new here and in need of help asap

[panthertaz]

I live in sacramento ca and my grand kids were take by cps on oct 1. need to know how to revoke the cs33 form to get them back can any one help us on that one

[brookeycookie]

Im somewhat of a newbie on here, but I am under the impression any law enforcement, doctor, or juvenile officer, can take a child temporarily if they think think there is an emergency to save the child from. Do the parents have a lawyer? Did they have a warrant or get allowed in? Was there a hotline call? The only things I've read where that form was revoked, was in rare cases of a police officer not having any probable cause, ie; no hormone call or physically forced their way in against the parents will without a warrant. In Missouri, they don't even need a warrant if they prove it was an emergency to protect the child and get it approved in 24 hours.

[brookeycookie]

Geesh, im so sorry.....not a hormone call. A HOT LINE* call. One of these days I will learn to proof read before hitting submit.

[littleplanet]

Geesh, im so sorry.....not a hormone call. A HOT LINE* call. One of these days I will learn to proof read before hitting submit.

Thanks for the laugh...................
(in amongst all the fear and loathing, a good laugh is good medicine, sometimes.)

What are the California statutes for lawful entry and removal?
(rights of grandparents, etc.)?

[family_man]

The following web site might be helpful, regarding lawful entry & removal in CA:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=wic&codebody=&hits=20

(I would start with Section 305-324.5:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=00001-01000&file=305-324.5.)

[littleplanet]

The following web site might be helpful, regarding lawful entry & removal in CA:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=wic&codebody=&hits=20

(I would start with Section 305-324.5:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=00001-01000&file=305-324.5.)

That - is a LOT of reading!!!!!
(War and Peace was easier)
Now I see why it takes a good lawyer to be fluent in legalese.

- seems to me what gets all balled up here begins with the state's definition of what exactly constitutes a clear and present danger to a minor.
Especially in terms of parental rights - where it seems a lot of other people become sanctioned to define this - other than the parent themselves.....incredibly subjective determination, instead of a more objective consensus.
(or maybe I missed something???)

[annakenc]

well you make a good point,
and this is also my point,
I dont know if youre quoting some "state law" but the supreme law says NOT that they need to see clear and present danger, they need to be able to prove it by clear and convincing proof, later if they get sued for their behavior. but how do you go to a police officer and ask them to investigate their own? so we dont have equal protection, and how do you file a case against an aggressor "who was only doing his job"? we're screwed because of this carte blanc mentality....the state has no business, no business whatsoever in our home and in our lives for any reason under god and the sun. thats my opinion, and it is clearly the opinion of the founders of our nation and the amendment's authors.
going to be highly stigmatized when you even set your toenail in court which is why the lynch mobs just usually have their way with the parent and basically gang rape us in front of the spectators in the courtroom.
Sick people they all give each other superior consideration and they are not being objective/professional...thanks for making that plain to me.