EXPUNGMENT/EXPUNGE YOUR NAME IF YOU GET YOUR CHILD/REN BACK

Are you going through an investigation now? Tell your story and get feedback here.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

EXPUNGMENT/EXPUNGE YOUR NAME IF YOU GET YOUR CHILD/REN BACK

Postby Dazeemay » Sat May 27, 2006 9:58 am

Here is the site to look at terms of expunging your name from your state central registry. Some states will not do it, but one can try to appeal this.

This is the reason that so many of us keep going the merry- go- round with cps. It is because once your name is on the central registry founded or unfounded in some states. Your name is their for good.

The best time to get your lawyer to take your name off is the day the judge returns your child/ren back to you. Otherwise it is a long costly battle to get your name off of the registry.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/ ... tryall.pdf

Also be aware that there is another data system posted by Greegor in regards to your name being expunged.

The state's computer for this is called SACWIS
State Automated Child Welfare Information System.

If somebody works to expunge a registry mark
they might get the agency database expunged
but might not know that a second, somewhat
serruptitious set of books is kept on the SACWIS
computer or database. The Federal DHHS CB
website has a chart breaking down the progress
of all states toward compatibility with the standard.

Beware the sneaky "second set of books"
maintained on SACWIS if you get an expungement.

http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=1059
_________________
Last edited by Dazeemay on Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Sat May 27, 2006 9:59 am

This is a very frightening bill that is being introduced. If this bill passes we will all be considered felons if our name is on the registry.

We need to watch it and we need to oppose it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... 00764:@@@P
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Sat May 27, 2006 10:00 am

This is a Forensic site. I am trying to seek out these types of articles to help us because they are very much against the way therapists and the laws that are passed are unreasonable in regards to CPS.


Central Registry: Protection or Oppression
Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield*
ABSTRACT: The proposed National Child Protection Act of 1991 includes a national central registry similar to those in most of the states. Such a registry, if the legislation is enacted, will likely have unintended consequences, including the violation of the civil liberties of those whose names will be included on it.

On November 14, 1991, Senator Biden rose to address the Senate and introduce a bill, S. 1966, titled the National Child Protection Act of 1991. Cosponsors included senators Thurmond, DeConcini, McConnell, Metzenbaum, Grasslet, Heflin, Simon, Specter, Dixon, Durenberger, Kasten, and Hatch. As recorded in the Congressional Record, November 14, 1991 (S 16749), Senator Biden said:

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to confront what I believe is one of the most threatening dangers confronting the Nation-the tragedy of child abuse ... Many abused children are victimized in their homes, but there is a large and growing number of children being victimized outside the home ... must be met by an expanded national effort to protect these children.

Senator Thurmond also spoke in support of S.1966 and said (S 17652):

Mr. President, the protection of innocent children from abuse is a vastly important matter of national concern which must be addressed. Frankly, I can think of no crime more deserving of our national attention and harsh punishment than the molestation or abuse of a child. . . . Those who violently prey upon childhood innocence must be caught, prosecuted, and sentenced to tough criminal penalties.

The proposed National Child Protection Act of 1991 is legislation "to establish a national background check procedure . . . initiate the reporting of all State and Federal child abuse crimes . . . and provide protection from inaccurate information for persons subjected to background checks . . . and for other purposes. . ." (S 16749). This legislation, if enacted, will set up a national data base to include information from the state central registries. As printed in the Congressional Record, the proposed bill defines "child abuse crime information" to include anybody who has been indicted or convicted of a child abuse crime under state law. This national system requires state agencies to maintain a close liaison with the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse "for the exchange of information and technical assistance" (S 16750). It is left to the individual states to determine the procedures so that ". . . qualified entities identified by States; authorized representatives of a qualified entity who have a need to know such information; the providers; law enforcement authorities; or pursuant to the direction of a court of law . . ." (S 16751) may get the information contained in this national registry. Both Senator Biden and Senator Thurmond identify the source of this proposed legislation as the plan and recommendations brought before the Senate judiciary committee by Oprah Winfrey, actress, television personality, talk show host, and child abuse activist.

The protection of children is the rationale behind the establishment of state central registries and now that concept is advanced as the reason for a national registry. When the idea of a central registry of abused and neglected children was first proposed in the early 1960s, its purpose was primarily diagnostic. If a physician suspected a child had been abused, a call to a central bureau could discover if that child had previously been reported as abused and then the physician could make the diagnosis of child abuse (Besharov, 1978; Whiting, 1977). This enabled the child protective services to act to protect a child. However, as public consciousness and awareness of child abuse was raised in the 70s, protecting the child began to include using a report of abuse to obtain services in a climate of declining resources and funding streams.

. . . there was a shift in other aspects of the community's services for children and families ... Slowly and subtly, at first, there began to develop a tendency to seek services for children by tying various other family and social problems to a child abuse or neglect allegation when the issue was not really one of abuse and neglect ... Reports of suspected child abuse and neglect to state or local child abuse reporting centers reflected a broadened perception of concern beyond what heretofore were considered to be the guidelines for reporting. ... The clear trend was to seek help for families and children by using the Child Protective Services system as the path to help . . . Where abuse and neglect becomes too broadly defined only as a means to make children and families eligible for services, serious problems develop (Cameron, 1988, p.324-325).

This clouding of the mission of child protection is suggested as a cause of the increased level of in substantiated reports in recent years. In some states services to a family are not offered until there has been decision by a worker to substantiate a claim of abuse (Flango, 1991). It is also likely to lead to improper and irresponsible intrusion into families and individual civil rights (Cameron, 1988).

Now almost all of the states have central registries 0 record reports of child abuse. These data banks are claimed to have a number of functions, including case diagnosis, case management, program monitoring, research, and program planning (Besharov, 1990). Possible benefits from a central monitoring function accrue from several variables discussed by Besharov 1978) but are often overlooked. Many protection workers have little or no training beyond a brief orientation session. The burnout rate is high and therefore the turnover of workers is rapid. One study reported that less than 20% felt a child protective worker's role was to protect the child (Besharov, 1978). Although workers have considerable difficulty flaking the difficult decisions they are required to make, in most states there is no review of the worker's decisions. A consequence is that difficult cases may lever get closed but just fade away as caseworkers change, families disappear, memories weaken, and bureaucratic shuffles obscure the reality (Besharov, [978). A central registry could help by providing close and accurate monitoring of investigations and delivery of services. However, as Whiting (1977) observes, this requires that those doing the reporting and entering of data do so promptly, accurately, and completely. Experience thus far suggests this is not likely to be the case.

However, now the emphasis has shifted to the recording of information about the accused perpetrator rather than the abused child and the family. The proposed National Child Protection Act of 1991 would record only information about the indicted suspect or convicted perpetrator. The aim is to prevent the reprehensible abuser from ever having contact with children who could then be abused. Senator Thurmond, perhaps unwittingly depicting the first expansion of the proposed national registry, included a much broader population of persons who might be included than the proposed act itself:

The measure will assist in identifying convicted child abusers who prey upon children by seeking employment or other activities where youngsters can be taken advantage of — like day care centers or scout troops . . . that those working with children in organized activities do not have criminal records as child abusers or perpetrators of other serious crimes (S 16752).

The information the proposed national registry must include to perform the required "background check crime" and thus be able to prevent those indicted or with criminal records from having contact with children is defined as follows:

. . . means a child abuse crime, murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, kidnapping, arson, sexual assault, domestic violence, incest, indecent exposure, prostitution, promotion of prostitution, and a felony offense involving the use or distribution of a controlled substance (S 16750).

The number of citizens who may be indicted or convicted of that roster of crimes is enormous. They would all have to be included in the national registry in order for the basic step of the background check crime to be done. The proposed act also requires that three years after the enactment of the act, the system shall be 80% complete for all entries of activity within the last five years.

The ostensible reason for this massive tracking and surveillance of citizens is to prevent convicted criminals who prey upon children from getting jobs in day care centers. Senator Biden claims that data provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee showed that in six states in just the past year 6,200 convicted criminals sought employment as child care providers. We have not had access to these data but it seems improbable on the face of it. Most convicted criminals are men. Relatively few men apply for jobs as child care providers. Salaries for child care providers are low, mostly at entry levels, and there is little desirable about such jobs. It simply seems unlikely that 6,200 convicted child abusers would have strong enough overdetermined behavior to actively seek such a job. While it may be the case that most convicted criminals have some intellectual limitations, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if once convicted of child abuse it is not very bright to seek a job taking care of children. There is no evidence that we are aware of showing a significant correlation between crimes like arson, drug abuse, embezzlement, murder and child abuse. The conventional wisdom about prison populations is that child abusers are the most despised of prisoners and are in mortal danger because other prisoners often attack them, rape them, and kill them.

While we strongly disagree with the methodology, the criteria, and the findings in Finkelhor, Williams, and Burns' (1988) study of sexual abuse in day care centers (see Coleman, 1989, and Wakefield & Underwager, in press, for details), their estimate of the frequency of abuse in day care centers is likely the highest possible interpretation of the meaning of available data. In 1985 there were 229,000 licensed day-care programs in the country. Much family day care is unlicensed. Trying to get some estimate of the frequency, the Finkelhor study used the figure of 61,000 licensed day-care centers. A center is a day care program with more than six children.

The Finkelhor et al. (1988) figure of 187 centers reported and substantiated for sexual abuse yields an estimate of 30.7 centers with sexual abuse per 10,000 centers. The number of children allegedly sexually abused in day care centers is reported as 5.5 children per 10,000 enrolled in day care centers. This would lead to 825 abused children out of the 1,500,000 children in day care centers in 1985. Given the massive difficulties in the methodology of this study, particularly in the definition of substantiation, this is apt to be a greatly inflated estimate.

Nevertheless, this is much less than the number of children sexually abused in their families, according to Finkelhor et al. (1988). The number of children sexually abused each year in their families is estimated to be 8.9 per 10,000. Of the 21,300,000 children under six in American families in 1985 this suggests 18,957 are sexually abused each year in their families.

Data by Russell and Clifford (1987) suggests a much lower estimate of children sexually abused in day care centers compared to Finkelhor et al. (1988). Russell and Clifford report an analysis of all complaints for one year (1982-1983) alleging abuse in day care centers in North Carolina. Of the 424 total complaints received, 70 (16.5%) alleged abuse or neglect. Of these 30 were substantiated as child abuse or neglect. Of these substantiated cases the legal system sought action in 6%, or 2 cases. In the other cases of substantiated abuse it was not severe enough to require more than a warning letter or citation on a monitoring form. There is no report of any instances of sexual abuse in their analysis.

We can agree with the concluding statements by Finkelhor et al. (1988):

... However, the impression that day care constitutes some especially risky environment is probably an illusion ... The numbers themselves, however, do not indicate some particularly alarming problem with day care itself ... But at the same time, the problem should not be taken out of context. The high emotions that surround day care and sexual abuse should not be allowed to generate and precipitate poorly considered policies that might be damaging to both causes in the long run (p.25).

Given the fact that actual number of children sexually abused in day care centers is apt to be low, and to be much less than the number sexually abused in their families, the imposition of a cumbersome and expensive bureaucracy which is questionable in terms of civil liberties is poorly considered and ill founded. It appears quite possible that the proposed legislation for the National Child Protection Act, 1991, will produce large unintended consequences (Cohen, 1988) that will damage citizens, parents, and children. The Senate may well be the victim of the current practice of encouraging and causing social change and political action by the use of advocacy numbers (Gilbert, 1991).

... advocacy numbers, figures that embody less an effort at scientific understanding than an attempt to persuade the public that a problem is vastly larger than commonly recognized. Advocacy numbers are derived not through outright deceit but through a more subtle process of distortion. Under the veil of social science, rigorous research methods are employed to measure a problem defined so broadly that it forms a vessel into which almost any human difficulty can be poured. Some argue that efforts of this sort can serve a useful purpose, because social problems are sometimes larger than commonly recognized. And since the media gravitate toward alarming numbers, a bit of definitional stretching may be necessary to bring the problem into public view. Among those who practice social advocacy, this is known as "consciousness raising" and is deemed a respectable function of advocacy numbers (Gilbert, 1991, 63-64).

When there is a possibility that a major change in the way citizens are treated by the central government may be based upon such advocacy numbers, caution is well advised. The unintended consequence of seeking the noble goal of protecting children may well turn out to be oppression of large numbers of citizens, many of whom may not, in fact, be guilty of any crime.

Experience with State Central Registries

Does the experience with state central registries give any information about the possible performance of a national registry? Is it likely to accomplish the goal of protecting children? At the very least, the experience with state central registries raises serious questions about the prospects of a national registry. For this reason the two articles, by Petersen and Whalen, in this issue reporting direct personal experience with central registries are important

Whiting (1977) evaluated the Maryland central registry as ineffective for tracking cases, assisting in diagnosis, or identifying service needs. She does see a statistical profile of abused and neglected children useful for program development. However, the proposed national registry provides information about those accused and convicted. Here the purpose expressed by Senator Thurmond is prosecution. The inclusion in the Act of the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse (a private, nongovernmental, nonprofit subsidiary of the National District Attorneys Association) as one of the agencies states must be in contact with suggests the emphasis is on prosecution. Since their first public announcements in 1985, the avowed goal of this Center is to prosecute, not rehabilitate, not protect children, and not unify the family:

The NCPCA advocates". . . the handling of child abuse cases by treating these cases as serious crimes. Prosecutors must demand that child abuse be viewed first and foremost as a criminal act and that treatment alternatives for the abuser are secondary to punishment (APRI, 1986, p. 1). The NCPCA promises to lead a national campaign to reform "the excessive and unnecessarily wide latitude given defendants in attempting to protect their constitutional rights ... "(APRI, p.1) (Wakefield & Underwager, 1988, p. 20.)

Even in the initial presentation of this legislation to establish a national registry it is already evident that the goal of protecting children is being used as a rationale to get congress to pass the bill but that there is far more at stake than the laudable goal of protecting children from predatory pedophiles. Nobody can argue against protecting children. However, once the process is set up and the national registry established, it appears highly probable that it will be used for other purposes, principally prosecution and punishment. The history of the involvement and activities of the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse since their initial announcement in 1986 demonstrates the effort to abridge, contain, and limit the civil rights and civil liberties of citizens. The potential for injustice is understood by an English judge, Justice Waite, in his ruling on a case in Norfolk County:

Mr. Justice Waite said that the Child Abuse Register is "in essence a blacklist, and as such it also has dangerous potential as an instrument of injustice or oppression" ... The Conference recorded "a solemn finding of guilt after a brief and one sided investigation" ... the council adopted a "dangerous slipshod" approach in recording names as "known suspected abusers" on the register NLJ, 1989. p. 283).

An analysis of 48,499 reports submitted to the central registry of Colorado concludes that contact with human service professionals is the factor most powerfully associated with being reported for child abuse. While there are understood to be many more families, children, and parents who may need services and assistance, if they are not in contact with the system there is no report. It is those who come into contact with the bureaucracy, however, it may happen, who are on the central registries (Fryer, 1990).

The controversy over central registries does not center around protecting children nor the reality that gaps in services require more funding. Rather it is the issue of substantiation rates. Although some claim substantiation rates are rising (Finkelhor, 1990), the available data suggest both a wide variation among states and an average of 40-45% substantiation of reported abuse (Flango, 1991; Flango, 1988). There are a number of factors which may affect substantiation rates but the one of most concern and importance is the level of proof required. Here 25 states use a standard of some credible evidence, 12 require credible evidence, and 12 require a preponderance of evidence (Flango, 1991). What this comes down to, as researchers and legal scholars have defined varying levels of proof, is that no state requires more than a subjective sense that the abuse is at 51% probability level (Faigman, & Baglioni, 1988; Kagehiro, 1990) to include a person on a central registry as an abuser. Only one state, Washington, includes a category of a conviction as the National Child Protection Act, 1991, currently requires (Flango, 1991). No state has a category of indicted.

The confusion generated by this situation of divergent standards and categories is most likely to be resolved by an administrative, bureaucratic decision that protects the interests of the bureaucracy rather than serves the liberty interests of citizens. An example was the decision of Florida administrators to move all cases in their "confirmed" central registry category, where there is an appeal process, to the category "indicated." Those persons named in the central registry as "indicated" have no appeal process available. This serves to ease the burden of the system but hardly advances the rights of individuals. There seems to be a high probability that any national registry will include large numbers of persons where the decision to put them on a central registry has been based on something less than conviction or indictment.

An evaluation of the performance of child welfare agencies (Schwartz, 1991) to protect children cite alarming observations and opinions about the child protection system. It is breaking down under the weight of increased responsibility and decreased funding. It isgenerating casualties who wind up as homeless children:

. . . many public child welfare agencies are deteriorating and appear unable to provide children an families with services they need or are entitled to. The increase in child abuse and neglect cases appears to have occurred at a time when "child welfare agencies were experiencing high staff turnover, particularly protective staff, and a decreasing proportion of professionally trained workers" (Office of Human Development Services, 1988, p. c3), and when federal and state fiscal resources allocated toward this problem have been shrinking (Children's Defense Fund, 1988b)(Schwartz, 1991, p.191).

The practical consequences of this situation are that the basic, and most often unreviewed, decision which puts a person on a state central registry as a substantiated child abuser will be made by the least experienced, least trained, least professional, lowest paid, and most harried workers in the system. Investigations will be as quick as possible. Decisions will be reached as quickly as possible on the least amount of information. There will be significant pressure to clear cases, keep caseloads as small as possible, and keep supervisors happy. Under these pressures, the level of false positives can be expected to rise. The relationship between state central registries and the national central registry is somewhat unclear but the national registry cannot be expected to be much better than the information supplied to it.

Flango (1991) also reports that substantiation rates show a linear relationship in expected directions when these factors are investigated. The higher the standard of proof, the lower the substantiation rate. Only 27 states give any notice that a person has been placed on a central registry. Where notice is given substantiation rates are lower than in the states where no notice is given. A due process index shows that the higher the level of due process, the lower the substantiation while the lower the due process the higher the substantiation rate is. These findings, though Flango (1991) reports they are not statistically significant, are enough to warrant caution about the consequences of a national registry for individual rights and liberties of children and adults. If a large number of persons are listed in central registries who should not be there, that is, if central registries have significant proportions of false positives — persons listed as abusers when they did not abuse a child — then the registry cannot avoid being an oppressive system that produces injustice.

The incidence and prevalence of reports of child abuse are related to socioeconomic class. The lower the socioeconomic class, the higher the level of reports and the occurrence of child abuse (Cicchetti, 1989; Finkelhor, 1984; Gelles, 1990; Landis, 1956; NCCAN, 1981; Nightingale & Walker, 1991; Pelton, 1978; Steinberg, Cataiano & Dooley, 1981). Since child abuse became a national issue in the late 1960s politicians have attempted to ignore this evidence because it is politically unappealing and likely to set off a political storm (Finkelhor, 1986; Nelson, 1984).

The result of this fact together with the establishment of a national registry as well as functioning state registries will be a disproportionate number of poor people, lower socioeconomic class individuals, and the least capable and functional of our citizens being included as child abuse perpetrators when they are not. This will happen simply because the poor cannot cope with the demands of the system.

By definition, the poor and disadvantaged have neither the resources nor the necessary skills to cope with the requirements for a review and an appeal. The proposed National Child Protection Act, 1991, speaks of procedures to challenge and correct inaccurate background check information. It then leaves it up to each state to establish those procedures to challenge inaccurate information. It also leaves it up to the states to give a prompt determination from an authorized agency as to the validity of the challenge. The present procedures for review and appeal set up by the states do not inspire confidence that there will be any better circumstances for the poor and disadvantaged.

Setting time limits of a few days or even weeks from the date of written notice that a person has been placed in the central registry as an identified perpetrator imposes a demand for a level of skill, emotional strength, and organizational skills that the poor and disadvantaged simply do not have. When the penalty for not filing for a review in the time limit is permanent waiver of the right to review, many poor are going to be permanently on a central registry simply because they cannot meet the requirements of the rules. Poor people who may be functionally illiterate, who may lack skills of meeting deadlines, keeping appointments, and getting to work on time, and who may not have the money for a first class stamp or to make a phone call, are not going to be able to comply.

Challenging information contained in a central registry file takes a long time and requires an ability to persevere in the face of frustration, stress, and extreme energy drain. Maintaining commitment, emotional investment, and focus for such long periods of time is going to be beyond the capacities of the majority of the poor and disadvantaged. Indeed, it will be beyond the capacities of most of the population. It is not, however, beyond the capacities of the bureaucracy. A case will pass through the system to the end no matter how many workers may be assigned to it, what the costs are, or what the truth is. Petersen, in this issue, reports how, on the day before his expungement hearing, after two years of effort, the state agreed to expunge his name from the central registry. This could have been done much earlier since no new information was developed during the two years, but it was not until the agency was compelled to do so by a deadline that the action was taken.

The poor do not have money to hire lawyers. Public defenders or legal aid attorneys are not likely to be able to take such cases. Private attorneys are not likely to view such cases as appropriate for pro-bono work when there is so much more immediate need for criminal defenses. The unavailability of legal counsel to the poor will result in more of the poor remaining on a central registry.

The process of "labeling" has been the subject of significant research. When a label is applied to an individual, the classification decision is likely powerfully affected by variables other than truth or accuracy (Mercer, 1973). The poor have been shown to be overrepresented in social control institutions, not because of the facts but rather because of the inferences of the labeler (Gingrich, 1978; Lofland, 1969; Newberger & De Vos, 1988). Characteristics of the labeler, experience, personality, motivation, cognitions, values and beliefs have been shown to affect the label applied to an individual and frequent mislabeling (Gingrich, 1978; Levy, 1981).

The consequences to the poor of any mislabeling are not limited to effects on possible employers or working in a setting involving children. Supreme Court Justice Black observed in a dissent that a person accused of abuse "is charged with conduct — failure to care properly for her children — which may be viewed as reprehensible and morally wrong by a majority of society" (Black, 1971). Once an agency has labeled a person as an abuser, other agencies accept the label as real and treat the family or individual accordingly (Parke, 1977). Social workers talk to one another. In at least one situation we have knowledge of, even though a report had been expunged, the social worker in that state informed a social worker in another state of the expunged allegation and it was then used in the second state to substantiate an allegation. Court appearances and social worker visits communicate the label of abuser to others. Increased alienation and social isolation is invariably the consequence of this labeling. Fraiberg (1978) wrote:

The label is not a diagnosis. It is a mailing address. Once the social agencies have placed this . . . the destination is virtually certain. The family is routed to a network of social agencies, sometimes to four or five at once . . . The next address will be the court. After the court there may be a new address for the baby and a new address for the mother (p.96).

The consequences of abuse investigations and public announcements are devastating to families and children. Job loss, need for public assistance, marital dissolution, foster care, changes in residence, loss of income, children harassed at school, are only some of the things that happen. The entire family is adversely affected. Following their research study of actual families, Tyler and Brassard (1984) recommend as the first step to improve the system to ban the publication of convictions for child sexual abuse. Luza and Ortiz (1990) show the level of control by shame that social workers exercise over falsely accused families. Buckey, Buckey, and Buckey (1990) describe some of the consequences of being publicly identified as abusers during the course of the McMartin trial.

There are no empirical quantifiable data suggesting a differential rate of child abuse between whites and blacks. There are empirical data showing a differential rate of reporting for child abuse. Blacks are more readily and more often reported for child abuse than whites. Whites more often are unreported when there is a basis for a report to be made. The impact of racial factors on a central registry is likely to produce a disproportionate number of racial minorities being labeled and identified as abusers. The number of false positives, persons identified as abusers when they are not, will include a disproportionate number of minority groups and a disproportionate number of white and rich perpetrators who actually abuse children will be missed (Eckenrode, Powers, Doris, Munsch, & Bolger, 1988; Hampton & Newberger, undated; Lujan DeBruyn, May, & Bird, 1989; Newberger, 1983; Rabb, 1981; Tan, Ray, & Cate, 1991; Wyatt, 1990).

While there are potential benefits from central registries and a national registry, the history of state central registries, the demonstrated relationship between worker variables and decision making, the demonstrated relationship between poverty, race, and minority status, and the known history of bureaucracies make it likely that the outcome of registries will be oppression rather than protection.

References
Besharov, D. J. (1978). Putting central registers to work: Using modern management information systems to improve child protective services. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 54, 687-751.

Besharov, D. (1990). Recognizing Child Abuse (). New York: The Free Press.

Black, J. (1971). Kaufman v. Carter, 402, U. S. 954, 959, dissenting from a denial of certiorari.

Buckey, P., Buckey, R., & Buckey, P. A. (1990). After the McMartin trials: Some reflections from the Buckeys. Issues In Child Abuse Accusations, 2, 220-225.

Cameron, J. S. (1988). Reflections of a child protection services practitioner: Have we lost sight of the mission? In D. J. Besharov (Ed.), Protecting Children from Abuse and Neglect: Policy and Practice () (pp.321-327). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Cicchetti, D. (1989). How research on child maltreatment has informed the study of child development: Perspectives from developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds.), Child Maltreatment: Theory and Research on the Causes and Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect ()(). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Coleman, L. (1989). Book review: "Nursery Crimes: Sexual Abuse in Day Care." () Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 1(3), 46.

Cohen, J. E. (1988). The counterintuitive in conflict and cooperation. American Scientist, 76, 576-584.

Eckenrode, J., Powers, J., Doris, J., Munsch, J., & Bolger, N. (1988). Substantiation of child abuse and neglect reports. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 9-16.

Faigman, D. L., & Baglioni, A. J. (1988). Bayes' theorem in the trial process: Instructing jurors on the value of statistical evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 1-17.

Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research (). New York: Free Press.

Finkelhor, D. (1986). A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse ()(). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Finkelhor, D. (1990). Is child abuse overreported? The data rebut arguments for less intervention. Public Welfare. Winter, 23-29.

Finkelhor, D., Williams, L. M., & Bums, N. (1988). Nursery Crimes (). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Flango, V. E. (1988). Which child abuse and neglect cases require court involvement? State Court Journal, pp.13-16.

Flango, V. E. (1991). Can central registries improve substantiation rates in child abuse and neglect cases? Child Abuse & Neglect, 15, 403-413.

Fraiberg, S. (1978). Psychoanalysis and social work: A reexamination of the issues. Smith College Studies in Social Work. V.48.

Fryer, G. E. (1990). Detecting and reporting child abuse: A function of the human service delivery system. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 143-157.

Gelles, R. J. (1990, August). Poverty and violence towards children. Paper presented at a meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, Washington, DC.

Gilbert, N. (1991). The phantom epidemic of sexual assault. The Public Interest, 103, 54-65.

Gingrich, W. J. (1978). The labeler as an influence on labeling outcomes. Journal of Sociology and Social Work, 5, 387-403.

Hampton, R. L., & Newberger, B. H. (undated). Child abuse incidence and reporting by hospitals: Child abuse reporting. Children's Hospital Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.

Kagehiro, D. K. (1990). Defining the standard of proof in jury instructions. Psychological Science, 1, 194-200.

Landis, J, T. (1956). Experiences of 500 children with adult sexual deviation. Psychiatric Quarterly Supplement, 30, 91-109.

Levy, C. S. (1981). Labeling: The social worker's responsibility. Social Casework, 62, 332-342.

Lofland, J. (1969). Deviance and Identity (). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lujan, C., DeBruyn, L. M., May, P. A., & Bird, M. B. (1989). Profile of abused and neglected American Indian children in the southwest. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 449-461.

Luza, S., & Ortiz, B. (1991). The dynamic of shame in interactions between Child Protective Services and families falsely accused of child abuse. Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 3, 108-123.

Mercer, J. R. (1973). Labeling the Mentally Retarded: Clinical and Social System Perspectives on Mental Retardation (). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

NCCAN (National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect) (1981). Study Methodology: National Study of the Incidence and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect, (DDHS Publication No. 81-31326). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Nelson, B. J. (1984). Making an issue of child abuse: Political Agenda Setting for Social Problems (). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Newberger, E. H. (1983). The helping hand strikes again: Unintended consequences of child abuse reporting. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 12, 307-311.

Newberger, C. M., & De Vos, E. (1988). Abuse and victimization: A life-span developmental perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58, 505-511.

Nightingale, N. N., & Walker, E. F. (1991). The impact of social class and parental maltreatment on the cognitive functioning of children. Journal of Family Violence, 6, 115-130.

NLJ (1989). Alleged child abusers have legal right to be treated fairly. (1989). Norfolk Law Journal, 139(1), 283.

Parke, J. (1977). Socialization into child abuse: A social interactional perspective. Law, Justice, and the Individual in Society, 183, 184-185.

Pelton, L. H. (1978). Child abuse and neglect: The myth of classlessness. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 48, 608-617.

Rabb, J. A. (1981). Reporting child maltreatment: The context of decision making among physicians, social workers, teachers and nurses. Ohio State University, Columbus. Doctoral Dissertation, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (University Microfilms No. 8129078).

Russell, S. D., & Clifford, R. M. (1987). Child abuse and neglect in North Carolina day care programs. Child Welfare, 66(2), 149-163.

Schwartz, I. M. (1991). Out-of-home placement of children: Selected issues and prospects for the future. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 9, 189-199.

Steinberg, L. D., Cataiano, R., & Dooley, D. (1981). Economic antecedents of child abuse and neglect. Child Development, 52, 975-985.

Tan, G. G., Ray, M. P., & Cate, R. (1991). Migrant farm child abuse and neglect within an ecosystem framework. Family Relations, 40, 84-90.

Tyler, A. H., & Brassard, M. R. (1984). Abuse in the investigation and treatment of intrafamilial child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 8, 47-53.

Wakefield, H., & Underwager, R. (1988). Accusations of Child Sexual Abuse ()(). Springfield, IL: CC Thomas.

Wakefield, H., & Underwager, R. (in press). Female child sexual abusers: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Forensic Psychology.

Whiting, L. (1977). The central registry for child abuse cases: Rethinking basic assumptions. Child Welfare, 56, 761-767.

Wyatt, G. E. (1990). Sexual abuse of ethnic minority children: Identifying dimensions of victimization. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21, 338-343.

* Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield are psychologists at the Institute for Psychological Therapies, 13200 Cannon City Boulevard, Northfield, MN 55057-4405.



[Back to Volume 3, Number 4] [Other Articles by these Authors]

Copyright © 1989-2005 by the Institute for Psychological Therapies.
This page last revised on January 13, 2005.
_________________
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Sat May 27, 2006 10:01 am

http://www.casanet.org/program-manageme ... -check.htm

Quote:
Child abuse registry checks can reveal if a person was named in a report, but registry checks are not available in all states. Contact the state child protective services agency for information on access.
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:51 pm

HHS Child Welfare Policy Manual

2.1A.2 CAPTA, Assurances and Requirements, Access to Child Abuse and Neglect Information, Expungement

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/j2ee/programs/cb ... p?citID=66

User avatar
Frustrated
Posts: 3916
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:15 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Postby Frustrated » Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:10 pm

In fact, I think the Abuse Registry should be scrapped and garbaged, because these people were NOT CONVICTED in the eye of the Law, especially and surely WAS NOT CONVICTED in Criminal Courts, and WAS NOT charged with any criminal charges whatsover, so why should they be on Abuse Registry if anything at all?

I happen to think that only CONVICTED ABUSERS should be on Abuse Registry. People would quickly "assume" that these people on Abuse Registry WERE CONVICTED, which was not always the case! Most of us are on Abuse Registry and we are not even convicted in the name of the Law. CPS is a Judge, Jury and the Excutioner. And put our names on there automatically and GUILTY! without due process?

ABSURD! AND RIDICULOUS! Rather immature and childish if you may say so. I think high reform for Abuse Registry is warranted. It should be scrapped so they can start fresh and put the REAL CONVICTED ONES ON THERE AND THE ONES that were NOT CONVICTED Should be SEPERATE PRIVATELY ON OWN'S CPS RECORDS< NOT MADE TO THE PUBLIC! ONLY ON CPS DATABASE. The Abuse Registry would be searchable publicbly given if these people ARE CONVICTED!

In fact, I think the whole thing is a Joke. We should not be asking our names to be expunged. We should be asking Senators to SCRAP THIS HEAP HOLE and start fresh. I think everyone here should write letters to Senators like crazy to tell them come on, every regular citizen are being put on the Abuse Registry. Ask the Senator how would he feel if he finds out that his name IS ON THE ABUSE REGISTRY? DEMAND REFORM! CHANGE! Do something about it. I hate this Abuse Registry, it is ridiculous! Because we ARE NOT CONVICTED! We are just normal LAW Abiding Citizens raising our Families and minding our own Business and Vote, and pay TAXES!
It is easy to steal from poor people. But don't do it. And don't take advantage of those poor people in court. The Lord is on their side. He supports them and he will take things away from any person that takes from them.~ Proverbs 22:22

User avatar
Momof31995
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:58 pm

How to Expunge a DCFS Indicated Report

Postby Momof31995 » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:31 am

http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.c ... entID=1408


The only way to expunge an Indicated Report from the DCFS (Department of Children & Family Services) is through the agency's internal appeal process.

What does the term “indicated” mean in a child abuse report?

If DCFS decides that there is credible evidence that you have abused or neglected a child, it designates the case as "indicated". An indicated report goes into the permanent DCFS record called the Central Registry. Reports are kept in the Central Registry from five (5) to fifty (50) years depending on the severity of the incident. For some persons, an indicated report can keep them from getting a job in a certain field.

What does the term “unfounded” mean in a child abuse report?

If DCFS decides that there is no credible evidence of abuse or neglect then the case is designated as "unfounded". In these circumstances DCFS usually destroys the documentation of the investigation within 36 months. You should know, however, that the person who is being investigated can ask that the records be retained by DCFS. This is because some people who want to try to show that they are being harassed asked DCFS to keep the records of unfounded investigations.

What if I disagree when the DCFS decides the report should be indicated?

Persons who are "indicated" by a DCFS report have a right to appeal the finding that the report was indicated. If you appeal the report you will have the right to review records of the investigation (although information about the person who reported the alleged abuse or neglect will be deleted). You have a right to request an administrative hearing to appeal the "indicated" finding. You also have the right to bring witnesses and to be represented by an attorney or other representative in the hearing process. The rules on these kinds of hearings are found in DCFS Administrative Rule 336.

How long do I have to appeal the decision?

You must request an appeal in writing within 60 days from when the notification of DCFS's decision that the report was "indicated" was sent.

When will the hearing take place?

The administrative hearing will take place within 70 days from when you request the appeal. A pre-hearing conference must be held at least 15 days before the hearing.

What happens at the hearing?

The administrative hearing is conducted by a DCFS Administrative Law Judge (the ALJ). At the pre-hearing conference, the ALJ will determine what evidence and documents you and DCFS agree on and what witnesses both parties intend to call at the hearing. If the child is under 14, the ALJ will also determine if the child will testify or be involved in the administrative hearing.

During the hearing itself, the Administrative Law Judge listens to the evidence presented and reviews the documents admitted into evidence. The Administrative Law Judge then makes a recommendation to the Director of DCFS about whether you should win your appeal or whether the report should remain "indicated". The Director makes the final decision about whether to accept or reject the ALJ's recommendation.

What if I disagree with the DCFS's final decision?

If you do not accept the DCFS’s final decision, you can appeal the decision in court.


Last updated: 11/20/2003
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny, when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

New Link for original site?

Postby Marina » Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:52 pm

New Link for original site?

The original link to the federal website on the first post of this thread has changed and only leads to the general Child Welfare Information Gateway site.

I searched for "expunge" and didn't get anything.
I searched for "registry" and got what I think is the best fit:

Central registry/reporting records expungement
State Statutes Series 2003
Author(s): Child Welfare Information Gateway

Year Published: 2003


Current through July 2003

http://childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws ... aining.cfm


"You may wish to review this introductory text to better understand the information contained in your State's statute. To see how your State addresses this issue, visit the State Statutes Search.

Approximately1 41 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico have statutes authorizing the establishment of a statewide central registry. A central registry is a centralized database or listing of child maltreatment records. Several States only mandate by law that agencies, usually public social service agencies, collect and maintain child abuse and neglect records.

Approximately 37 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, and Guam have statutes providing for the expungement of department and central registry records. The term expungement refers to the procedures used by States to maintain and update their central registries and record keeping by removing old or inaccurate records.

Classification of Reports

Child abuse records are classified in a variety of ways. Terms such as "unfounded," "not indicated," "unconfirmed," and "unsubstantiated" are used to describe situations in which there has been no determination of abuse or neglect. Terms such as "founded," "indicated," "suspected," and "substantiated" are used to describe a finding of abuse or neglect.

Unfounded or Unsubstantiated Reports

The time specified for the expungement of unfounded or undetermined reports ranges from immediately upon determination to 10 years. A few States do not permit unfounded reports to be placed on the registry at all. Many States have provisions allowing the subject of a report to challenge the findings. If the challenge is successful, the subject's name is removed from the registry.

Founded or Indicated Reports

The time specified for the expungement of founded or indicated reports ranges from 5 to 10 years. States often use the birthday of the victim (usually when the child reaches age of majority) as a point to expunge records from the registry. In addition, some States allow records to be expunged upon good cause shown and upon notice to the subjects of the report.

To see how your State addresses this issue, visit the State Statutes Search.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:12 pm

Article on Problems with Central Registry

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_4_9.htm

Plaintiff's Brief Regarding the Constitutionality of Central Registry
Rowe Stayton*
(SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS)

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COLORADO STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Defendant.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Federal Policy

Postby Marina » Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:25 am

Federal Policy

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/j2ee/programs/cb ... p?citID=66

Federal Child Welfare Policy Manual

Child Welfare Policy Manual
The Child Welfare Policy Manual conveys mandatory policies that have their basis in Federal law and/or program regulations. It also provides interpretations of Federal statutes and program regulations initiated by inquiries from State Child Welfare agencies or ACF Regional Offices.



2.1A.2 CAPTA, Assurances and Requirements, Access to Child Abuse and Neglect Information, Expungement

(Updated 04/17/2006)


1. Question: How will States be able to determine whether a pattern of abuse or neglect exists if unsubstantiated records must be expunged? While the statute allows these records to be kept in casework files, if the files are not maintained in a central location, previous unsubstantiated report(s) may go undetected if a subsequent report comes into another office, or even another worker. Show History

Answer: The impetus behind the expungement requirement was the concern of Congress that families are negatively and sometimes unjustly affected by maintenance of public records of unsubstantiated allegations of abuse or neglect. However, it was not the intent of Congress to prevent CPS agencies from keeping information on unsubstantiated reports for use in future risk and safety assessments (Senate Report 104-117, dated July 10, 1995, p. 14). While CAPTA requires prompt expungement of records that are accessible to the general public or are used for purposes of employment or other background checks in cases determined to be unsubstantiated, it also allows CPS agencies to retain information on unsubstantiated reports in their casework files.



Since the issue for Congress is disclosure of information regarding cases that are unsubstantiated or unfounded, this requirement should not adversely affect a State's ability to determine possible cumulative harm. For instance, a State could choose to implement a system which would consider an unsubstantiated case "expunged" for any purpose other than investigation of a new report. This should be possible even in States where casework files are computerized.

User avatar
tnradmom
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:40 pm
Location: Tennessee

Tennessee Child Abuse Registry

Postby tnradmom » Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:33 am

I don't have a link, but I do have what our attorney has said. In TN it does not matter if you are convicted or not, if CPS has been called out to your home and they find ANY evidence that abuse possibly happened then you are on teh registry for life.
They will send you a letter and notify you that you have the right to appeal. And you can, but he has been working domestic violence/child abuse for nearly 10 years and has NEVER seen anybody's name removed from the registry.

I happen to think that only CONVICTED ABUSERS should be on Abuse Registry. People would quickly "assume" that these people on Abuse Registry WERE CONVICTED, which was not always the case! Most of us are on Abuse Registry and we are not even convicted in the name of the Law. CPS is a Judge, Jury and the Excutioner. And put our names on there automatically and GUILTY! without due process?


Frustrated, sad thing is here is this. I am now considered a convicted abuser. I will be for 2 years until my probation is up and then the criminal charges will be expunged. WE had to do a plea bargain because they were charging me with a Class A felony for spanking my son who was being disobedient. In the county we live in, I would have been hung. Class A felony carries a life sentence.

Anyhow, even some of those that are criminally found guilty aren't really. It all depends on how the state's law reads and how crooked the judicial system in your area is

There is a woman that is charged with Class A Aggravated Child Abuse because she water downed the baby's formula. Her side is that she couldn't get on WIC because they made too much money but yet they couldn't afford the cost of formula. (I can believe this as they say my family living on $35,000 a year is enough for a family of 8)

My opinion is that woman needs help not 20-35 years in jail.

User avatar
Frustrated
Posts: 3916
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:15 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Postby Frustrated » Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:41 am

That really sucks. It is unfair justice, oh wait a minute injustice on all Families. Why should Parents be named in the Registry if they never saw Court? or never was convicted of a crime?

It is not right.

Even though if your criminal records going to be expunged, your name will still be on there. Registry needs to be discarded and renewed and put only convicted ones on there. Even Pedophiles are not even on there. Remember Florida cases with that guy?
Just one example of many.
It is easy to steal from poor people. But don't do it. And don't take advantage of those poor people in court. The Lord is on their side. He supports them and he will take things away from any person that takes from them.~ Proverbs 22:22

User avatar
tnradmom
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:40 pm
Location: Tennessee

Postby tnradmom » Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:18 am

I agree. It is a complete injustice. We think they are after us though because we don't fit the mold. I'm 32 no record of anything, I graduated High School, prior to our youngest being born I worked full time, etc... I was not abused as a child, there is nothing about me or my husband that matches the abuser stereotype. WE think that is why they are trying to go after us so badly. It's really a shame because I know of people that are abusive to their kids that have left BAD bruises on them and nothing ever happen more than a slap on the wrist. Part of the problem is the allegations are with my step son. So they think they can say I hate their mother and am taking it out on them. How about I have taken these angels into my home because I love them and I want what is best for them even if it means our family has to do with out?

Anyway... I know WAY off subject now..

User avatar
Frustrated
Posts: 3916
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:15 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Postby Frustrated » Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:43 pm

Now you mentioned it, I always have wondered if the Age Factor has to do with CPS Cases. I noticed most CPS Cases with the Parents, the Ages were between 25 to 45. I hardly have ever seen younger or older Parents being vindicated. It is always in the middle. I have friends that falls in that criteria that has CPS Cases, myself included.
They usually go after those with Mental Cases as well such as Bipolar and whatnots.

It is pick and choose they do with Families. I do believe Proverty plays a factor as well. It is all in the Mix.
That's why the expungement is harder because we are poor and can't afford to take our names off, because we do not have high-priced Attorny to do the job for us. THAT is what CPS is counting on. :roll: You know, to see us Fail.
It is easy to steal from poor people. But don't do it. And don't take advantage of those poor people in court. The Lord is on their side. He supports them and he will take things away from any person that takes from them.~ Proverbs 22:22

livlafluv
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:58 am

Postby livlafluv » Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:25 pm

How can I find out if me or any of my kids who have our grandchildren on this list, because I have one daughter who seems to have a lot of problems with CPS.

One time long ago when my children were small someone turned me in for spanking my children with a flipflop shoe. I told the lady I did at times spank them with the item and to my surprise she told me she had already been to the school to talk to the kids. And another surprise she told me my children treated her with no respect and told me I had a bad disapline problem and I needed to spank them untill they learned how to act right when someone questions. So because of this do you think I am on the list and if I am why did I get to keep my nephew. :?:

User avatar
good dad
Site Admin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:11 am
Location: Minnesota

Postby good dad » Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:55 pm

I doubt you are on the list liv, if it was long ago....It was a different time and by the caseworkers words, I doubt it even more... :wink:
*********************
My advice is my opinion and not legal advice
*********************
A bad lawyer is worse then no lawyer and bad advice is worse then no advice....

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Re: EXPUNGMENT/EXPUNGE YOUR NAME IF YOU GET YOUR CHILD/REN B

Postby Dazeemay » Sat May 29, 2010 9:20 pm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/ ... 2571.shtml

Child Abuse Registry Hits Stumbling Blocks
Flaws in State-level Registries Complicate Plans for National Database of Child Abusers
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

mommyofdyllon
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:06 pm

Child Abuse and Neglect Registry (Nebraska)

Postby mommyofdyllon » Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:07 am

I have reccently been placed on this list by a social worker I've pissed off. I posted in sue them, because I fully intend to. I agree that a social worker is the judge, jury, and excutioner in this case. They didn't even go to the police with their information even though NE law clearly states they must within 24 hours. I've had confirmation from the Adminstrator directly in charge of the social worker and her supervisor. "Because of a little hole in our system, but you don't need to worry about it anymore." However you say expungement is the answer, when in fact it is not, at least not in NE. All expungment does is remove your name from general searchs, like an employor. However you are still on the list in CPS's eyes and that will be used against AND certain court orders, like those used in background checks for adoptions it would still show up. Which I was planning on adopting my step-daughter, but the social clearly bought her meth-addicted mom's alligator tears when she called her. Throughout the entire "investigation" on me CPS has violated our privacy, inteviewed our children without our permission, lied (big surprise), and broken laws. I have pointed this out to them and they still think I'm just going to take the decision lightly. I was the one who reported the suspected abuse to law enforcement and begged them to do a formal investigation, but they couldn't because the detective felt the only reason the child was saying he was abused was because he was in trouble for molesting our younger children and that CPS never forwarded a report to them.

Momoffor
Moderator
Posts: 1307
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:17 pm

Re: Child Abuse and Neglect Registry (Nebraska)

Postby Momoffor » Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:39 am

mommyofdyllon wrote: All expungment does is remove your name from general searchs, like an employor. However you are still on the list in CPS's eyes and that will be used against AND certain court orders, like those used in background checks for adoptions it would still show up.


Even if they had discovered the the case was from false allegations, you would still have a 'history' with CPS. Any and all 'history' with CPS will be used against you later down the road if CPS becomes involved again. Doesnt matter if it was unfounded, false allegations, or founded. There are some parents have that have had numerous unfounded claims against them, and have gotten to the point hat CPS removes the kids or opens a case for having CPS 'involved' too much.

The sheer power and lack of oversight on CPS is disgusting. The things they get away with is appalling. But like with most here, we never knew the evil that was lurking until it happened to us.

mommyofdyllon
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:06 pm

Re: EXPUNGMENT/EXPUNGE YOUR NAME IF YOU GET YOUR CHILD/REN B

Postby mommyofdyllon » Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:42 pm

I knew CPS was shady from dealing with them, with my sister. I was her safety resource. My husband acted like I was just being paranoid. Until just like I had said, play by play, they did what I said they would. Now he sees the BS and understands why I was questioning everything. They have too much power and have been shoving around people who they think don't have resources or brains for way too long. We don't live in a great area and with that comes the indication that my husband and I are stupid. When the truth is that both my husband and I are paying our way through school, while working. They are using the fact that they don't feel that we were smart enough to see the things that they were doing was wrong, and as soon as the screwed up and I called them on it, big surprise now I am a full blown child abuser. Nothing I can do about it other than jump through thier hoops.

lonelyangel
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:10 pm
Contact:

Re: EXPUNGMENT/EXPUNGE YOUR NAME IF YOU GET YOUR CHILD/REN B

Postby lonelyangel » Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:46 pm

mommyofdillion,I will tell you even if you do as they ask you are still screwed because once they have their sites on you they will still lie to a judge and claim you are not cooperating.I went along with their supposed service plan and let me tell you it still did not matter.Believe it or not fighting is still your best option.They even went to a judge and told the judge and my attorney a state trooper who I have always had good dealings with was going to testify against me claiming I threatened the case worker when I didn't.Long story short,the trooper and I have been talking and he even told me even if they had asked him to testify he would have told the judge I don't recall because he was going to protect me knowing what everyone was trying to do to me.See here is what some people don't understand,child abuse or neglect is actually a crime which should be dealt with in criminal court not civil court but the reason Children and Youth are allowed to handle it in civil court is because the rules and guidelines are not as strict so they can pull whatever underhanded stuff they want to.With that being said they still attempt to bring in criminal acts in to the civil forum which is a complete and utter violation of our rights.And my lawyer,let me tell you something about him.The jackass gets state funds to supposedly defend people in these case which is supposed to be a criminal matter and he is a personal injury lawyer.

When you tell the courthouse this is illegal their answer is he went to law school and is adequate to handle any case.Well of course my answer was are you crazy,this is a criminal situation and you have to have a separate degree for criminal law which he does not have.I have a degree in Criminal Investigations and have decided to become a Private Investigator so if anyone needs me to look in to anything please let me know and provide me with documentation,names,etc..You can either e-mail me through here or through my personal e-mail address of [email protected] but one thing none of you want to do is give up or give in to these sick sadistic pigs.If you do,you are damning 1,000's of parents down the road to the same cruelty you have dealt with.

Avalon
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:23 am

Re: EXPUNGMENT/EXPUNGE YOUR NAME IF YOU GET YOUR CHILD/REN B

Postby Avalon » Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:50 am

I'm BRAND NEW to this site, but NOT to dealings w/ the system. in my case, it's APS, the 'sister' arm of CPS in Texas since my disabled daughter is over age 21. But we've BOTH been abused by 'the system', repeatedly, and it just goes on~!

I had NO IDEA 'they' have a 'registry' and "Even if they had discovered the the case was from false allegations, you would still have a 'history' with CPS. Any and all 'history' with CPS will be used against you later down the road if CPS becomes involved again. Doesnt matter if it was unfounded, false allegations, or founded. There are some parents have that have had numerous unfounded claims against them, and have gotten to the point hat CPS removes the kids or opens a case for having CPS 'involved' too much.

The sheer power and lack of oversight on CPS is disgusting. The things they get away with is appalling. But like with most here, we never knew the evil that was lurking until it happened to us.Momoffor
Moderator "

I fear i've been "involved too much" and now have a "history" with the system that will go against me as i try to REGAIN guardianship of my only child. I'm age 67, reared her as a single mom, poor then, still poor, but well educated for whatever that's worth.

Most recently, i'd voluntarily relinquished g.ship to the State (of Texas), 2008, as they promised they'd remove her from an abusive situation - group home that was NOT going to give up her $70,000.00/year contract for 'professional care' (sic) and had blocked me from moving her. a year latr state gave g.ship to a 'private' guardian with NO hearing, NO DUE PROCESS and without informing the Judge there WAS / IS a family member who wanted to be considered for restoration of g.ship.

Now, this woman has a caseload of some 35 'wards', knows NOTHING about my daughter's challenge(s), is a career bureaucrat, having worked for CPS, thus knows the system, and has dismissed or minimized MY pointing out what are probably (6 or 7) side effects to one of the meds she's been placed on, Geodon, which is involved in MANY lawsuits.

Long story, but i got "investigated" by APS for "medical neglect" (missed giving her ONE dose of Geodon on a home visit), when i've seen staff in previous group home take 13 days to give a 10-day round of antibiotics, drop pills on the floor and tell client to pick them up and ingest, let prescriptions run out on Fosamax until i brought it to caseworker's attention, drop her off at the home alone, empty, no staff there, put MASSIVE bruises on her from improper restraints, and NEVER GET A SLAP FROM THE SYSTEM. MY COMPLAINTS about that provider always termed 'inconclusive'.

As it stands now, i can only have 'supervised' visits with my daughter but no supervision by the state needed when i struggled to rear her, ALONE, for 25 years ~! I fear i've been hung out to dry, and IF this post gets noticed by the 'authorities' i'll for SURE be up a creek.

User avatar
LindaJM
Posts: 3171
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 7:16 pm
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Re: EXPUNGMENT/EXPUNGE YOUR NAME IF YOU GET YOUR CHILD/REN B

Postby LindaJM » Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:32 am

I've heard of numerous APS abuses... so sorry to read what they're doing to you and your daughter. Can you go to court to inform a judge about the abusive medication situation?
Sample Document Library

Please keep in mind that none of us are lawyers and we can't give legal advice. We are simply telling you what we would do in a similar situation. It is to your advantage to get a lawyer.

"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke ... so try to do something to change the system ...

lonelyangel
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:10 pm
Contact:

Re: EXPUNGMENT/EXPUNGE YOUR NAME IF YOU GET YOUR CHILD/REN B

Postby lonelyangel » Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:44 pm

Avalon wrote:I'm BRAND NEW to this site, but NOT to dealings w/ the system. in my case, it's APS, the 'sister' arm of CPS in Texas since my disabled daughter is over age 21. But we've BOTH been abused by 'the system', repeatedly, and it just goes on~!

I had NO IDEA 'they' have a 'registry' and "Even if they had discovered the the case was from false allegations, you would still have a 'history' with CPS. Any and all 'history' with CPS will be used against you later down the road if CPS becomes involved again. Doesnt matter if it was unfounded, false allegations, or founded. There are some parents have that have had numerous unfounded claims against them, and have gotten to the point hat CPS removes the kids or opens a case for having CPS 'involved' too much.

The sheer power and lack of oversight on CPS is disgusting. The things they get away with is appalling. But like with most here, we never knew the evil that was lurking until it happened to us.Momoffor
Moderator "

I fear i've been "involved too much" and now have a "history" with the system that will go against me as i try to REGAIN guardianship of my only child. I'm age 67, reared her as a single mom, poor then, still poor, but well educated for whatever that's worth.

Most recently, i'd voluntarily relinquished g.ship to the State (of Texas), 2008, as they promised they'd remove her from an abusive situation - group home that was NOT going to give up her $70,000.00/year contract for 'professional care' (sic) and had blocked me from moving her. a year latr state gave g.ship to a 'private' guardian with NO hearing, NO DUE PROCESS and without informing the Judge there WAS / IS a family member who wanted to be considered for restoration of g.ship.

Now, this woman has a caseload of some 35 'wards', knows NOTHING about my daughter's challenge(s), is a career bureaucrat, having worked for CPS, thus knows the system, and has dismissed or minimized MY pointing out what are probably (6 or 7) side effects to one of the meds she's been placed on, Geodon, which is involved in MANY lawsuits.

Long story, but i got "investigated" by APS for "medical neglect" (missed giving her ONE dose of Geodon on a home visit), when i've seen staff in previous group home take 13 days to give a 10-day round of antibiotics, drop pills on the floor and tell client to pick them up and ingest, let prescriptions run out on Fosamax until i brought it to caseworker's attention, drop her off at the home alone, empty, no staff there, put MASSIVE bruises on her from improper restraints, and NEVER GET A SLAP FROM THE SYSTEM. MY COMPLAINTS about that provider always termed 'inconclusive'.

As it stands now, i can only have 'supervised' visits with my daughter but no supervision by the state needed when i struggled to rear her, ALONE, for 25 years ~! I fear i've been hung out to dry, and IF this post gets noticed by the 'authorities' i'll for SURE be up a creek.

Here is what you need to do concerning this.Contact the ACLU in your state and explain what is going on or fill out an intake form to submit to them in order to see if they can represent you in order to get this resolved.They are involved in a case in my county with the exact agency that screwed me around and it was on the news so they would be a great source to go through.I too had issues with my daughter and psychotropic medications and I can explain it to you if you want but long story short my daughter attempted suicide a total of 4 times and the F.D.A. actually had warnings along those lines on the box about suicidal tendencies for kids under 18 and my daughter was 14 when she was put on them.

Avalon
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:23 am

Re: EXPUNGMENT/EXPUNGE YOUR NAME IF YOU GET YOUR CHILD/REN B

Postby Avalon » Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:49 am

ABSOLUTELY I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT YOUR DAUGHTER / PSYCHOTROPIC MEDS~! AV


Return to “CPS Investigations”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests