Update and Question re: supervised visitation

[Just Blue]

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.

I, personally, find it...interesting...that OP wanted to exclude Dad (1st thread), then "saw the light", and now has a situation where she is getting what she wanted a few months ago.
How do we know that OP didn't post pretending to be Dad? How do we know that mom didn't cause the injuries?

Not saying she did...But it is something to consider.

I, also, find something "off" in this situation.

 

[Ohiogal]

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.

You can not state with absolute certainty that somebody in that household caused the harm to the child and that, if it wasn't dad, dad is protecting whoever did it. That statement is not a true one. And CPS could protect abused and neglected children without trampling a parent's constitutional rights. The state does NOT have the right to trample the constitutional rights of anyone. Constitutional rights are guaranteed. CPS does NOT have that right. At. All. the constitution is not something that you can throw away, crumple or ignore just because it is inconvenient or might get in the way.

 

[>Charlotte<]

CPS has been wrong many many times. So called medical experts have been wrong several times as well.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of this particular point, though.

Certainly, CPS is not immune to mistakes. Neither are medical professionals. In the example you noted of SBS, that was eventually explained by a physiological anomaly. But I can't think of any mysterious ailment that would cause 2nd degree heat-contact burns to suddenly manifest on a baby's buttocks. This child was burned. If not by Dad, it was at least while the child was in Dad's care. Maybe CPS and the police and the doctors don't know who exactly to blame, but if Dad was paying any kind of attention he should have a pretty good idea who's responsible. Yet he's being defensive instead of doing whatever he can to hold that person accountable? Yeah, something's hinky about this all right.

If a thread appeared where a father said his child suffered these kinds of burns while in his care, and now CPS is all up in his business and the ex is playing hardball--wow. That thread would blow the roof off this place.

Apply Occam's Razor. Forget CPS, the police, the timeline, the weight gain, the contradictions suggesting an underlying motive, and all the other white noise. Consider nothing but the two points that are the essence of this issue.

Was the child burned? Yes.
Was the child burned while he was with the father? Yes.

I would think that the best interests of the child indicate that the case should proceed on that basis.

I just can't get away from the simple fact that if Dad didn't burn the child, he has to at least have an idea who did. And he's not talking. That's abhorrent.

With all that being said, however, I think the most likely explanation is that Dad accidentally burned the child. The bath water was too hot and Dad didn't check it before he put the child into the tub. Once the damage was done, all Dad could think about was how much trouble he was going to be in. So he clammed up.

 

[Just Blue]

You can not state with absolute certainty that somebody in that household caused the harm to the child and that, if it wasn't dad, dad is protecting whoever did it. That statement is not a true one. And CPS could protect abused and neglected children without trampling a parent's constitutional rights. The state does NOT have the right to trample the constitutional rights of anyone. Constitutional rights are guaranteed. CPS does NOT have that right. At. All. the constitution is not something that you can throw away, crumple or ignore just because it is inconvenient or might get in the way.

The most horrifying part of these cases is Judges go along with CPS despite LEGAL proof that CPS is not only braking the law but their OWN policies. Scary. This leaves little or no recourse for parents/accused unless they are able to get EXCELLIENT attorneys to help...And even then it isn't always a win.

 

[dmcc10880]

I, also, find something "off" in this situation.

There appears to be some consensus.

I find it odd and that it appears OP is taking some sordid sense of glee, almost euphoria from a very sad and terrible situation.

 

[LdiJ]

There appears to be some consensus.

I find it odd and that it appears OP is taking some sordid sense of glee, almost euphoria from a very sad and terrible situation.

There is certainly no consensus here...and you are way out in left field with your comments, as far as I am concerned.

 

[>Charlotte<]

There appears to be some consensus.

I find it odd and that it appears OP is taking some sordid sense of glee, almost euphoria from a very sad and terrible situation.

Okay, let's say she is. That doesn't get dad off the hook.

 

[dmcc10880]

There is certainly no consensus here...and you are way out in left field with your comments, as far as I am concerned.

The key word used was "some". Some does not equal absolute.

 

[CSO286]

There appears to be some consensus.

I find it odd and that it appears OP is taking some sordid sense of glee, almost euphoria from a very sad and terrible situation.

Funny, I certainly don't get that vibe.

There's just too much here that hasn't been done in best ways possible. I don't have a spidey sense here, but my eyebrow is way up**************

 

[>Charlotte<]

The key word used was "some". Some does not equal absolute.

A "consensus" is absolute. There is no consensus here.

 

[Ohiogal]

I'm not sure I follow the logic of this particular point, though.

Certainly, CPS is not immune to mistakes. Neither are medical professionals. In the example you noted of SBS, that was eventually explained by a physiological anomaly. But I can't think of any mysterious ailment that would cause 2nd degree heat-contact burns to suddenly manifest on a baby's buttocks. This child was burned. If not by Dad, it was at least while the child was in Dad's care. Maybe CPS and the police and the doctors don't know who exactly to blame, but if Dad was paying any kind of attention he should have a pretty good idea who's responsible. Yet he's being defensive instead of doing whatever he can to hold that person accountable? Yeah, something's hinky about this all right.

If a thread appeared where a father said his child suffered these kinds of burns while in his care, and now CPS is all up in his business and the ex is playing hardball--wow. That thread would blow the roof off this place.

Apply Occam's Razor. Forget CPS, the police, the timeline, the weight gain, the contradictions suggesting an underlying motive, and all the other white noise. Consider nothing but the two points that are the essence of this issue.

Was the child burned? Yes.
Was the child burned while he was with the father? Yes.

I would think that the best interests of the child indicate that the case should proceed on that basis.

I just can't get away from the simple fact that if Dad didn't burn the child, he has to at least have an idea who did. And he's not talking. That's abhorrent.

With all that being said, however, I think the most likely explanation is that Dad accidentally burned the child. The bath water was too hot and Dad didn't check it before he put the child into the tub. Once the damage was done, all Dad could think about was how much trouble he was going to be in. So he clammed up.

And what if the professionals are wrong and this was not a second degree burn? Seriously. What if it were Intertrigo? Or an allergy to cinnamon/cassia that may have been in the bath soap (such allergies can mimic second degree burns down to the sloughing skin and red marks) -- did the doctors check for that as maybe it was in a soap product? Or maybe it was possible that dad used aloe vera on the baby's bottom during the last diaper change before drop off and that caused it? here is one story:
It's Worse Than Having A Peanut Allergy.... : I Am Allergic to Aloe Vera Story & Experience

Did they test the baby for ALL these things? or just look and say -- hey it's a burn! Got it. There are innocent reasons for what could have happened.

 

[milspecgirl]

ok- so say dad didnt do and dad wasnt even there when it happened. let's say dad left the child with competent adults and did everything in his power to protect the child. The child was accidentally burned- accidents do happen.
What concerns me here is that dad never noticed the rash/burn/marks/etc OR chose to ignore them completely (both of which scream of at least neglect) AND dad's refusal to talk to mom about it or try to find out what happened.
If I left my child with a well trusted sitter and the next time I changed their diaper noticed open, raw, or oozing skin (even if I thought it was just a diaper rash), I would want to know what the heck happened since apparently there wasnt a bad rash when I left the kiddo. I would also be calling the other parent and explaining that I just noticed it and decide what to do (go see Dr, etc).
The fact that dad didn't notice, didn't mention, has no idea what happened, and isnt trying to get to the bottom of it would be enough red flag along with multiple Dr's telling me these were burns for me to ask for supervised visitation until an explanation was found.

 

[stealth2]

A "consensus" is absolute. There is no consensus here.

Well, no, not necessarily. A consensus can be a general agreement - not an absolute one.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Well, no, not necessarily. A consensus can be a general agreement - not an absolute one.

I meant that there's either a consensus, or there's not a consensus.

 

[stealth2]

I meant that there's either a consensus, or there's not a consensus.

And among a large group of senior posters, there IS a consensus that something is off. <shrug> It does not have to be an absolute where everyone agrees.