IMMINENT DANGER OF HARM< RISK TIME LINES????

[Frustrated]

I have heard that Imminent Danger of HARM, RISK OF HARM...whatever they call it, they had to remove the Children based on "Imminent Danger" which is 24 HOURS to a WEEK?

Does anybody has proof or a LAW that states that fact?

What are Intervention Time line? Anybody know?

It seems that they use Imminent Danger alot to obtain Court Warrants to enter the Home...they specifiy to the Judge, needing to enter the Home under extuining circumstances, Emergency, and Imminent danger...etc...etc...But the trick is the time line...how long does all this will seem to be moot, if they waited too long?

If they waited 2 months, so that means the Imminent danger is out of the Window altogether? And why do they have to remove Children after 2 months, claiming imminent danger? Or are they wishful people just want to pluck children out for no time line at all?

Imminent danger and Best Interests of the Children...now that is a whole nother topic....Please Discuss.

[Marina]

I did an advanced search on Yahoo, and chose Canada for the search.

Here is something. Will do more later.

Canada, Court Rulings, case law
http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?_ad ... 1&.intl=us

[Frustrated]

This is VERY INTERESTING, and very vague at best, I can understand why they put imminent danger versus apprehension, and the main thing is that they REQUIRE A WARRANT TO ENTER TO APPREHEND the CHILD if:

1. The Child was in IMMINENT DANGER of HARM

2. IF the Child was unable to look after himself/herself, whatever...

3. If the Parent is unable to give adequate care, and so forth...

and there are other to list....

BUT they don't require a WARRANT IF it is an EMERGENCY and can enter the Home...HOWEVER, they would not enter the HOME WITHOUT WARRANT< WITHOUT REASON...if it is non-emergency issue. They are more opt to ask the person to BRING THE CHILDREN TO THEIR LOCATION<OTHER BUILDINGS so they don't REQUIRE A WARRANT TO APPREHEND the Child/ren...but if the Child was in the Home, and was not suitable for these criteria above...that the Child is not in imminent danger, but they believe that the Child is...they require a WARRANT for non-emergency issue to apprehend the child. BUT they don't require a WARRANT if it was An EMERGENCY, AND IF YOU BRING THE CHILDREN TO THEM! Makes the access EASIER FOR THEM if you BRING THE CHILDREN TO THEIR OFFICE< COURTS< OR OTHER LOCATIONS OTHER THAN YOUR HOME!!! Because if they ask you to bring your Children, you just waived your RIGHTS, and makes ACCESS for them EASIER and DON'T REQUIRE A WARRANT! This is kidnapping made easy for them. That's WHY they can't go into your Home and remove your Children, because they REQUIRE A WARRANT to apprehend your Child/ren from your Home for NON-EMERGENCY ISSUE. Remember to note: They don't NEED A WARRANT IF IT WAS AN EMERGENCY ISSUE and THEY CAN ENTER YOUR HOME AT ANY TIME!


As I read further, I am not sure, but it said the time line for apprehension for imminent danger is WITHIN 10 DAYS. Not sure about that, because it is VAGUE in the description.

We need to find out the EXACT TIME LINE FOR IMMINENT DANGER so if CPS WAITED TOO LONG< THEN THE CLAIM OF IMMINENT DANGER IS OUT OF THE WINDOW!~

[Frustrated]

Can anybody tell me what ex parte application means?

[Frustrated]

I found a wonderful site that explains about the time line and WHEN the CPS HAS TO FILE PETITION to the COURTS, most States are between 48 hours to 96 Hours.

http://familyrightsassociation.com/bin/ ... tions.html

[dasuberding]

In the CPS court, ex-parte communications is highly illegal but you bet it happens...

EX PARTE - Lat. 'By or for one party' or 'by one side.'

Refers to situations in which only one party (and not the adversary) appears before a judge. Such meetings are often forbidden.

Although a judge is normally required to meet with all parties in a case and not with just one, there are circumstances where this rule does not apply and the judge is allowed to meet with just one side (ex parte) such as where a plaintiff requests an order (say to extend time for service of a summons) or dismissal before the answer or appearance of the defendant(s).

In addition, sometimes judges will issue temporary orders ex parte (that is, based on one party's request without hearing from the other side) when time is limited or it would do no apparent good to hear the other side of the dispute. For example, if a wife claims domestic violence, a court may immediately issue an ex parte order telling her husband to stay away. Once he's out of the house, the court holds a hearing, where he can tell his side and the court can decide whether the ex parte order should be made permanent.

[pamom2crew]

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:04 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found a wonderful site that explains about the time line and WHEN the CPS HAS TO FILE PETITION to the COURTS, most States are between 48 hours to 96 Hours.



That was a great site...thanx!!!!!!