The children come first. The goal is reunification.

[Dan Sullivan]

I certainly don't know everything but I never heard of a case where the CPS victims negotiate an agreement with CPS, they dictate all the terms, take it or leave it. We were handed a BS agreement that we had to sign in order to get our children back. I wanted to sign it with "UNDER DURESS" under my signature but my attorney advised me not to otherwise we would not get our children back.

Under your signature?

I thought you never signed a service plan.

Bob_Lynn
Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 4:42 pm

I never signed any service plan and although I urged my wife not to either, she did because she was coerced and fearful that our children would never be returned to us.

If CPS won't negotiate an agreement without unnecessary and inappropriate services the family should write up their own WITH only the services that they believe are necessary and start them asap. This could force CPS into family court to ask for a Court Order for their service plan and the family could show the Judge that they've already started appropriate services.

As I've posted florida999 got her children back in three months using that method.

[Bob_Lynn]

I thought you never signed a service plan

It wasn't a service plan, it was an agreement that we could only have our children returned under the terms of that agreement. There were 3 service plans that my wife signed that I didn't sign, those were very specifically service plans, this one wasn't, even though it really amounted to similar nonsense under a different title.

If CPS won't negotiate an agreement without unnecessary and inappropriate services the family should write up their own WITH only the services that they believe are necessary and start them asap. This could force CPS into family court to ask for a Court Order for their service plan and the family could show the Judge that they've already started appropriate services.

Like the judge would give a rat's ass. CPS and the judge is only interested in any service plan CPS draws up, they're the "experts" in the kangaroo judge's mind. In any case, doing that amounts to implying you're guilty of something. Why would you want to make them believe services are necessary when they're not? Total BS.

[Dan Sullivan]

I thought you never signed a service plan

It wasn't a service plan, it was an agreement that we could only have our children returned under the terms of that agreement. There were 3 service plans that my wife signed that I didn't sign, those were very specifically service plans, this one wasn't, even though it really amounted to similar nonsense under a different title.

If CPS won't negotiate an agreement without unnecessary and inappropriate services the family should write up their own WITH only the services that they believe are necessary and start them asap. This could force CPS into family court to ask for a Court Order for their service plan and the family could show the Judge that they've already started appropriate services.

Like the judge would give a rat's ass. CPS and the judge is only interested in any service plan CPS draws up, they're the "experts" in the kangaroo judge's mind. In any case, doing that amounts to implying you're guilty of something. Why would you want to make them believe services are necessary when they're not? Total BS.

As I've posted florida999 got her children back in three months using that method.

[Bob_Lynn]

As I've posted florida999 got her children back in three months using that method.

You can keep posting it as often as you want, what or may not have happened in one particular case doesn't mean a thing. People get their children back for all sorts of reasons, insinuating to CPS and the family court that they're right and you're guilty by jumping through hoops you create for yourself is total nonsense.

[Dan Sullivan]

As I've posted florida999 got her children back in three months using that method.

You can keep posting it as often as you want, what or may not have happened in one particular case doesn't mean a thing. People get their children back for all sorts of reasons, insinuating to CPS and the family court that they're right and you're guilty by jumping through hoops you create for yourself is total nonsense.

The children were home in three months.

How long did it take you when you complied with CPS' terms?

[florida999]

i certainly did not want my case to be the cause of such bickering.
however dan is correct that this method did work for us. i agree with bob that this might not work for someone else. i believe it depends on the severity of the charges. however, i did consult with about five attorneys and they all said to go this route.

[Bob_Lynn]

I'm glad you got your children back Florida and I agree that one must do whatever it takes, first and foremost, to get their children back. Of course, one has to know what that is and the fact is, no one really knows because every CPS is different, every caseworker is different and every judge is different and none of them operate within any standards and none of them operate within the law.

You say 5 attorneys advised you the same way, I'll bet if you ask 500 attorneys if you should make constitutional claims in a family court, all 500 would advise against it. Yet the Constitution is the ultimate law and the minute anyone walks into any courtroom, whatever the charges, criminal or civil, the primary defense is Constitutional law.

Now a word about advice that you read in this or any other forum. First, as usual, I will emphasize everything I ever post is only my opinion and not legal advice.

Next, one should always be very careful about any advice posted in a public forum. There are some that purport that their advice amounts to "fact" because of alleged vast experience with the system. Let me repeat once again, when it comes to CPS matters, NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT ANSWER, PERIOD! And that includes me. Everyone must follow their own instincts and do what's best for them. After all, their children and the integrity of their family is at stake and only they can really know what's going on and the best course of action based on what they learn.

In my opinion, those who insist that only they have the right answer are dangerous people and their advice should be taken with that in mind.

[Dan Sullivan]

i certainly did not want my case to be the cause of such bickering.
however dan is correct that this method did work for us. i agree with bob that this might not work for someone else. i believe it depends on the severity of the charges. however, i did consult with about five attorneys and they all said to go this route.

I'm not bickering about anything.

I'm thrilled you were reunited with your children.

Your case is a recent example on fightcps that a particular method of getting children back from CPS has worked.

And it's true that it might not work for someone else... but the other two alternatives in dealing with a service plan, complying with whatever CPS included in the service plan or refusing to comply with the service plan certainly have a drastically lower success rate if they are ever successful at all.

If reunification is a family's primary goal, you made an excellent choice.

[florida999]

as i read the posts by dan, then bob, then dan, ect.....it seems to me that each have different causes that they are trying to serve. it seems to me that dan is trying to help with ways to get children home, while bob is working to change the system. both GREAT causes. but if your in the system right now, possible future changes are not going to help. i can see why these two dont agree alot of the time. trying to fight for your rights is not going to work until the court recognizes it as a defense, and right now they dont. what we did was respond to the issues the dcf had valid claims to. the service plan that they proposed had so many things, thier wasnt enough days in the week to do what they wanted. some examples:

we enrolled in angermanagement. why? because we do fight to much (verbal).

my husband takes weekly drug screens. why? because he has a history of pot use that can be proven.

what they wanted:

batters intervention. we did not do this, my husband is not a batterer.

batterer support for me. we did not do this, i am not a battered woman.

drug counciling. we did not do this, my husband is not an addict, he has passed every test.

aa meetings. we did not do this, drinking a beer or 2 after work does not make you an alcoholic.

this is just an example

[Bob_Lynn]

trying to fight for your rights is not going to work until the court recognizes it as a defense, and right now they dont.

You must always fight for your rights, whether the lower courts recognize it as a defense or not, the higher courts do. Again, if you don't fight for your rights, you waive them. By fighting in the lower courts for your constitutional rights, you show the court you know where you stand and you're not ignorant. Knowledge is your best weapon.

[Dan Sullivan]

as i read the posts by dan, then bob, then dan, ect.....it seems to me that each have different causes that they are trying to serve. it seems to me that dan is trying to help with ways to get children home, while bob is working to change the system. both GREAT causes. but if your in the system right now, possible future changes are not going to help. i can see why these two dont agree alot of the time. trying to fight for your rights is not going to work until the court recognizes it as a defense, and right now they dont. what we did was respond to the issues the dcf had valid claims to. the service plan that they proposed had so many things, thier wasnt enough days in the week to do what they wanted. some examples:

we enrolled in angermanagement. why? because we do fight to much (verbal).

my husband takes weekly drug screens. why? because he has a history of pot use that can be proven.

what they wanted:

batters intervention. we did not do this, my husband is not a batterer.

batterer support for me. we did not do this, i am not a battered woman.

drug counciling. we did not do this, my husband is not an addict, he has passed every test.

aa meetings. we did not do this, drinking a beer or 2 after work does not make you an alcoholic.

this is just an example

You chose not to comply with inappropriate and unnecessary services included in the service plan...

and you got your children back after three months!!!!

Reunification was your goal... and my goal.

And I knew from previous experience that what I recommended was the most successful method if you wanted to get your children back as soon as possible.

There's nothing more important than getting the children back ASAP.

And I include your three children in the number of children I've helped get back from CPS' custody.

Best, Dan

[firemonkey]

Florida999, Thank you!!!! You intelligently organized and stated the thoughts that were running through my mind as I followed this thread.

I believe Dan is one of the best things this forum has going for it. I hope all newcommers do not let the bickering and attacks deter them from taking his advice. I find it intelligent, logical and sound.

Thanks Dan, we need you !!!!!

[florida999]

yes, bob higher courts could perhaps change opinions and such, but it was our goal to get our childen back, hopefully before they graduated from high school.

[florida999]

the fact is that it takes two different strategys to FIGHT dcf, and to FIX them. do i agree that dcf needs to be changed, you bet i do. but i was more concerned about getting my children back then changing the system. and i would say the majority of people here are in the same boat, they not looking to chage the world, they just want to go to sleep at night with their children safely in their OWN beds.

[Dan Sullivan]

I'm glad you got your children back Florida and I agree that one must do whatever it takes, first and foremost, to get their children back.

florida999
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:25 pm
Post subject: WE GOT THE KIDS BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!

WE FINALLY GOT TO COURT TODAY AND WE GOT THE KIDS BACK!!!!!! DAN, YOU WERE RIGHT WHEN YOU SUGGESTED TO BE PROACTIVE, THE FACT THAT WE HAD STARTED COUNCILING ON OUR OWN, AS WELL AS MY HUSBAND HAS BEEN TAKING WEEKLY DRUG SCREENS MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE.

Of course, one has to know what that is and the fact is, no one really knows because every CPS is different, every caseworker is different and every judge is different and none of them operate within any standards and none of them operate within the law.

Doesn't change the goal or strategy.

You say 5 attorneys advised you the same way, I'll bet if you ask 500 attorneys if you should make constitutional claims in a family court, all 500 would advise against it.

Would that not be because a family court isn't the forum for citing constitutional rights?

Isn't an appeal the proper forum for that?

Yet the Constitution is the ultimate law and the minute anyone walks into any courtroom, whatever the charges, criminal or civil, the primary defense is Constitutional law.

Please explain how a family could possibly use that defense in Family Court after CPS has removed their children, Bob.

Now a word about advice that you read in this or any other forum. First, as usual, I will emphasize everything I ever post is only my opinion and not legal advice.

Next, one should always be very careful about any advice posted in a public forum. There are some that purport that their advice amounts to "fact" because of alleged vast experience with the system. Let me repeat once again, when it comes to CPS matters, NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT ANSWER, PERIOD! And that includes me. Everyone must follow their own instincts and do what's best for them. After all, their children and the integrity of their family is at stake and only they can really know what's going on and the best course of action based on what they learn.

The best course of action is the most successful course of action that will reunify the family.

In my opinion, those who insist that only they have the right answer are dangerous people and their advice should be taken with that in mind.

If you consider me dangerous for helping get thirty+ kids away from CPS, then I'm proud to be dangerous.

[florida999]

to add to dans post, when the judge awarded the children back to us, she stated it wwas because we had sone these things on our own

[Dan Sullivan]

You must always fight for your rights, whether the lower courts recognize it as a defense or not, the higher courts do.

That would be in an appeal to a higher court after the lower court made an unfavorable decision against the family, correct, Bob?

Again, if you don't fight for your rights, you waive them. By fighting in the lower courts for your constitutional rights, you show the court you know where you stand and you're not ignorant. Knowledge is your best weapon.

The only issues in a Family Court are the custody of the children and the allegations that caused them to be removed.

And the family has to resolve the issues either by demonstrating that the allegations are false and/or that the children are safe and secure in their home.

As I said, and I believe Bob has also admitted, the proper forum for raising the Constitutional rights issue is in an appeal AFTER the family has suffered an unfavorable decision in Family Court.

[Dan Sullivan]

Florida999, Thank you!!!! You intelligently organized and stated the thoughts that were running through my mind as I followed this thread.

I believe Dan is one of the best things this forum has going for it. I hope all newcommers do not let the bickering and attacks deter them from taking his advice. I find it intelligent, logical and sound.

Thanks Dan, we need you !!!!!

My pleasure.

Best, Dan

[Dazeemay]

Would that not be because a family court isn't the forum for citing constitutional rights? Please explain how a family could possibly use that defense in Family Court after CPS has removed their children, Bob.

We gave our constitutional rights to the family court and I think it woke our judge up to the fact that our rights were violated. We did not stipulate to anything. Also when we did our dec of facts and objections corrections forms it was a slam dunk for us. We presented case laws, our parental rights, constitutional rights and amendment rights. No thanks to our lawyer who told us to stipulate(and would not file our dec of facts etc.) and the lawyer who had quit when we first started told him he should not make us do that because they would be in our lives forever.

The reason it took so long to get our granddaughter back was because we had to keep putting off our hearings for cps. Three of their lawyers quit. The one when we started our case quit before the first hearing, the second one quit before our first hearing, the third one quit before our first hearing. Which took months.

Then the state had a judge that retired and the judges met for the summer months to reschedule their schedules for each county.

When we finally got into our first hearing the judge told them they could not file any more petitions. We were on a roll from there. I figured if all of the hearings had not been canceled we would have had her back in 2-3 months.

There is no pat answer as to what is going to work in each case we all know that.

Guardianship prevents them from taking your kids and if they take you to court then your kids are safe and out of the foster system.

Jumping through their hoops and jumping ahead of them and taking whatever classes works besides doing what is necessary in the way of Dec of Facts O C's to back you up in court. Those two things work together, but many parents our jumping through their hoops for months and years because they did not know about doing the dec of facts and O C's and once they did that their children came home.

Being assertive from the beginning works if you know how to keep them at bay with your constitutional rights. If they have your kids and you spout your constitutional rights then know how to do it by filing the necessary forms to let the judge know you know.

The second time around with them we knew our constitutional rights and had our guardianships. They sputtered through the meeting and so did their lawyer. They looked like whipped dogs by the time our daughter and her lawyer were through with them.

They did the cowardly thing and slinked off into the background and did not even have the guts to tell us that our case was closed even before it was opened. That was from the horses mouth months later.

It makes me ill that this has become a numbers game of wins. All I can think of is the numbers lost and not being able to help them enough. Wishing I could be in court with them.

[Dan Sullivan]

It makes me ill that this has become a numbers game of wins. All I can think of is the numbers lost and not being able to help them enough.

If "all you can think of is the numbers lost" then isn't it a "numbers game of wins" to you?

[Dazeemay]

If "all you can think of is the numbers lost" then isn't it a "numbers game of wins" to you?

No, it is the numbers lost. Everytime I look at what Gary Shaw posts about the numbers of children lost each day in the system I get ill. It can't be about how many we win. It has to be about how many we have lost.

[Dan Sullivan]

If "all you can think of is the numbers lost" then isn't it a "numbers game of wins" to you?

No, it is the numbers lost. Everytime I look at what Gary Shaw posts about the numbers of children lost each day in the system I get ill. It can't be about how many we win. It has to be about how many we have lost.

I look at the situation like this... the number of children I help get back to their families from CPS is exactly the same number of children you don't have to worry about being lost in the system.

[Dan Sullivan]

Bob Lynn wrote, "Yet the Constitution is the ultimate law and the minute anyone walks into any courtroom, whatever the charges, criminal or civil, the primary defense is Constitutional law."

Please post the links for that wonderful bit of information, Bob.

Are lawyers taught that the primary defense is Constitutional law when their client is in a criminal or civil action?

Or is that simply one of your opinions?

[Bob_Lynn]

You must always fight for your rights, whether the lower courts recognize it as a defense or not, the higher courts do.

That would be in an appeal to a higher court after the lower court made an unfavorable decision against the family, correct, Bob?

You're assuming the lower court made an unfavorable decision after you asserted your rights. Maybe there is a family court somewhere that actually follows constitutional law and if you don't assert your rights in that court, you waive them. You also have zero to lose when you assert your rights in family court and everything to gain because it is a proper and valid strategy.

The only issues in a Family Court are the custody of the children and the allegations that caused them to be removed.

Wrong, those aren't the only issues, in any and every court, RIGHTS are key issues. Custody of children are RIGHTS and allegations are accusations that require DUE PROCESS which are also RIGHTS.

As I said, and I believe Bob has also admitted, the proper forum for raising the Constitutional rights issue is in an appeal AFTER the family has suffered an unfavorable decision in Family Court.

You're twisting the issue as usual. You FIRST raise constitutional issues in the FIRST court, which in this case may be the family court and is ALSO THE PROPER FORUM as every court is. By the time you appeal, you have already LOST in the lower court, possibly because you FAILED to assert your constitutional rights. You're implying that you should wait until the appeal process to assert your rights, which in my opinion, is very DANGEROUS advice and may cause you to lose your children to the state. So you're wrong again, I never agreed to your twisted strategy.

[Bob_Lynn]

Please post the links for that wonderful bit of information, Bob.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archiv ... cript.html

Read it, you might learn something.