Update and Question re: supervised visitation

[Ohiogal]

With this I have changed my mind. Not so much on the liking you. Something about this case doesn't sit right with me.

 

[InfantCustody]

With this I have changed my mind. Not so much on the liking you. Something about this case doesn't sit right with me.

With what you have changed your mind? I think I'm missing something...perhaps it is my mental fog making me dense. I can accept that as a reality!

 

[CourtClerk]

With what you have changed your mind? I think I'm missing something...perhaps it is my mental fog making me dense. I can accept that as a reality!

No, she's not the only one that feels that way...

 

[LdiJ]

With this I have changed my mind. Not so much on the liking you. Something about this case doesn't sit right with me.

4 doctors came back saying that the child had severe burns. CPS has substantiated abuse as a result. Mom didn't get CPS involved, mandated reporters did.

This is an unwed mom who not only listened to what this forum had to say but gave the same advice to other unwed mothers who have posted here.

SOMETHING went wrong in dad's home...somebody seriously messed up. I do NOT understand your reaction to this one. I simply don't.

 

[mistoffolees]

Dad is doing the happy dance tonight, because the police are likely not pressing charges. He said he can call the detective into court for any hearing I want to attempt, and he can testify that there is not sufficient evidence to say that something occurred. He said the detective not pressing charges, and testifying in court, will counteract the validity of a substantiated CPS case. Dad said all the MD's and the CPS in my County are all wrong, don't know what child abuse looks like, had a burn "stuck in their heads" and will all be called out for what they are on appeal. He is planning his large law suit for when he has the case unsubstantiated.

I think Dad is in for a rude awakening. He really needs to understand standards of proof.

For a criminal conviction, they need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a convocation - so prosecutors generally won't touch a case like this unless it's etched in stone.

For CPS to act or for the judge to order supervised visitation, the standards of evidence are MUCH lower.

For that matter, Dad can argue that someone else did it to avoid criminal prosecution, but that may not get him off the hook for a CPS case - since he would be responsible for allowing the child to be in an unsafe situation.

 

[CJane]

4 doctors came back saying that the child had severe burns. CPS has substantiated abuse as a result. Mom didn't get CPS involved, mandated reporters did.

CPS substantiated neglect which resulted in harm.

And yeah, I don't particularly get it either, except I know OG hates CPS like nothing else on this planet.

 

[stealth2]

I do understand where OG is coming from. The more time goes by, the more things - granted, little things - start to contradict one another. Just to give an example or two...

On 3-25, OP posted to us that the baby came home with these burns on his bottom and "boy parts". The MD, when examining the child, stated that the burns were either hot water or chemical burns. Yet, yesterday, OP told us that the MD said (in a subsequent visit where Dad was present) that it was from the child being set on something hot and only covered his bottom. Not a HUGE difference, but one that makes some think... "huh..."

Then we have the whole weight gain deal. The way it's introduced makes it appear that it is solely due to being out of Dad's hands since the burn incident. However, the failure to thrive issue was brought up ~4 weeks ago. The burn issue occurred 2 1/2 weeks ago. So, the child was apparently gaining weight while still seeing Dad on the shared schedule. But, it does come across that OP is going to likely use that when she goes for supervised visitation.

Again - it's nothing *big*. But quite a few "huh" moments spread about that make some think that there is more to this story than we've been made privy to. Could be wrong. Or not.

 

[Artemis_ofthe_Hunt]

I do understand where OG is coming from. The more time goes by, the more things - granted, little things - start to contradict one another. Just to give an example or two...

On 3-25, OP posted to us that the baby came home with these burns on his bottom and "boy parts". The MD, when examining the child, stated that the burns were either hot water or chemical burns. Yet, yesterday, OP told us that the MD said (in a subsequent visit where Dad was present) that it was from the child being set on something hot and only covered his bottom. Not a HUGE difference, but one that makes some think... "huh..."

Then we have the whole weight gain deal. The way it's introduced makes it appear that it is solely due to being out of Dad's hands since the burn incident. However, the failure to thrive issue was brought up ~4 weeks ago. The burn issue occurred 2 1/2 weeks ago. So, the child was apparently gaining weight while still seeing Dad on the shared schedule. But, it does come across that OP is going to likely use that when she goes for supervised visitation.

Again - it's nothing *big*. But quite a few "huh" moments spread about that make some think that there is more to this story than we've been made privy to. Could be wrong. Or not.

I dunno, when my son sits, his "boy parts" aren't exactly off the ground. Especially considering the way a young child sits, forward... ya know?

I'm not saying that I don't find some parts of this a little "off", BUT.....

 

[CJane]

I didn't read it as the weight gain issue being mentioned as a "HA!" towards Dad, or an indication that he's only gaining weight because he's been with Mom exclusively. I just read it as an overall update to kiddo's condition.

I just find it incredible that OG is all kids of "You're doing GREAT! Good Job! Yay for You!" and then a mandated reporter calls CPS, and Mom is "chomping at the bit" to exclude Dad from the child's life.

 

[LdiJ]

I didn't read it as the weight gain issue being mentioned as a "HA!" towards Dad, or an indication that he's only gaining weight because he's been with Mom exclusively. I just read it as an overall update to kiddo's condition.

I just find it incredible that OG is all kids of "You're doing GREAT! Good Job! Yay for You!" and then a mandated reporter calls CPS, and Mom is "chomping at the bit" to exclude Dad from the child's life.

Particularly in a case like this one, where its clear that there was real harm to the child. Its not what I am used to hearing from her.

Also, in response to Stealth, when the OP last posted they had not been to the ER yet, only to the child's ped. The ER doctors may have had a slightly different opinion than the ped.

 

[Just Blue]

As some of you are aware, my BIL was accused by DCF of "touching" my DD. I was floored when this accusation was made. My BIL is the most caring, loving person I have ever met. I KNOW he would give his life to save my DD.

DD has expressive and receptive language disorders, and at the time of these allegations her speech issues were pretty profound. When she was given a Forensic Interview by the DA's office I had expressed my concerns and asked if the Interviewer was "educated" in children with PDD and EX/RECPT/LD. I was assured she was. NOT. Said "expert" has NO specialized training.
Please note that MY LEGAL RIGHT to observe this interview was denied. I was never allowed to view the DVD of this interview.


For 16 months my family was put through an emotional HELL. Why? To this day I do not know.
I DO know that my DD's therapist, after months of being put off by the DA's office, was finally allowed to view the interview. She took notes. She was appalled that my BIL was accused. She saw NOTHING in the interview that would indicate my BIL did ANYTHING to my DD.
DCF did NOT follow the laws of this state. They did not even follow their own guidelines.
In the appeal hearing with DCF my BIL was called 90 min after we all got through testifying, the Director for our region called and apologized on behalf of his office for the total fu....mess up ...his office perpetrated on BIL and ALL of out family. The Director acknowledged if the word "father" had been placed instead of "uncle", the office would not have considered this an issue and never would have gone beyond the intake.
The official report also acknowledged that they did not "consider" my (mothers) statements. When asked why during the hearing the DCF worker stated that I was "obviously in denial". Humm...I spent HOURS dealing with these people. Co-operated in every way. I stood by the fact that what they accused my BIL of COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE HAPPENED. So for that my statements were not even "considered". After all...I didn't tell them what they wanted to hear. They also noted in the report when my DD was asked "What would you do if someone touched your private places?" My DD's response was, "I would tell my mother"...Interviewer noted DD gave her a "what a stupid question" look.

So...Do Social Services make mistakes? YES. This happens ALL OVER THE COUNTRY every DAY of the week. Is the Org needed? Yes. Do changes NEED to be made? You bet your ever-lovin' ass they do.

 

[Ohiogal]

I read back over what I posted. My irritation is not quite with IC. Not keen on her ready to think the worst of dad and that bothers me and there seems to be inconsistencies. My spidey sense is tingling, so to speak. But truthfully, CPS is stomping all over dad's rights here according to the law and I hope he fights it.

Do I want the child to have been harmed in any way? HECK NO! (I almost wrote something else a bit stronger but...) I do think that rather than assuming the worst of dad that maybe IC and dad should try to discuss this like adults and see if dad has any explanation of what happened.

CPS has been wrong many many times. So called medical experts have been wrong several times as well. I have seen parents accused of everything from severe abuse including shaken baby syndrome that was supposedly confirmed by several experts. Only to find out the experts were wrong. That they missed something. Did that happen in this case -- well lets put it this way, something is missing from this. I have read your facts that you have posted IC and something is definitely missing from the whole spectrum of what has been posted.

It is very possible that dad is telling the truth as is mom. But IC seems very ready to believe the worst of dad. That is an issue with me. Didn't you know him better when you slept him to know what kind of person he is?

What if this is a false accusation? What if the doctors are wrong? IC you seem to have already made up your mind about the fact that dad is a demon and abused his child. Why is that? Before you say because all the evidence points to him -- what evidence?

I can't put my finger on it but quite frankly, something is rotten in Denmark, so to speak.

 

[stealth2]

Particularly in a case like this one, where its clear that there was real harm to the child. Its not what I am used to hearing from her.

Also, in response to Stealth, when the OP last posted they had not been to the ER yet, only to the child's ped. The ER doctors may have had a slightly different opinion than the ped.

In all honesty? I have been through this thread, as well as the original thread about this situation. And I couldn't find any mention of the ER visit (nor did I reference it at all). Was there a thread elsewhere? Or one deleted?

And again - it's not that there's anything *big*. Just too many "huh" moments for my liking. Which is why I tend to stay out of OP's threads for the most part. I haven't figured out what it is, but something just doesn't sit right. Sorry.

 

[Just Blue]

In all honesty? I have been through this thread, as well as the original thread about this situation. And I couldn't find any mention of the ER visit (nor did I reference it at all). Was there a thread elsewhere? Or one deleted?

And again - it's not that there's anything *big*. Just too many "huh" moments for my liking. Which is why I tend to stay out of OP's threads for the most part. I haven't figured out what it is, but something just doesn't sit right. Sorry.

Yup. Agreed.

 

[LdiJ]

I read back over what I posted. My irritation is not quite with IC. Not keen on her ready to think the worst of dad and that bothers me and there seems to be inconsistencies. My spidey sense is tingling, so to speak. But truthfully, CPS is stomping all over dad's rights here according to the law and I hope he fights it.

Do I want the child to have been harmed in any way? HECK NO! (I almost wrote something else a bit stronger but...) I do think that rather than assuming the worst of dad that maybe IC and dad should try to discuss this like adults and see if dad has any explanation of what happened.

CPS has been wrong many many times. So called medical experts have been wrong several times as well. I have seen parents accused of everything from severe abuse including shaken baby syndrome that was supposedly confirmed by several experts. Only to find out the experts were wrong. That they missed something. Did that happen in this case -- well lets put it this way, something is missing from this. I have read your facts that you have posted IC and something is definitely missing from the whole spectrum of what has been posted.

It is very possible that dad is telling the truth as is mom. But IC seems very ready to believe the worst of dad. That is an issue with me. Didn't you know him better when you slept him to know what kind of person he is?

What if this is a false accusation? What if the doctors are wrong? IC you seem to have already made up your mind about the fact that dad is a demon and abused his child. Why is that? Before you say because all the evidence points to him -- what evidence?

I can't put my finger on it but quite frankly, something is rotten in Denmark, so to speak.

Everyone is acknowledging, including IC that dad may not be the culprit. There were 5 adults in the house when it happened. However no one in dad's household, including dad, is willing to offer any explanation. I suspect that this is because dad is a cop, and therefore everyone knows that in most cases you should not offer an explanation if you are accused of a crime.

Dad may very well be doing what you said you would do if CPS came to your house, and that is slam the door in their face.

The possibility of an allergic reaction was discussed in the previous thread, but the doctor's ruled that out based on the nature of the injuries. I can see how a doctor might be wrong about shaken baby syndrome, or anything else that might be internal, but this was an external injury and unless an allergic reaction was the culprit, there isn't any other explanation other than a burn of some kind.

I am not fond of CPS either. I hear far too many horror stories of unjust removal of children and other trampling of parent's rights...or flat out NOT protecting a child truly in need. However, CPS's job is to protect abused and neglected children, and they cannot do that without trampling, at least temporarily, a parent's constitutional rights.

Somebody in that household caused the harm to the child. If it wasn't dad, dad is protecting whoever did it.

I am on the child's side, not any of the adults.