AZ - Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 - #24

Status
Not open for further replies.
So the kids are not in foster care? Where is this little girl, another child just goes missing and not found. :banghead:
 
The children were not going to be put in foster care, as RC was not involved in whatever issue the non-contact order was about, and she was deemed custodial parent.

The non-contact order was against SC only, and the only repercussions for him refusing it would be that CPS would apply to the courts to force him. Either way, the children would remain with RC as she would remain custodial parent.

Make a bet? lol Yes they would have IF RC didn't take them and agree to the voluntary thing. Been there done it and I am sorry if I seem to question every post of yours but it is simply not true.
 
First let me correct something, once again. It was not a non-contact ORDER. It is a non-contact agreement Legally that is a very different thing to speak of.
Second, what you say does not make much sense to me. If SC didn't agree to voluntarily go along with the conditions he was given, CPS would have to remove the children to foster care through a court order. Even if RC is not involved. CPS cannot force a couple to live separately, and cannot force a couple to divorce. Unless SC voluntarily agreed to remove himself the only way to separate him from the children by legal force would be to remove the children from both parents.

I just had to actually write Thank You .... clicking a button wasn't enough
 
Make a bet? lol Yes they would have IF RC didn't take them and agree to the voluntary thing. Been there done it and I am sorry if I seem to question every post of yours but it is simply not true.

Thats ok, you're entitled to your opinion too!:rocker:

I know things happen, all the time, that aren't supposed to happen in regards to CPS etc...and it sounds like you've been the victim of one of these times...I'm sorry you had to go through that, it would suck.

This, however, is different IMO. I bet CPS weren't directly alerted by LE, in your case.

This has come out of an investigation of a missing child, and the only inference we can take is that there is some sort of abuse issue which has been uncovered in the course of finding Isa.

The entire difference here, IMO, is that LE REPORTED SC TO CPS. Lotsa caps in that sentence...but it wasn't an interfering neighbour, a disgruntled child...it was the Police who reported SC.

Further...your baby didn't vanish. What I mean by this, is this case is going to get a LOT of public scrutiny and attention. The departments concerned will be having their most senior people liaise to handle this one, simply because of the media involved. It will be done RIGHT, and not mishandled by some novice, or someone who's simply not very good at their job.

For these reasons, I think that personal experience with CPS, while horrible and unfair at the time, really can't be compared to what is going down here.

:moo:
 
Make a bet? lol Yes they would have IF RC didn't take them and agree to the voluntary thing. Been there done it and I am sorry if I seem to question every post of yours but it is simply not true.

Okay- I am confused again! I just asked where this had been reported and was told it hadn't been but I am seeing it posted over and over as FACT, not opinion. Doh!!!!

So is this just your opinion of the situation based on your own experiences, or do you have a link or is this insider info leaked by CPS?

If there is a link stating as fact (not opinion) that SC had no option but to agree to this separation or CPS would have ripped the boys out of the home and refused to return them, without having to prove anything in court, can someone please post it? :). TIA
 
First let me correct something, once again. It was not a non-contact ORDER. It is a non-contact agreement Legally that is a very different thing to speak of.
Second, what you say does not make much sense to me. If SC didn't agree to voluntarily go along with the conditions he was given, CPS would have to remove the children to foster care through a court order. Even if RC is not involved. CPS cannot force a couple to live separately, and cannot force a couple to divorce. Unless SC voluntarily agreed to remove himself the only way to separate him from the children by legal force would be to remove the children from both parents.

Again, then HOW is this voluntary? I agree that SC really had no choice, but I also believe he isn't being unfairly targeted.

Sounds more like there is something very very wrong in that family for CPS to rip apart a family who has just suffered the loss of a child......MOO but I cannot fathom why CPS would do this to a family who is innocent of any wrongdoing just to be hateful.
 
Just to clarify; I, too, think that CPS was going to take those boys if SC did not agree to the arrangement.

Calling it "voluntary" is like calling labor pains "discomfort"......It just ain't true.

And while I do believe CPS gave SC an ultimatum, I do not believe it was done without a darn good reason. MOO
 
AZLawyer gave some good info about this, the "voluntary" arrangement (which isn't so voluntary) and stated it is usually for 90 days. I will try and find the post.
 
Also there is a difference between an agreement and an order. He agreed because he knew the boys would be taken otherwise and it would lead to an order.
 
"A "voluntary" as we call it in the AZ foster care system is not unusual at all, and is often a good idea for the parents because during the term of the agreement (90 days normally) the time does not count toward the deadline for the parents to shape up or lose their kids.

That said, the usual reason for a "voluntary" is that CPS has visited the home and told the parents, "Look, you can sign a voluntary or we can take the kids. Your call." (Once in a while there are other reasons, like the parents have just become homeless and want their kids to be safe for 90 days while they get jobs and housing.)"-AZLawyer

Here is the page the discussion was on

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172284&page=2

ETA AZLawyer is a verified attorney.
 
Just wanted to add-that was AZ Lawyers statement, I'm not a lawyer.
There are many things that make SC look suspicious in my eyes. I did not think so at first but now I think he was directly involved or knows something.
And that candle light vigil that was supposed to be for Isabel and turned into something completely different had me shaking my head. If my child were the one missing I would not have allowed that. Wrong place, wrong time for that. He is not the one needing help, Isabel is. Are they speaking out at all on the local news? Asking people not to forget about Isabel?
The silence is deafening.
That 911 call too...he did not sound like he was being innapropriate because he was in shock-he didn't have the flat affect, or sound disasociated from the situation. He was fully engaged with the 911 operator and could not have sounded less concerned. I think he tried to tell RC that Isabel left on her own because I heard RC say to him "She's my daughter she's not gonna leave!!".
The tone of his call was more like 'oh now the *****'s gonna hit the fan'.
This is all just my opinion.
Oh then the no contact agreement..no phone calls, letters, all sorts of red flags there.
 
Not sure how much rain they got near Golf Links & Craycroft/Swan (the wash that was searched > than once). The washes on northwest side were flowing! Hope that area of town got the same amount of rain. I pray the rain will come and unsurface any hidden secrets. I pray Isa is found and brought home to rest.

Praying you will be at peace soon Isa!
 
Not sure how much rain they got near Golf Links & Craycroft/Swan (the wash that was searched > than once). The washes on northwest side were flowing! Hope that area of town got the same amount of rain. I pray the rain will come and unsurface any hidden secrets. I pray Isa is found and brought home to rest.

Praying you will be at peace soon Isa!

I have a daughter near Craycroft and Kolb. They got quite a bit of rain today. Here on the far NE we also got slammed.

MesquitedownJuly4th.jpg


A 30 foot of mesquite in my backyard. Under it are a grapefruit and a lemon tree. Full sized. (or used to be!)
 
Again, then HOW is this voluntary? I agree that SC really had no choice, but I also believe he isn't being unfairly targeted.

Sounds more like there is something very very wrong in that family for CPS to rip apart a family who has just suffered the loss of a child......MOO but I cannot fathom why CPS would do this to a family who is innocent of any wrongdoing just to be hateful.

Why did CPS in Texas take the Davis's child after their other child drowned? The breaking point for the Davises was apparently after they had made the specified renovations to their home, etc, and were then told that they might get custody again in six months.

What about the guy whose wife was taking their baby in for a 3 day checkup, was shot in the parking lot and the baby abducted? After the baby was found CPS removed custody of that child, as well.

I think that, like every other agency, company or organised group, most of the time CPS does an adequate job, sometimes it does a stellar job and sometimes it doesn't work at all.
 
I've recounted this here in a MUCH earlier thread. But from first-hand experience here in Tucson, CPS is <ahem> lacking. After abusing my then 78 year old father, stealing his truck and committing over a dozen crimes in the truck over a 10 hour period (most all felonies), my nephew was placed by CPS walking distance from my father's home. Despite vocal objections -- including from me, Victim's Assistance, his PO and SRO. He lasted less than a week at the placement before he tried to get retribution. Talking about setting people up to fail.

Not that this is anything more than anecdotal.
 
Thats ok, you're entitled to your opinion too!:rocker:

I know things happen, all the time, that aren't supposed to happen in regards to CPS etc...and it sounds like you've been the victim of one of these times...I'm sorry you had to go through that, it would suck.

This, however, is different IMO. I bet CPS weren't directly alerted by LE, in your case.

This has come out of an investigation of a missing child, and the only inference we can take is that there is some sort of abuse issue which has been uncovered in the course of finding Isa.

The entire difference here, IMO, is that LE REPORTED SC TO CPS. Lotsa caps in that sentence...but it wasn't an interfering neighbour, a disgruntled child...it was the Police who reported SC.

Further...your baby didn't vanish. What I mean by this, is this case is going to get a LOT of public scrutiny and attention. The departments concerned will be having their most senior people liaise to handle this one, simply because of the media involved. It will be done RIGHT, and not mishandled by some novice, or someone who's simply not very good at their job.

For these reasons, I think that personal experience with CPS, while horrible and unfair at the time, really can't be compared to what is going down here.

:moo:

I have had experience, it was to my grandsons benefit, so not an issue.

You lost our first bet LOL CPS was alerted by LE. Most reports are made to CPS by police, even medical staff involve the police and report with them.

I am not sure how the only inference can be abuse? Is that as in child abuse? Abuse of drugs or alcohol?

As I said, LE reported directly to CPS the party involved here too.

Not my child, my grandson - and you have no idea whether it can be compared to my case or not, you don't know my case and you certainly don't know the Celis case - it may well be EXACTLY the same, as a matter of fact IMO it is probably more like my case than child abuse (if that is what you were inferring)

It was not horrible - nor unfair. They did their job, they did it well.
 
I have a daughter near Craycroft and Kolb. They got quite a bit of rain today. Here on the far NE we also got slammed.

MesquitedownJuly4th.jpg


A 30 foot of mesquite in my backyard. Under it are a grapefruit and a lemon tree. Full sized. (or used to be!)

Oh no! That is heartbreaking. Is your tree completely lost?
 
Just to clarify; I, too, think that CPS was going to take those boys if SC did not agree to the arrangement.

Calling it "voluntary" is like calling labor pains "discomfort"......It just ain't true.

And while I do believe CPS gave SC an ultimatum, I do not believe it was done without a darn good reason. MOO

:floorlaugh: @ discomfort

I agree there is good reason behind this in the eyes of CPS, mainly because they don't do these things lightly. SC could have got a lawyer straight up in a high profile case like this, so there is something there that has the law on the side of CPS.

A darn good reason that would stand up in court could have been drugs in his system (remembering this happened just after blood work would have been back). Now, given these kids still have a mother to look after them while the father is off is face (THIS IS ALL MADE UP NO FACTS AT ALL) is this a good enough reason? I know it is a lawful reason to separate him and given the stress the family was under the last thing needed is someone hanging around that is doing mind messing drugs etc

I have no clue as to the reasons, I do know it doesn't have to be THAT bad iin the big picture. IMO if it was child abuse then it is not only a CPS matter but he could have been charged - they would have needed the proof.
 
I can only speak for myself, but it is the "no contact" part of this arrangement that is troubling.

I would still raise an eyebrow at an agreement which allowed supervised visits or telephone conversations. Especially in a family with a missing child. But I would be more likely to believe it was SOP.

But "no contact", zero, nuthin', nada, zip? That is some serious business.

If CPS or LE didn't have some pretty big concerns about SC, why can't he talk to his boys on the phone or meet them in a neutral setting under supervision?

I know many of you say it's a very common type of agreement/order, but I just can't wrap my head around CPS ripping apart a grieving family when they don't actually suspect the removed party of any wrongdoing.

MOO
 
I'm going back through the thread now, and will be removing posts.

It's a shame that some of the posts will be removed as some of you made really good points, but you quoted comments that were clearly violations.

There isn't any reason to be rude or to snipe at one another. It also violates our Terms of Service.

MODS have stated all along that all opinions and thoughts are welcome, as long as they are presented respectfully and as long as your responses show the same respect in return.

Instead of contributing to any problems on the thread, please alert! Let a Moderator handle, when one is available to do so. Don't respond to/quote rude or other violation of TOS posts. You become part of the problem when you do.

Thank you~
Summer_Breeze
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
65
Guests online
2,575
Total visitors
2,640

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,959
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top