some, doesn't for others.

Having one too many drinks apparently wasn't a good adult time activity for Deborah.

Rosemarie
11-17-2011, 09:13 PM
"Why doesn't CPS take away the minor children?"

Because there is no evidence to show that this must be done. :)

There is evidence. The neglectful mother said she put Lisa to bed at 6:30pm. Waitttttt or was it 10:30pm? :banghead: Mom never checked on her baby again that night. Mom told certain news media she was drunk --again on that night.
One child -a baby disappeared. The older boys were left to fend for themselves. imo

Rosemarie
11-17-2011, 09:14 PM
What gets lost in this whole debate about her being drunk is if her story is true, DB expected JI to be at the home earlier. So that may have influenced her thinking in that she thought all would be fine because he'll be home soon anyway. So the intent never was, I'm going to get drunk and pass out and leave the kids unattended.

If you don't believe her story is true, then obviously you don't believe she was drunk to pass out anyway and the debate is moot.

The number of spins for this woman amazes me.

MissFine
11-18-2011, 04:41 AM
DB was in her home; her partner, JI, was coming home soon. There was another adult there, as well as another child. There were 4 children in the house that night, only one was abducted. Lisa was targeted by a bald headed, sprinkler turning off, fire setting homeless drifter who was in the area of JI/DB's house that night. IMHO

So if mom was sitting at home snorting drugs with 3 kids in the house it would be ok because JI was due home?
Not in my book. When one is doped up or drunk they have no business having the responsibly of watching children. Especially a sick baby. moo

cityslick
11-18-2011, 09:53 AM
So if mom was sitting at home snorting drugs with 3 kids in the house it would be ok because JI was due home?
Not in my book. When one is doped up or drunk they have no business having the responsibly of watching children. Especially a sick baby. moo

Drugs are illegal, alcohol is not. Not saying it's right either way, but there is a difference as to how it's looked at from a CPS perspective.

belleyes
11-18-2011, 02:49 PM
BBM

Ummmm, isn't one enough?

As for the "other adult" - she was also drinking so no one was actually on duty. I know I'm getting into uncomfortable territory for many people here as drinking around kids is not uncommon - however, this situation is a good example of what can happen when parents are being negligent - and yes, I sincerely believe that getting drunk without a nominated 'sober adult' is negligent when in charge of small children.

BBM
Thank you, ITA
What happens if you dont have a 'sober adult' and your child gets hurt and needs emergency medical help? What if a fire brakes out? An infant cant "evacuate" on their own. (IIRC- we had a local case that this happened and mom was charged b/c a child perished in the fire while mom was passed out)

I know that in my county Schools will NOT release kids to parents that are obviously under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.
My son came to live with us because his bio-mom showed up drunk, (strong alcohol smell) and the school notified the police who took him into protective custody b/c she didnt have anyone 'sober' to care for him.

Mustang Sally
11-18-2011, 02:55 PM
Moving This From Another Thread...

Every time I read here....something unbelieveable is happening with this SAD case.

My bigest concerns are for the two boys who are in this horrible situation! In Florida we have the "Guardian ad Litem Program"....

This person is assigned cases when ANY child is in a legal/courtcase dispute. When "Bio Dad/JI" was awarded custody of his son, the GAL should have been working with both parents. The GAL should have helped the "Bio mom" complete her "Case Plan." The GAL should have also made monthly home visits with the "Bio Dad/JI" to check on the boy's daily home situation and his general welfare. DB's son should have also been given a Guardian ad Litem to help him navigate the seperation agreement between his "Bio Dad" and DB.

I am one and I am confident that these little boys really need someone to be looking after their "Best Interests!" They have to be suffering emotionally from their loss of their sibling, Little Lisa and being removed from their home...not to mention the Press Coverage and Law Enforcement issues!!!

Who knows if MO has a program such as this? If they Do...Why in the he77 isn't this program overseeing this situation and protecting these two innocent boys???

Dear God...Please Send Baby Lisa Home to the People Who Love Her!

Sparklin
11-20-2011, 12:53 AM
Moved from wrong thread (Irwin Attorney: ‘Jersey’ Bragged About Kidnapping Lisa Irwin - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community)
sorry to mods :)


Quote:
Originally Posted by MissFine
Plenty of 'stuff' that points to this woman.
LE should haul her in for child neglect for being drunk when children were home in her care. moo

If that's the case I think we (as in the entire world) better get busy building jails because I would bet that there are millions of parents that put their children to bed and have enough to drink to be drunk and/or tipsy. Tons of parents who go out partying and drinking and send the babysitter off when they get home.

And this is the crux of it for me - that so many people want her hung out to dry because she drank.

Personally, I don't think 5-8 glasses of wine is out of this world drinking in the space of 3 1/2 - 4 hours, while chatting with a friend.

Actually now that I think about it, I should report myself, 'cause I'm very sure when my kids were younger, I've done it. And thankfully, not that night, nor any other, did somebody come into my house and take my child/ren.

Flossie JMO
11-20-2011, 12:36 PM
And one could say the same for "discipline." As in, I spank my child on the bottom with an open hand, but you (not you, personally) strike them with a belt. I feel my form of discipline is fine, and yet, so do you! Yet, CPS has been known to come into houses and remove children for the way they were being "disciplined, a "subjective" issue.

What would have happened if one of those children required medical attention? For all we know, one of them did.

JMO, I would never defend anyone being in charge of children and passing out due to drugs or booze. Passing out is the concern obviously, but some sober tired parents or other adults also fall asleep when taking care of children. And I think many regularly go to sleep at night while children are in the home. JMO

southern_comfort
11-20-2011, 01:38 PM
Southern Comfort would you of allowed LE or the FBI to of searched your house for baby Lisa like over 200 households did?

Absolutely.

And I would never drink in the presence of my kids. I think DB was completely neglectful.

However, whether DB and JI consented to a search and whether DB was neglectful are separate issues from whether the government should barge in and remove the kids from their home on the facts we have.

southern_comfort
11-20-2011, 02:07 PM
Moving This From Another Thread...

Every time I read here....something unbelieveable is happening with this SAD case.

My bigest concerns are for the two boys who are in this horrible situation! In Florida we have the "Guardian ad Litem Program"....

This person is assigned cases when ANY child is in a legal/courtcase dispute. When "Bio Dad/JI" was awarded custody of his son, the GAL should have been working with both parents. The GAL should have helped the "Bio mom" complete her "Case Plan." The GAL should have also made monthly home visits with the "Bio Dad/JI" to check on the boy's daily home situation and his general welfare. DB's son should have also been given a Guardian ad Litem to help him navigate the seperation agreement between his "Bio Dad" and DB.

I am one and I am confident that these little boys really need someone to be looking after their "Best Interests!" They have to be suffering emotionally from their loss of their sibling, Little Lisa and being removed from their home...not to mention the Press Coverage and Law Enforcement issues!!!

Who knows if MO has a program such as this? If they Do...Why in the he77 isn't this program overseeing this situation and protecting these two innocent boys???

Dear God...Please Send Baby Lisa Home to the People Who Love Her!

BBM...

Just out of curiosity, how do you know that nobody is overseeing the situation and protecting the kids?

curvecuti
11-20-2011, 03:02 PM
JMO, I would never defend anyone being in charge of children and passing out due to drugs or booze. Passing out is the concern obviously, but some sober tired parents or other adults also fall asleep when taking care of children. And I think many regularly go to sleep at night while children are in the home. JMO

Flossie! :seeya::blowkiss:

Flossie JMO
11-20-2011, 03:09 PM
Flossie! :seeya::blowkiss:

Curvy Cutie! missed you! :seeya::Banane41:

redheadedgal
03-18-2012, 06:07 PM
b/c it was discussed last night... bump!

redheadedgal
03-27-2012, 11:04 PM
from the "jeremy" thread:

This is ny question: Why haven't the two other children been taken from that home? I'm not asking this because I don't like the parents, I don't, I'm asking this because she admitted to being drugged/passed out. What do the authorities think about this?....OR, don't they care. Poor Baby Lisa!


ITA as i stated earlier in the "jeremy" thread when i posted several links to articles where drunk babysitters were charged with neglect... i fail to see the difference b/w them and a "mom"... in my eyes, a care giver is a care giver. and if a mom wants to get blacked out drunk, fine, just hire a sitter.

Whisperer
03-27-2012, 11:58 PM
Moved from wrong thread (Irwin Attorney: ‘Jersey’ Bragged About Kidnapping Lisa Irwin - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155082))
sorry to mods :)



If that's the case I think we (as in the entire world) better get busy building jails because I would bet that there are millions of parents that put their children to bed and have enough to drink to be drunk and/or tipsy. Tons of parents who go out partying and drinking and send the babysitter off when they get home.

And this is the crux of it for me - that so many people want her hung out to dry because she drank.

Personally, I don't think 5-8 glasses of wine is out of this world drinking in the space of 3 1/2 - 4 hours, while chatting with a friend.

Actually now that I think about it, I should report myself, 'cause I'm very sure when my kids were younger, I've done it. And thankfully, not that night, nor any other, did somebody come into my house and take my child/ren.
Nobody came into their house either...


MOO

Dr. Know?
03-28-2012, 02:01 AM
Did you drink until you might have blacked out? That's where the problem lies with me. I don't think she blacked out. Too wishy washy on that answer for me. Didn't she say something like "I might have" when asked if she blacked out? Correct me if I'm wrong.

redheadedgal
03-28-2012, 03:45 AM
she said she got drunk. so drunk she can't remember if she checked on her kids. wonderful quality in a care giver!!

cityslick
03-28-2012, 09:02 AM
she said she got drunk. so drunk she can't remember if she checked on her kids. wonderful quality in a care giver!!

They are not going to remove the kids based off one instance. Just like a whole lot of other things do not get the ultimate penalty based off one instance.

Besides even that though, it can't even be proven (and yes you have to prove it, not take someone's word for it) that DB was drunk or passed out that night. How are you going to take the kids out of the home when you can't even prove if there was neglect in the home in the first place?

norest4thewicked
03-28-2012, 10:34 AM
I don't think that this will even be a question once parent or parents are arrested. And, yes, I believe they will be. It might not be today or tomorrow, but it will happen.

Truthwillsetufree
03-28-2012, 10:45 AM
IMHO - By DB own admission/confession on the night Lisa disappeared, DB had over consumed enough liquor/beer to alter her senses and memory to the degree of not remembering if she checked on her sick baby after putting her down to sleep at 4:30 or 6:30pm. This is neglect. Was DB's self induced mental impairment a contributing factor in the disappearance of Lisa? Yes. Are the other children at risk???? Maybe, I only hope that CPS are keeping a watchful eye.JMO.

cityslick
03-28-2012, 12:06 PM
IMHO - By DB own admission/confession on the night Lisa disappeared, DB had over consumed enough liquor/beer to alter her senses and memory to the degree of not remembering if she checked on her sick baby after putting her down to sleep at 4:30 or 6:30pm. This is neglect. Was DB's self induced mental impairment a contributing factor in the disappearance of Lisa? Yes. Are the other children at risk???? Maybe, I only hope that CPS are keeping a watchful eye.JMO.

Her own admission isn't going to get the kids taken out. It needs to be proven/investigated.

Show me where someone else can testify that she was drunk to the point of blacking out. Have that person go to CPS and say she was drunk to where she could no longer take care of the kids. Have other people go to CPS and say there is a pattern of DB getting drunk and the kids are constantly being neglected. That will get CPS involved.

Truthwillsetufree
03-28-2012, 12:51 PM
Her own admission isn't going to get the kids taken out. It needs to be proven/investigated.

Show me where someone else can testify that she was drunk to the point of blacking out. Have that person go to CPS and say she was drunk to where she could no longer take care of the kids. Have other people go to CPS and say there is a pattern of DB getting drunk and the kids are constantly being neglected. That will get CPS involved.

BBM - I think by DB's own admission and confession that she was drunk is enough self incrimination that doesn't require a witness. Why would DB tell the whole world she was drunk, if she was not?

Why would DB want to appear neglectful and irresponsible?

No, I don't think there has to be a witness to this. The statement itself says enough because the opposite of that statement would be that, DB was sober and had the mental capacity to recall events of the evening and give this crucial information to LE to assist them in finding her missing child.

I maintain, that I hope that CPS is watching/checking on these children, afterall, one of the three is missing.

cityslick
03-28-2012, 01:24 PM
BBM - I think by DB's own admission and confession that she was drunk is enough self incrimination that doesn't require a witness. Why would DB tell the whole world she was drunk, if she was not?

Why would DB want to appear neglectful and irresponsible?

No, I don't think there has to be a witness to this. The statement itself says enough because the opposite of that statement would be that, DB was sober and had the mental capacity to recall events of the evening and give this crucial information to LE to assist them in finding her missing child.

I maintain, that I hope that CPS is watching/checking on these children, afterall, one of the three is missing.

BBM

Because she doesn't think she was neglectful. How many times has it been debated how drunk she really was? It can't be proven how drunk she was, therefore there is no way to determine how her ability to care for the children were compromised, if at all. Do you think CPS is going to take a child out of your home if you walk right up to them and say, I was drunk last night? It doesn't work that way.

CPS asks the question when they take an action such as removal, how are the children endangered? So I ask you now, how are the children endangered right now? And can you prove your claim to CPS?

redheadedgal
05-25-2012, 05:41 PM
very drunk parents charged with child neglect: (obviously not the same as with DB but interesting nonetheless)


http://www.wyff4.com/news/local-news/spartanburg-cherokee-news/SCSO-Children-call-from-closet-to-report-drunken-parents/-/9324158/13646522/-/7im2n8/-/index.html

vlpate
05-26-2012, 02:43 AM
very drunk parents charged with child neglect: (obviously not the same as with DB but interesting nonetheless)


http://www.wyff4.com/news/local-news/spartanburg-cherokee-news/SCSO-Children-call-from-closet-to-report-drunken-parents/-/9324158/13646522/-/7im2n8/-/index.html

Crazy. I don't understand why Isabel C's dad was removed from the home, but nothing is done to remove Deborah Bradley who was not only drunk, but completely lost her baby and had no idea when she last saw her.

vlpate
05-26-2012, 02:47 AM
BBM

Because she doesn't think she was neglectful. How many times has it been debated how drunk she really was? It can't be proven how drunk she was, therefore there is no way to determine how her ability to care for the children were compromised, if at all. Do you think CPS is going to take a child out of your home if you walk right up to them and say, I was drunk last night? It doesn't work that way.

CPS asks the question when they take an action such as removal, how are the children endangered? So I ask you now, how are the children endangered right now? And can you prove your claim to CPS?

I guess, personally, I would have to liken the situation to a mother who drives drunk, gets into an accident that results in the death of one of her children - would CPS take the other children in the mother's care? Would they still be in danger once she sobers up? Probably not, but there is still the distinct danger that she could drink and put them in danger again. JMO

4Jacy
05-28-2012, 02:05 PM
Crazy. I don't understand why Isabel C's dad was removed from the home, but nothing is done to remove Deborah Bradley who was not only drunk, but completely lost her baby and had no idea when she last saw her.

That seems strange to me also. Something about SC that creeps me out. As far as the minor children of DB/JI, have any locals know any news about them?

redheadedgal
07-12-2012, 02:48 AM
"Why doesn't CPS take away the minor children?"

Because there is no evidence to show that this must be done. :)


what about proof positive that the safety of a baby didn't even comply with recommended standards? (law?)

(and if true, one can extrapolate that who knows what else occurs in that home!!)


i was looking at the pics of lisa on findlisairwin.com earlier and something quite glaring jumped out at me...

aren't babies supposed to be in rear-facing car seats? at least until 20 lbs and one year old at the very minimum?

http://findlisairwin.com/wp-content/gallery/april_2012/5.jpg

http://www.car-safety.org/rearface.html

cityslick
07-12-2012, 08:29 AM
what about proof positive that the safety of a baby didn't even comply with recommended standards? (law?)

(and if true, one can extrapolate that who knows what else occurs in that home!!)


i was looking at the pics of lisa on findlisairwin.com earlier and something quite glaring jumped out at me...

aren't babies supposed to be in rear-facing car seats? at least until 20 lbs and one year old at the very minimum?

http://findlisairwin.com/wp-content/gallery/april_2012/5.jpg

http://www.car-safety.org/rearface.html

BBM

It's just a recommendation, it's not a law (having an young child in a rear facing car seat). At least not in missouri.

http://www.modot.org/Safety/NewChildPassengerRestraintLaw.htm

4Jacy
07-12-2012, 06:13 PM
CPS does nothing! Did they take away Burke Ramsey, did they take away Butterbean Cummings, the list goes on and on! You really don't expect them to take away those two boys, whose mother, father's girlfriend, was blacked out drunk and their sister went missing do you?

redheadedgal
07-12-2012, 09:49 PM
that's what i said -- a recommendation.

now, why wouldn't ANY AND EVERY (GOOD) PARENT want to ensure their child was as safe as possible in a moving vehicle???!


oh-- and actually, the recommendation changed to 2 years old in early 2011 (well before lisa "disappeared"):

http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/parenting-family/2011-03-21-carseat21_st_N.htm

norest4thewicked
07-12-2012, 09:59 PM
that's what i said -- a recommendation.

now, why wouldn't ANY AND EVERY (GOOD) PARENT want to ensure their child was as safe as possible in a moving vehicle???!


oh-- and actually, the recommendation changed to 2 years old in early 2011 (well before lisa "disappeared"):

http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/parenting-family/2011-03-21-carseat21_st_N.htm

If someone thinks that it's okay to leave 3 little kids in a house alone while they are out getting falling down drunk, why would they even consider the fact that it is safer for a baby to face backwards in a car seat?

These people are disgusting examples of what a parent should be! I feel so sorry for baby Lisa and for these other two innocent boys!

cityslick
07-13-2012, 09:18 AM
Maybe it's because her kid didn't go missing, but it's interesting that nobody blasts SB for basically that same behavior that night, leaving her 4 year old daughter with the two boys while she was drinking with DB on the porch.

Where are the calls for her kid to be taken away, or does it only matter if one of your kids goes missing, else it's ok to get drunk while caring for children?

norest4thewicked
07-13-2012, 10:09 AM
It's never okay!

Melon
07-13-2012, 10:33 AM
Maybe it's because her kid didn't go missing, but it's interesting that nobody blasts SB for basically that same behavior that night, leaving her 4 year old daughter with the two boys while she was drinking with DB on the porch.

Where are the calls for her kid to be taken away, or does it only matter if one of your kids goes missing, else it's ok to get drunk while caring for children?

For me, there isn't enough info about SB's behavior that night to form much of an opinion. Did she just let her child have free reign all night without checking in on her? Did she chuck her in a room and can't remember when/if she checked on her? Was this a one time occurance or does she regularly while away the hours on a stoop with her child inside someone else's house? Really, there are more questions than answers on that front. It's probably why many have not opined on it.

I will say, we haven't heard SB haughtily defend her entitlement to adult time at the expense of her sick child's welfare which is part of what sticks in my craw so much about DB. :moo:

redheadedgal
07-13-2012, 12:30 PM
yes-- let's convolute this thread with discussion that a woman should have her child removed from her home even though she

1) did not admit to being "blacked out drunk" while supposedly caring for her child
2) has not gone on national television and spun a web of tales/lied about events surrounding her "missing" daughter
3) did not refuse to be interviewed separately from her b/f as per a request from local LE
4) does not live in home that LE spent SEVENTEEN hours searching/investigating
5) does not live in a home where LE states a cadaver dog alerted in a bedroom
6) does not maintains that her "adult time" is very important to her and moreso than a sick baby
7) has not made a known presence online of threatening/bullying posters who believe she is not being truthful about what happened to her daughter
8) did not made up some farcical tale about a credit card and a name change website
9) has not posted pics of her daughter online where she is not secured in her car seat in the "recommended" fashion

...

::eye roll::

Melon
07-13-2012, 12:48 PM
yes-- let's convolute this thread with discussion that a woman should have her child removed from her home even though she

1) did not admit to being "blacked out drunk" while supposedly caring for her child
2) has not gone on national television and spun a web of tales/lied about events surrounding her "missing" daughter
3) did not refuse to be interviewed separately from her b/f as per a request from local LE
4) does not live in home that LE spent SEVENTEEN hours searching/investigating
5) does not live in a home where LE states a cadaver dog alerted in a bedroom
6) does not maintains that her "adult time" is very important to her and moreso than a sick baby
7) has not made a known presence online of threatening/bullying posters who believe she is not being truthful about what happened to her daughter
8) did not made up some farcical tale about a credit card and a name change website
9) has not posted pics of her daughter online where she is not secured in her car seat in the "recommended" fashion

...

::eye roll::

That's an excellent list. We can also add that SB's daughter is ambulatory and was not jailed in a crib for the evening. It's possible if SB did not check on her, she brought herself to the front door upon occasion.

RANCH
07-13-2012, 08:02 PM
yes-- let's convolute this thread with discussion that a woman should have her child removed from her home even though she

1) did not admit to being "blacked out drunk" while supposedly caring for her child
2) has not gone on national television and spun a web of tales/lied about events surrounding her "missing" daughter
3) did not refuse to be interviewed separately from her b/f as per a request from local LE
4) does not live in home that LE spent SEVENTEEN hours searching/investigating
5) does not live in a home where LE states a cadaver dog alerted in a bedroom
6) does not maintains that her "adult time" is very important to her and moreso than a sick baby
7) has not made a known presence online of threatening/bullying posters who believe she is not being truthful about what happened to her daughter
8) did not made up some farcical tale about a credit card and a name change website
9) has not posted pics of her daughter online where she is not secured in her car seat in the "recommended" fashion

...

::eye roll::

I agree that your list does convolute things. It seems as if your trying to talk about DB and SB on the same list.

Some of the things listed could apply to DB but we have no way of knowing if it would apply to SB as well.

Other things appear to be opinion about DB that are not know to be factual and don't apply to SB.

Some things like how many hours LE searched a home and the credit card "tale" leave me wondering how that has anything to to with the topic of this thread.

So your right. This list is convoluted.
JMO.

redheadedgal
07-13-2012, 08:40 PM
good grief! please stop twisting my words. i never said my list convoluted things or my list was convoluted.

RANCH
07-13-2012, 08:42 PM
Maybe it's because her kid didn't go missing, but it's interesting that nobody blasts SB for basically that same behavior that night, leaving her 4 year old daughter with the two boys while she was drinking with DB on the porch.

Where are the calls for her kid to be taken away, or does it only matter if one of your kids goes missing, else it's ok to get drunk while caring for children?

I think that for some, what matters is not the safety of children, but expressing total hatred of DB/JI. I'm sure if SB was vocal and in the media about her actions that night, she would feel the wrath of the same people who hate DB/JI.

I think she's very smart by only talking to LE.

RANCH
07-13-2012, 08:46 PM
good grief! please stop twisting my words. i never said my list convoluted things or my list was convoluted.

I apologize. I thought that was your intention when you said "lets convolute this thread" and created your list.

ExpectingUnicorns
07-13-2012, 08:52 PM
Maybe it's because her kid didn't go missing, but it's interesting that nobody blasts SB for basically that same behavior that night, leaving her 4 year old daughter with the two boys while she was drinking with DB on the porch.

Where are the calls for her kid to be taken away, or does it only matter if one of your kids goes missing, else it's ok to get drunk while caring for children?

There's no info or history available for SB. We are only apprized of the fact she was there one night. How could anyone possibly "blast" her based on so few facts? We don't have any idea of what information she provided (or didn't) to help this investigation.

I don't think the pot needs any more stirring because, as stated, "her kid didn't go missing."

RANCH
07-13-2012, 09:09 PM
There's no info or history available for SB. We are only apprized of the fact she was there one night. How could anyone possibly "blast" her based on so few facts? We don't have any idea of what information she provided (or didn't) to help this investigation.

I don't think the pot needs any more stirring because, as stated, "her kid didn't go missing."
BBM
I agree that SB shouldn't be "blasted" on such little evidence. But couldn't the same be said about DB? As far as I know, we only know about that one night of her drinking on the stoop.
JMO.

ExpectingUnicorns
07-13-2012, 09:41 PM
BBM
I agree that SB shouldn't be "blasted" on such little evidence. But couldn't the same be said about DB? As far as I know, we only know about that one night of her drinking on the stoop.
JMO.

Not true! There's history and documentation on DB. We have many, many statements that show inconsistencies directly from DB's own taped interviews. They have all been dissected, analyzed and defended many times on these numerous threads. My point here was not to reargue those.

The suggestion that we should do the same "blasting" to SB, I believe, is disingenuous. And, perhaps a bit of baiting?

Minette
07-13-2012, 09:49 PM
This may or may not have anything to do with it, but if CPS took the kids away, where would they place them? Would it be better to put them in foster care or with family members? Which family members would be willing and able to assume their care? The boys do not share a parent. Would they then have to be split up in placement? Would this be better for them, or is it better for them to stay together, as long as they are healthy and receiving basic shelter, nourishment, clothing, etc.? Some food for thought.

Also, perhaps it is just in the Atlanta area, but when CPS is dealing with hundred of children who are in precarious situations, two well-nourished children with no signs of abuse or neglect are not the top priority for removal from a home. If and when one or both parents are charged with a crime, that might change, but based on my (non-professional) observations, those are the harsh realities of the CPS/foster care system.

RANCH
07-13-2012, 09:58 PM
Not true! There's history and documentation on DB. We have many, many statements that show inconsistencies directly from DB's own taped interviews. They have all been dissected, analyzed and defended many times on these numerous threads. My point here was not to reargue those.

The suggestion that we should do the same "blasting" to SB, I believe, is disingenuous. And, perhaps a bit of baiting?
I was mainly interested in the comparison of DB to SB in regards to drinking while in custody of their children and how that would affect them in the eyes of CPS.

I don't think that either one of them should have children removed from their custody based on what we know to be true.

I'm not trying to bait anyone, but I'm willing to have an honest discussion of the facts with anyone who would like to do the same.

ExpectingUnicorns
07-13-2012, 10:22 PM
I was mainly interested in the comparison of DB to SB in regards to drinking while in custody of their children and how that would affect them in the eyes of CPS.

I don't think that either one of them should have children removed from their custody based on what we know to be true.

I'm not trying to bait anyone, but I'm willing to have an honest discussion of the facts with anyone who would like to do the same.

And I am saying no comparison can be made. We know nothing of SB. We are privy only to the fact that she was on the porch with DB that night.

DB, however, has advised us of the fact that she believes she deserves her "adult time." Stated on video with much bravado and no apparent remorse. And drank to the point that she doesn't know what happened.

How could these facts of DB's actions possibly be compared to SB's? When all we know of her actions is that she was present?

Do you realize, RANCH, that I never offered an opinion on whether or not I believe the boys should be taken from their home?

I'm emphasizing that SB shouldn't even be brought into this discussion. It has no place here.

I think you missed the point I was making.

RANCH
07-13-2012, 10:42 PM
And I am saying no comparison can be made. We know nothing of SB. We are privy only to the fact that she was on the porch with DB that night.

DB, however, has advised us of the fact that she believes she deserves her "adult time." Stated on video with much bravado and no apparent remorse. And drank to the point that she doesn't know what happened.

How could these facts of DB's actions possibly be compared to SB's? When all we know of her actions is that she was present?

Do you realize, RANCH, that I never offered an opinion on whether or not I believe the boys should be taken from their home?

I'm emphasizing that SB shouldn't even be brought into this discussion. It has no place here.

I think you missed the point I was making.
I think that since SB was drinking on the same stoop while her own child was somewhere on the same property, allows me to do a comparison.

Was SB treating her child in the same manner as DB was treating her's? The point I'm trying to make is that they both were drinking together for the entire time they were on the stoop. That's what is a common factor between the two of them.
JMO.

ExpectingUnicorns
07-13-2012, 10:50 PM
I think that since SB was drinking on the same stoop while her own child was somewhere on the same property, allows me to do a comparison.

Was SB treating her child in the same manner as DB was treating her's? The point I'm trying to make is that they both were drinking together for the entire time they were on the stoop. That's what is a common factor between the two of them.
JMO.

RBBM. We do not know, do we? So we are unable to make the comparison you desire.

RANCH
07-13-2012, 11:04 PM
RBBM. We do not know, do we? So we are unable to make the comparison you desire.

I'm not trying to fight with you over this but come on. All I'm saying is what we know to be true, that SB and DB were both drinking together on the stoop while their children were somewhere on that property.

ExpectingUnicorns
07-13-2012, 11:49 PM
I'm not trying to fight with you over this but come on. All I'm saying is what we know to be true, that SB and DB were both drinking together on the stoop while their children were somewhere on that property.

You are correct. So what do you try to deduce from that?

I can project nothing into that fact. And my original point was that it has nothing to do with the "Why doesn't CPS take away the minor children?" thread.

If you desire to discuss further, something that will not be a rehash, on a more appropriate thread I will follow you for further :poke: * ahem* discussion, I will then respond. But here I believe we've reduced ourselves to what the mods consider quibbling and it's not productive.

RANCH
07-13-2012, 11:53 PM
You are correct. What do you try to deduce from that?

I can project nothing into that fact.

What I deduce from the fact that SB acted the same way as DB that night is, that they both do not deserve to have their children taken away from them by CPS.
JMO.