Found Deceased IL - Semaj Crosby, 16 mos, Joliet Township, 25 April 2017

[Ontario Mom]

Hey yall, first reply to a post on WS.. long time reader. Anyway - I am a DFCS worker. I wanted to read all the posts before contributing to this because I wanted to make sure I had all the facts correctly laid out. Seeing the pictures of the home and reading about the specific conditions of the home makes me believe that the worker definitely committed misconduct in their duties regarding the investigation.

As stated by others there are specific circumstances that are evaluated in every case and for a "child welfare" investigation. DFCS places a lot of importance on:

1. Welfare of the child such as obvious signs of abuse as bruises, malnutrition, sickness ect.
2. Physical condition of home which focuses on bedrooms, bathrooms and kitchen. Working plumbing is big. Now kitchen is even more specific because the investigation should be focused on preparation of food. For example even if a family's stove does not work - if they have a working microwave and a working fridge that is acceptable if no other form of malnutrition is apparent. Family will usually make the case that they run off canned goods and prepackaged meals. Plus, when a DFCS worker is on the way to a visit or has had cases reported to them previously about the said family - they are aware of their food stamp and medicaid status (or should be)

That being said, as a mandated reported there are a lot of circumstances in which we are required (and trusted) to make judgement calls on the home. Unfortunately, I read in an above post that the family had been visited frequently with no result of removal of children. This could lead to decision making that is not the best for the family because if it is a small agency investigating chances are there is some sort of relationship between DFCS worker and family. As much as we all hate to say it and think in this way - DFCS workers DO NOT want to take children away from families. Especially families who are already living in poverty because in order to get the children back from DFCS custody the family will have to meet certain requirements (that cost money as in repairs for home, drug treatment facility ect.) We try to place children in the custody of family members but if many are incarcerated, have unknown whereabouts or are living in the home that the child is currently residing they may end up in foster care after some time.

I could go on and on but my opinion on this case just by the pictures and reports alone is that worker should have called for emergency removal of child (even temporarily) if there was mold on the ceiling and apparent drug use (which in the case of multiple squatters is almost always the case). If anything the DFCS worker could have removed the child from the home and even kept her at the office (they did visit during office hours 8-5) so they did not have to shell out more money at a hotel to place the child until a LEO could have discussed options with the family. From my experience what I can infer from what has been presented is the DFCS worker probably knew the family and child and knew that their home is always in deplorable conditions so they didn't report the conditions of the home as they should have. There is a possibility also that there were multiple people in the home with all that garbage and debris the DFCS worker did not want to be there and the worker simply scooted through the home like business as usual once they saw the child was in OK physical condition. That child should have been removed.. probably on one of the previous visits.

The thanks button was not enough. THANK YOU, for sharing your expert opinion on this matter. :tyou:

 

[Ontario Mom]

Is there a link? I probably missed it somewhere.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Here http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ownship-25-April-2017&p=13343432#post13343432

 

[LaborDayRN]

Hey yall, first reply to a post on WS.. long time reader. Anyway - I am a DFCS worker. I wanted to read all the posts before contributing to this because I wanted to make sure I had all the facts correctly laid out. Seeing the pictures of the home and reading about the specific conditions of the home makes me believe that the worker definitely committed misconduct in their duties regarding the investigation.

As stated by others there are specific circumstances that are evaluated in every case and for a "child welfare" investigation. DFCS places a lot of importance on:

1. Welfare of the child such as obvious signs of abuse as bruises, malnutrition, sickness ect.
2. Physical condition of home which focuses on bedrooms, bathrooms and kitchen. Working plumbing is big. Now kitchen is even more specific because the investigation should be focused on preparation of food. For example even if a family's stove does not work - if they have a working microwave and a working fridge that is acceptable if no other form of malnutrition is apparent. Family will usually make the case that they run off canned goods and prepackaged meals. Plus, when a DFCS worker is on the way to a visit or has had cases reported to them previously about the said family - they are aware of their food stamp and medicaid status (or should be)

That being said, as a mandated reported there are a lot of circumstances in which we are required (and trusted) to make judgement calls on the home. Unfortunately, I read in an above post that the family had been visited frequently with no result of removal of children. This could lead to decision making that is not the best for the family because if it is a small agency investigating chances are there is some sort of relationship between DFCS worker and family. As much as we all hate to say it and think in this way - DFCS workers DO NOT want to take children away from families. Especially families who are already living in poverty because in order to get the children back from DFCS custody the family will have to meet certain requirements (that cost money as in repairs for home, drug treatment facility ect.) We try to place children in the custody of family members but if many are incarcerated, have unknown whereabouts or are living in the home that the child is currently residing they may end up in foster care after some time.

I could go on and on but my opinion on this case just by the pictures and reports alone is that worker should have called for emergency removal of child (even temporarily) if there was mold on the ceiling and apparent drug use (which in the case of multiple squatters is almost always the case). If anything the DFCS worker could have removed the child from the home and even kept her at the office (they did visit during office hours 8-5) so they did not have to shell out more money at a hotel to place the child until a LEO could have discussed options with the family. From my experience what I can infer from what has been presented is the DFCS worker probably knew the family and child and knew that their home is always in deplorable conditions so they didn't report the conditions of the home as they should have. There is a possibility also that there were multiple people in the home with all that garbage and debris the DFCS worker did not want to be there and the worker simply scooted through the home like business as usual once they saw the child was in OK physical condition. That child should have been removed.. probably on one of the previous visits.

:wagon: :greetings:

 

[MSCJgrad]

My best friend for 32 years is blind. He is the CFO of his own company, an activist, a husband, a friend, and a father. He is an excellent father, and would not for one second allow his children in a home or situation that is dangerous or suspect. When a person loses one sense, the others become magnified. He sense of touch, smell, and perception are incredible. He would likely be able to identify a dangerous location before you or I could in many instances. What I am referring to is mental capacity, not physical disability. There are many, many disabled people who are effective parents. What I was getting at is the fact that the mother in this case has been said to be 'slow' in many instances. This is an old school way of saying disabled, similar to how people used to refer to counselors as 'shrinks', and mental hospitals as 'loony bins'. It is not necessarily out of haste or disregard, but out of a lack of knowledge. That being said, they have seen and experienced enough to deem her 'slow'. My question is how 'slow' is 'slow', in this instance, and is she capable of making the necessary decisions that are required to parent effectively. Seeing as she had her children living in squalor, I am leaning towards either no, she was not capable of making reasonable decisions due to her mental capacity, or drugs were involved. I agree, mentally disabled people raise children all the time. It is a question of to what extent is their mental disability and does that disability interfere with parenting-at the bare minimum, keeping children clean, fed, and safe.

I know blind people that parent effectively. Mentally challenged people successfully raise kids all of the time. Just because you can barely manage...

Seriously, this mindset is what lead to the mentally challenged being sterilized in certain parts of this country.

 

[MSCJgrad]

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

I just want to chime in and offer a viewpoint on the responsibilities of the case workers who visit homes in these cases. Not necessarily in reference to this case, but all similar cases.

It is certainly possible that some caseworkers are bad at their job and negligent themselves. However, I do not believe they are the majority. I think most caseworkers do what they can with the limited time and budgets they have to do their job. they do a very difficult job for not that great a salary, a job many of us could never do.

To some degree they have to be very pragmatic and they see all manner of living situations that most of us could never even imagine. On top of that they have to work within rules and guidelines set for them by the department they work for and while they are generally able to use professional judgment and discretion they can't just take every child they see. They can only take as many children as there are foster homes/emergency placements. I always see tons of people saying "I would have taken that baby and looked after it" - really? This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but if you say that - have you registered as a foster carer? There aren't endless supplies of foster carers or residential facilities! Outcomes for kids placed in foster care are actually pretty bad. It's an option avoided as much as possible for that reason.

And while its true social workers sometimes will go as far as to looking after kids removed in emergency situations back in the office overnight (I have a social worker friend who has done just that) such a case would not be routine. A house being filthy would not in and of itself mean children should be removed from the family - the family as a whole probably should be though! [Not to mention, landlords and property managers doing their jobs properly would never let a house get to this state] And apparently once kids are removed, the process to get them back is pretty longwinded and significant. It's considered much better if you can work WITH the family to improve the situation rather than making the very significant decision to take kids away. And it's easy to see with hindsight that this would be the result, but on the job you can only work with what you see and what people are telling you.

And then there is the fact that most social work research and literature - academic work upon which policies are based - comes from the viewpoint that children are best with family - not always necessarily parents, but family. This is the result of past policies and practices that saw many children removed when they shouldn't have been and for reasons now seen as invalid (such as removing children from unwed mothers, even if they were capable of caring for them and wanted the child, or removing children of colour and placing them with white families). This has, probably in all honestly, made most social services departments a bit gun-shy when it comes to taking kids away.

Now, in this specific case, maybe the caseworkers were negligent. Their work practices will probably be investigated, and they should be. A true professional would indeed be happy to have their work reviewed. Maybe the department was operating under flawed policies. Hopefully everything that contributed will be investigated. but it's a complex issue, far far far more complex than 'they should have taken the kids'. It just doesn't work that way in reality and until social services departments (not only in the US but everywhere really) are given more generous and realistic budgets, there are probably always going to be kids that "should" have been removed but weren't. Even parents who seem to have it all together and never have contact with child services sometimes harm their children. Caseworkers are only human and they can't see the future or tell who is going to kill their kid.

 

[katydid23]

For those of you making excuses for the social worker's report claiming there were no safety concerns or health hazards... please go back and look at the pics of the inside of the home.

yes, I saw the pix. It was a filthy mess. But should a 14 yr old be sent to a juvenile group home, and lose his siblings and mother because the house was a mess? Should a 6 yr old go live with strangers and be separated from their brothers and sisters because the rug was filthy?

Those are the questions the SW has to ask herself. If the kids are attending school, they have no injuries, there is food in the kitchen, and toys in the play yard, then maybe the mother should be given a warning about the mess and be given a chance to clean it up?

Removing the kids from a chaotic home is often taking them from the frying pan and dropping them into the fire.

 

[MSCJgrad]

I had similar questions. My concern is that the mother has been deemed 'slow' a few times. She sure did lawyer-up quickly. My stance is that you can't have it both ways; can't be both slow, and quick.

Or maybe they hired a lawyer because it's the correct thing to do when dealing with the police.

 

[katydid23]

Hey yall, first reply to a post on WS.. long time reader. Anyway - I am a DFCS worker. I wanted to read all the posts before contributing to this because I wanted to make sure I had all the facts correctly laid out. Seeing the pictures of the home and reading about the specific conditions of the home makes me believe that the worker definitely committed misconduct in their duties regarding the investigation.

As stated by others there are specific circumstances that are evaluated in every case and for a "child welfare" investigation. DFCS places a lot of importance on:

1. Welfare of the child such as obvious signs of abuse as bruises, malnutrition, sickness ect.
2. Physical condition of home which focuses on bedrooms, bathrooms and kitchen. Working plumbing is big. Now kitchen is even more specific because the investigation should be focused on preparation of food. For example even if a family's stove does not work - if they have a working microwave and a working fridge that is acceptable if no other form of malnutrition is apparent. Family will usually make the case that they run off canned goods and prepackaged meals. Plus, when a DFCS worker is on the way to a visit or has had cases reported to them previously about the said family - they are aware of their food stamp and medicaid status (or should be)

That being said, as a mandated reported there are a lot of circumstances in which we are required (and trusted) to make judgement calls on the home. Unfortunately, I read in an above post that the family had been visited frequently with no result of removal of children. This could lead to decision making that is not the best for the family because if it is a small agency investigating chances are there is some sort of relationship between DFCS worker and family. As much as we all hate to say it and think in this way - DFCS workers DO NOT want to take children away from families. Especially families who are already living in poverty because in order to get the children back from DFCS custody the family will have to meet certain requirements (that cost money as in repairs for home, drug treatment facility ect.) We try to place children in the custody of family members but if many are incarcerated, have unknown whereabouts or are living in the home that the child is currently residing they may end up in foster care after some time.

I could go on and on but my opinion on this case just by the pictures and reports alone is that worker should have called for emergency removal of child (even temporarily) if there was mold on the ceiling and apparent drug use (which in the case of multiple squatters is almost always the case). If anything the DFCS worker could have removed the child from the home and even kept her at the office (they did visit during office hours 8-5) so they did not have to shell out more money at a hotel to place the child until a LEO could have discussed options with the family. From my experience what I can infer from what has been presented is the DFCS worker probably knew the family and child and knew that their home is always in deplorable conditions so they didn't report the conditions of the home as they should have. There is a possibility also that there were multiple people in the home with all that garbage and debris the DFCS worker did not want to be there and the worker simply scooted through the home like business as usual once they saw the child was in OK physical condition. That child should have been removed.. probably on one of the previous visits.

Thank you for weighing in. I defer to your expertise. This is a tragedy all the way around. :rose:

You said 'that child' should have been removed. What about the older three sibs. I assume you meant all 4 should have been removed then?

 

[MSCJgrad]

Welcome, and thank you for your thoughtful, informative first post! Have you considered getting 'verified'? Many, many threads could benefit from your experience and knowledge in this field.

Hey yall, first reply to a post on WS.. long time reader. Anyway - I am a DFCS worker. I wanted to read all the posts before contributing to this because I wanted to make sure I had all the facts correctly laid out. Seeing the pictures of the home and reading about the specific conditions of the home makes me believe that the worker definitely committed misconduct in their duties regarding the investigation.

As stated by others there are specific circumstances that are evaluated in every case and for a "child welfare" investigation. DFCS places a lot of importance on:

1. Welfare of the child such as obvious signs of abuse as bruises, malnutrition, sickness ect.
2. Physical condition of home which focuses on bedrooms, bathrooms and kitchen. Working plumbing is big. Now kitchen is even more specific because the investigation should be focused on preparation of food. For example even if a family's stove does not work - if they have a working microwave and a working fridge that is acceptable if no other form of malnutrition is apparent. Family will usually make the case that they run off canned goods and prepackaged meals. Plus, when a DFCS worker is on the way to a visit or has had cases reported to them previously about the said family - they are aware of their food stamp and medicaid status (or should be)

That being said, as a mandated reported there are a lot of circumstances in which we are required (and trusted) to make judgement calls on the home. Unfortunately, I read in an above post that the family had been visited frequently with no result of removal of children. This could lead to decision making that is not the best for the family because if it is a small agency investigating chances are there is some sort of relationship between DFCS worker and family. As much as we all hate to say it and think in this way - DFCS workers DO NOT want to take children away from families. Especially families who are already living in poverty because in order to get the children back from DFCS custody the family will have to meet certain requirements (that cost money as in repairs for home, drug treatment facility ect.) We try to place children in the custody of family members but if many are incarcerated, have unknown whereabouts or are living in the home that the child is currently residing they may end up in foster care after some time.

I could go on and on but my opinion on this case just by the pictures and reports alone is that worker should have called for emergency removal of child (even temporarily) if there was mold on the ceiling and apparent drug use (which in the case of multiple squatters is almost always the case). If anything the DFCS worker could have removed the child from the home and even kept her at the office (they did visit during office hours 8-5) so they did not have to shell out more money at a hotel to place the child until a LEO could have discussed options with the family. From my experience what I can infer from what has been presented is the DFCS worker probably knew the family and child and knew that their home is always in deplorable conditions so they didn't report the conditions of the home as they should have. There is a possibility also that there were multiple people in the home with all that garbage and debris the DFCS worker did not want to be there and the worker simply scooted through the home like business as usual once they saw the child was in OK physical condition. That child should have been removed.. probably on one of the previous visits.

 

[hey-Debbie]

Here http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ownship-25-April-2017&p=13343432#post13343432

Thank you! wow I can't even imagine living like that. poor kids

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[leelee114]

I had similar questions. My concern is that the mother has been deemed 'slow' a few times. She sure did lawyer-up quickly. My stance is that you can't have it both ways; can't be both slow, and quick.

The need for a lawyer when dealing with the police is a well known basic right not some lofty notion only rocket scientists know about.

 

[betterbe]

Not sure if this has been discussed, But had Semaj been seen by someone outside of the family or the Dcfs worker since the police interaction on Easter? When was the last time she was actually seen alive?

I am not convinced that she was alive when the DCFS visited the home. Any thoughts?

 

[LadyL]

yeah the article says "with tears streaming down her face" but there were no tears .... [crocodile tears]

I know I am probably going to get in trouble for this, but I see no tears, not a one. Not. A. One. Being in this field, I recognize above all that everybody grieves in their own way, so I am taking that into consideration. I watched that video over and over.

 

[betterbe]

Hey yall, first reply to a post on WS.. long time reader. Anyway - I am a DFCS worker. I wanted to read all the posts before contributing to this because I wanted to make sure I had all the facts correctly laid out. Seeing the pictures of the home and reading about the specific conditions of the home makes me believe that the worker definitely committed misconduct in their duties regarding the investigation.

As stated by others there are specific circumstances that are evaluated in every case and for a "child welfare" investigation. DFCS places a lot of importance on:

1. Welfare of the child such as obvious signs of abuse as bruises, malnutrition, sickness ect.
2. Physical condition of home which focuses on bedrooms, bathrooms and kitchen. Working plumbing is big. Now kitchen is even more specific because the investigation should be focused on preparation of food. For example even if a family's stove does not work - if they have a working microwave and a working fridge that is acceptable if no other form of malnutrition is apparent. Family will usually make the case that they run off canned goods and prepackaged meals. Plus, when a DFCS worker is on the way to a visit or has had cases reported to them previously about the said family - they are aware of their food stamp and medicaid status (or should be)

That being said, as a mandated reported there are a lot of circumstances in which we are required (and trusted) to make judgement calls on the home. Unfortunately, I read in an above post that the family had been visited frequently with no result of removal of children. This could lead to decision making that is not the best for the family because if it is a small agency investigating chances are there is some sort of relationship between DFCS worker and family. As much as we all hate to say it and think in this way - DFCS workers DO NOT want to take children away from families. Especially families who are already living in poverty because in order to get the children back from DFCS custody the family will have to meet certain requirements (that cost money as in repairs for home, drug treatment facility ect.) We try to place children in the custody of family members but if many are incarcerated, have unknown whereabouts or are living in the home that the child is currently residing they may end up in foster care after some time.

I could go on and on but my opinion on this case just by the pictures and reports alone is that worker should have called for emergency removal of child (even temporarily) if there was mold on the ceiling and apparent drug use (which in the case of multiple squatters is almost always the case). If anything the DFCS worker could have removed the child from the home and even kept her at the office (they did visit during office hours 8-5) so they did not have to shell out more money at a hotel to place the child until a LEO could have discussed options with the family. From my experience what I can infer from what has been presented is the DFCS worker probably knew the family and child and knew that their home is always in deplorable conditions so they didn't report the conditions of the home as they should have. There is a possibility also that there were multiple people in the home with all that garbage and debris the DFCS worker did not want to be there and the worker simply scooted through the home like business as usual once they saw the child was in OK physical condition. That child should have been removed.. probably on one of the previous visits.

Are caseworkers required to physically observe the children during each visit? If she was familiar with this family would it have been possible for her to not to have actually seen the child, but to have told that she was present in the home by one of the adults?

 

[LadyL]

what the

2 military parents here went on vacation - left 2 kids under 5 home alone. They were found eating dog food. They took that fabulous class, and got them back... fact.

 

[Queena]

I had similar questions. My concern is that the mother has been deemed 'slow' a few times. She sure did lawyer-up quickly. My stance is that you can't have it both ways; can't be both slow, and quick.

It was her family that hired a lawyer, and they did so because 1. Black people and the police don't have a great history
2. It's the correct thing to do even if you're innocent. So many innocent people are in prison because of false statements.

 

[perfectingpink]

It was her family that hired a lawyer,

I do not remember reading this. Will you please point me to the link where I can?

 

[kaen]

The need for a lawyer when dealing with the police is a well known basic right not some lofty notion only rocket scientists know about.

I agree. I think it is also important to note that her family and friends understood that she was vulnerable. If the rumors of his family setting her up and doing things like not leaving her home are true, then, I am sure her family thought she was vulnerable to anything that might come of her daughter missing. In point, it was her lawyer who discussed the search of the house with her and she agreed. It seems to me that her having a lawyer helped to find this baby without having to wait for a period of time for warrants.

And, if she is guilty of some wrongdoing, I would rather her have counsel so that all charges that are made would stick. (But, i don't think she did anything wrong in the death of her child. About other things, like care, I am not sure-- I think i need more information before I could venture a guess.) JMHO.

 

[kaen]

The young adults with disabilities that I work with (ASD, emotional disabilities and intellectual disabilities) have been counseled to comply with any police order no matter what, carry ID, and make sure they ask for a lawyer if, and when, they have an issue. We have made a dent in the population who have IDs. But, trying to get these young adults to realize that moving out of fear and into compliance is very difficult. We like them to stay in their neighborhood where people know them and can let police know about who they are if an issue arises. Getting them to understand that they have a right to a lawyer is also difficult because many don't have the understanding of the legal system and/or their vulnerabilities, especially people with emotional disabilities.

 

[leelee114]

I do not remember reading this. Will you please point me to the link where I can?

Page 4 of this thread.

The sheriff's office says the search was conducted "with the assistance of an attorney the family had obtained," but didn't immediately say whose home it was.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...s-body-of-missing-girl-found-in-illinois-home