Proposed "Charlie and Braden" Bill

[pam]

Proposed 'Charlie and Braden' bill could have big impact in Wash. | ksl.com

SALT LAKE CITY — A proposed bill to be introduced in Washington state this week will honor the lives of Charlie and Braden Powell.

The boys' maternal grandparents, Chuck and Judy Cox, helped to craft the bill in hopes the deaths of their grandsons will be a vehicle for change.

I think there needs to be some changes and reform. At least some more guidelines when one of the parents is a suspect or even a person of interest.

[applepansy]

My heard breaks every time I read about this case.

Its easy to second guess after the fact. The following statement really bothers me:

Pierce County, Wash., prosecutor Mark Lindquist said he was aware of enough evidence that he would have filed charges against Josh Powell if it had been up to his office. A spokesman for the Pierce County Sheriff's Office said his detectives would have arrested Powell long ago if it had been their case.

If that's how Washington law enforcement felt - "Utah isn't doing their job right" - then why didn't they send an officer with the Social Worker for the supervised visitation? Fingers can be pointed in all directions. When it comes right down to it Josh Powell is responsible and that's where is should end.

I don't have a problem with laws being changed to include stiffer penalties in the death of a child from abuse. Ethan Stacey's mother and step-father deserve the death penalty. Shelby Andrews father and step-mother deserve more than they got.

This subject is close to my heart. My grandson was abused for the first 17 months of this life and DCFS was involved. A guardian ad litem was involved with the family BEFORE he was born. They knew there was abuse. One child had already been taken away. There was so much evidence against his mother that is boggles my mind that DCFS ignored what they were being told. Even after the children (our grandson and his 7yo sister) were living with us a DCFS Supervisor was determined that we all work towards reunification. Thankfully the judge and guardian ad litem had finally had enough and terminated her parental rights (but not completely).... if something were to happen to my son, my grandson would go back to his mother -who hasn't changed. Three children are permanently affected because DCFS didn't act when they should have.

However.....

I have some serious concerns. DCFS (as its called in Utah) and other child welfare agencies need to be more balanced. There are a lot of cases happening nation wide where good parents are losing their children because an over-zealous case worker gets an bee in their bonnet. Yet, unfit parents are allowed to keep their children.

The following link is from HSLDA (an advocate for home schooling). The article speaks for itself:

Newborn Seized in Hospital by Police, Social Worker This is just one many cases I've heard about in the last year. My sister was referred to DCFS when she took her toddler to the ER about 5 years ago. Its happening all over.

ParentalRight.org are proposing a constitutional amendment because there are so many cases where governmental agencies are stepping in where they shouldn't. An amendment concerns me and much as any laws that would take more rights away from parents "to keep children safe".

There needs to be a better solution. Parents shouldn't be afraid to take their children to the doctor.

I don't know the solution. Well, I do... Be Christ-like in all our actions. However, everyone has their agency and can choose. I don't know how we prevent abuses without infringing on agency.

[annewandering]

It used to be that children weren't taken even if everyone in the country knew the kids were being abused. Now you have to be careful if you take a child to the ER. We need a balance with some common sense tossed in.

Problem is it is next to impossible to make laws requiring people to have common sense.

The only solution I can see is to have a citizens watch guard group to keep the CPS on the straight and narrow. Right now they are a law unto themselves with no counter balance except possibly the media in extreme cases.

In San Diego the CPS was taking kids right and left. Finally the media noticed and there was a public outcry. Probably a case where they took a child and then the case worker tried to adopt her despite KNOWING the parent was innocent was the final straw. It was insane and should never have happened.

[Vort]

Proposed 'Charlie and Braden' bill could have big impact in Wash. | ksl.com

SALT LAKE CITY — A proposed bill to be introduced in Washington state this week will honor the lives of Charlie and Braden Powell.

The boys' maternal grandparents, Chuck and Judy Cox, helped to craft the bill in hopes the deaths of their grandsons will be a vehicle for change.

I think there needs to be some changes and reform. At least some more guidelines when one of the parents is a suspect or even a person of interest.

Don't know about the law. Knee-jerk legislation does not have a good track record. Maybe there is something worthwhile about it. I'm not qualified to say.

But the idea that Washington state has such a great track record, and if only those darn Utahns hadn't been dilly-dallying around the manly law enforcement of This Great State would have put Josh Powell in his place, is laughable. As a native of Washington state and near lifelong resident, my only response is: Josh Powell WAS LIVING SOUTH OF TACOMA WHEN HE MURDERED HIS CHILDREN. And he didn't just move there -- he had been there for months.

[Echo2002]

I've heard of more than one parent saying they were questioned after taking their kid to the ER for treatment, especially if the child had visited multiple times. I think these accusations are going to deter parents from bringing their kid to the ER.

The government has long overstepped their boundaries in these situations.

[estradling75]

I've heard of more than one parent saying they were questioned after taking their kid to the ER for treatment, especially if the child had visited multiple times. I think these accusations are going to deter parents from bringing their kid to the ER.

The government has long overstepped their boundaries in these situations.

I have to disagree here...

A short while my 6 year old broke my 2 year old's foot while goofing around... Did it bother us that everyone we talked to at the ER asked how it happened? Only in the sense that it got really repetitive after awhile. I understand why they are doing it, and while I don't like why they feel the need to do so, I do accept it.

So knowing I am going to be repeatedly asked about it is not going to keep me from seeking medical help for my kids when needed.

[applepansy]

I have to disagree here...

A short while my 6 year old broke my 2 year old's foot while goofing around... Did it bother us that everyone we talked to at the ER asked how it happened? Only in the sense that it got really repetitive after awhile. I understand why they are doing it, and while I don't like why they feel the need to do so, I do accept it.

So knowing I am going to be repeatedly asked about it is not going to keep me from seeking medical help for my kids when needed.

In my sisters case it was more than repeated questioning. DCFS did a formal investigation. My sister had to hire an attorney to get the situation resolved. The doctor who initiated the investigation was formally disciplined but that doesn't stop it from still happening. The DCFS case worker apologized when he came to talk to her.... but that was after he had talked to her employer, the Sheriff's office where she volunteers and neighbors. She got the attorney because just the accusation can destroy a reputation, family, and even the business of self-employed people.

Edited April 4, 2012 by applepansy

[estradling75]

In my sisters case it was more than repeated questioning. DCFS did a formal investigation. My sister had to hire an attorney to get the situation resolved. The doctor who initiated the investigation was formally disciplined but that doesn't stop it from still happening. The DCFS case worker apologized when he came to talk to her.... but that was after he had talked to her employer, the Sheriff's office where she volunteers and neighbors. She got the attorney because just the accusation can destroy a reputation, family, and even the business of self-employed people.

Like with all systems run by man it is not perfect, and we have to balance the negatives with the positives. Your sister encountered the negative so now the question becomes... After all your sister experienced... if she became convinced that one of her kids needed immediate medical attention, would she let them suffer because of her fear?

[applepansy]

Like with all systems run by man it is not perfect, and we have to balance the negatives with the positives. Your sister encountered the negative so now the question becomes... After all your sister experienced... if she became convinced that one of her kids needed immediate medical attention, would she let them suffer because of her fear?

No, She's a BSN. :) Its amazing what education can do for you. Instead of being afraid she had the tools and knowledge she needed to set things right. Not only that but in our family of nurses we often take care of things at home. Not every family has that advantage.

I don't have than answers but parental rights are seriously being undermined in the USA. Somehow we need to find the balance between keeping children safe and not tearing families apart.

Edited April 4, 2012 by applepansy

[estradling75]

No, She's a BSN.

Then you aren't countering my point, your example supports it. Your sister after getting shafted by the system will still continue to seek out medical care for her children when they need it.

[applepansy]

Then you aren't countering my point, your example supports it. Your sister after getting shafted by the system will still continue to seek out medical care for her children when they need it.

I guess I missed your point

[estradling75]

I guess I missed your point

Ideally every child would be raised by people that love them and no one would have anger management issues. However we don't live in that world, we live in a fallen one and that means we have to deal with ugly situations.

When we hear or see signs that a child has been abused/killed by a parent or guardian generally we get outraged and demand that something be done to stop it from happening. Usually it takes the form of some legal remedy.

The problem is any remedy that empowers someone external to step in and put a stop to things, is that it becomes a tool that can be abused to hurt good people and families (like your sister). So it becomes a balancing trying to protect the kids that need it, while also protecting it from being abused or misused.

Now SpringGirl made the claim that the government as already gone too far in this issue. She used the example of hospital questioning, with the possibility of people not going because of the questioning as her support for her point.

I found her offered support to her point to be lacking. So I disagreed with idea that we should roll back the hospital questioning based on the idea that people might not go to the hospital because of it. Now had she tried to make the point that it wasn't effective, or the point you made with what happened to your sister, it would have been a better point. But that wasn't what she did. I know that a lot of factors go into a parents choice on if they should take their kids to the ER. I do not believe that in very many cases the final choice will hinge on the parent feeling uncomfortable being asked questions on what happened. While I admit it is possible, I expect it to be rare and thus the possibility of stopping abuse by doing the questioning is the greater good in this situation.

You supported my point when you said that your sister, who has every reason to be distrustful of the system, would still submit to it if she felt her child needed it. You showed it to be a rare case indeed.

[Traveler]

One of the fundamental rights of a person is to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. The operative word here is assumed innocent. If you believe you children should be taken from you for suspicion of a crime - then perhaps there is a point to this law. But if you think you should be exempted from a law - that is a really good indication that it is not a good or just law.

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

After all your sister experienced... if she became convinced that one of her kids needed immediate medical attention, would she let them suffer because of her fear?

With all due respect, Estradling, that's kind of a loaded question. There are many, many within the child welfare community who would argue that an affirmative answer to that question by someone who has children, might itself justify DCFS intervention.

Experience (through clients) has shown me that a parent who seeks medical treatment for a child who has experienced some kind of physical injury, but is unable to explain exactly how that injury was incurred, is going to find themselves in a lot of trouble very quickly. Whether it be a cut, scrape, goose egg, or bruise of any size--pretty much any unexplained injury is going to arouse suspicion among those whose job it is to be suspicious.

Of course, things could be worse. At least now, DCFS needs a child protective warrant before they can remove your child from the home. It wasn't too long ago that they didn't even need that (at least in Utah)--and they could show up at any time, day or night.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

With all due respect, Estradling, that's kind of a loaded question. There are many, many within the child welfare community who would argue that an affirmative answer to that question by someone who has children, might itself justify DCFS intervention.

Experience (through clients) has shown me that a parent seeks medical treatment for a child who has experienced some kind of physical injury, but is unable to explain exactly how that injury was incurred, is going to find themselves in a lot of trouble very quickly. Whether it be a cut, scrape, goose egg, or bruise of any size--pretty much any unexplained injury is going to arouse suspicion among those whose job it is to be suspicious.

Of course, things could be worse. At least now, DCFS needs a child protective warrant before they can remove your child from the home. It wasn't too long ago that they didn't even need that (at least in Utah)--and they could show up at any time, day or night.

Indeed it was a loaded question... It reinforced the absurdity of the idea.

For the rest of your post if the parent or guardian (or other person responsible for the welfare of a child) is it unreasonable to ask for an explanation for why the child needs to have medical care? Is it unreasonable to call for some accountability when injury has occurred? I don't think so ans I am hoping I am not the only one.

And if such answers don't make sense or aren't forth coming, is it not then reasonable for it to be bumped up to people that have powers and authority to investigate further?

Edited April 5, 2012 by estradling75

[Just_A_Guy]

Indeed it was a loaded question... It reinforced the absurdity of the idea.

For the rest of your post if the parent or guardian (or other person responsible for the welfare of a child) is it unreasonable to ask for an explanation for why the child needs to have medical care? Is it unreasonable to call for some accountability when injury has occurred? I don't think so ans I am hoping I am not the only one.

And if such answers don't make sense or aren't forth coming, is it not then reasonable for it to be bumped up to people that have powers and authority to investigate further?

I think it depends on the nature of the injury. Broken arm or major laceration or extensive bruising--sure. Minor scrapes and bruises--not so much. I think it's pretty common for a parent to notice some bump or scratch on their child's skin and have no idea how that mark got there. Put them under scrutiny by some state caseworker (the majority of whom, anecdotally speaking, are relatively young, childless, and majored in social work or women's studies or some other discipline that drinks deeply at the well of modern feminism and leads them to believe that males are the root of most evil in society), and things can go downhill pretty quickly.

I've had a client investigated by DCFS over a bad case of diaper rash, for pete's sake. Another was basically forced to separate from his wife for a couple of months and stay away from his infant son, because a caseworker couldn't tell a skin rash from a slap mark.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

I think it depends on the nature of the injury. Broken arm or major laceration or extensive bruising--sure. Minor scrapes and bruises--not so much. I think it's pretty common for a parent to notice some bump or scratch on their child's skin and have no idea how that mark got there. Put them under scrutiny by some state caseworker (the majority of whom, anecdotally speaking, are relatively young, childless, and majored in social work or women's studies or some other discipline that drinks deeply at the well of modern feminism and leads them to believe that males are the root of most evil in society), and things can go downhill pretty quickly.

I've had a client investigated by DCFS over a bad case of diaper rash, for pete's sake. Another was basically forced to separate from his wife for a couple of months and stay away from his infant son, because a caseworker couldn't tell a skin rash from a slap mark.

Oh good catch... I was unclear... I was meaning serious injury, not normal day to day bumps and bruises, but I did not express that clearly (or at all really) in my last post.

Given your experience in the legal field could you give a rough estimate, on how long it might take from the first report of abuse to potentially being found guilty? (In a trial not the various short cuts legally allowed) If that is too variable then a list of steps that need to be taken and about how long they might take?

[Just_A_Guy]

Given your experience in the legal field could you give a rough estimate, on how long it might take from the first report of abuse to potentially being found guilty? (In a trial not the various short cuts legally allowed) If that is too variable then a list of steps that need to be taken and about how long they might take?

Depends on how they proceed against the suspect. In a criminal misdemeanor child abuse case I just handled it took about eight months to get to trial (we finally negotiated a plea deal on the morning of trial).

Alternately, in a child protective proceeding in juvenile court, the suspect or child is usually removed from home immediately and generally speaking won't be allowed back until the case has been dismissed or until the suspect has pled/been found guilty and jumped through whatever treatment/counseling hoops the court deems appropriate.

Frankly, in juvenile court, my experience is you either take a plea immediately and get your kids back in 3-4 months, or you defend yourself and maybe the case gets thrown out and you get reunited nine months to a year down the road.

[applepansy]

Estradling. Unfortunately these cases are not rare. I only used one example of what situations I personally know about.

JAG, Thank you for your perspective.