Stanley family - Fundies have children removed

[browncoatslytherin]

I agree with those who think there must be more to this story, not because I think CPS is infallible, but because they had an actual warrant. Judges don't just give those out on a whim, usually.

And also, it just doesn't ring true he way it's written.

this. if a judge signed a warrant, that means cps had something sufficient to go on to present to the judge.

[2xx1xy1JD]

In my experience, though, it's not just up to the one social worker. There's a whole team of people involved, and there has to be approval for the actions taken.

I really think there's more to this story than we will hear. CPS doesn't get to tell their side of the story to the press, so it automatically allows the parents total control of how the public perceives the case.

I'll say this - it took four years of reports for my kids to be removed from their birth family. I'm always skeptical when someone claims CPS just showed up and yanked the kids with no warnings or chances to change. My daughter's birth family broke her bones and still didn't have a surprise "take the kids away now" visit.

That isn't to say it never happens. I just think it's incredibly rare.

Things vary from place to place, but here, any apprehension generally needs the approval of the supervisor.

I will talk in general terms (no potentially identifying information) about what I've seen in my years of doing child protection cases. I've found that until you really dig into a case and follow it along, you have no idea whether actions were justified or not. It's just not possible to determine much from any one-sided account, and officials aren't allowed to breach confidentiality.

[apple1]

... They could have been using the kids as professional guinea pigs for this supplement...

Disclaimer: I have no inside knowledge about this specific case.

Disclaimer 2: I get your main point, Mama Mia. Not arguing about that.

Very important thing I need to say: This "thing" that is being discussed is NOT a supplement. It is a 20-something percent BLEACH solution.

Heck yes, parents who think it is OK to drink a bleach solution of that concentration are unfit parents.

Also - the guy is a liar if he told the authorities that he was generating it to put on his garden. A bleach solution of that concentration would kill everything in a garden.

Something is way WAY off here.

[nelliebelle1197]

If it happened like it says it did in the article, then yes, CPS did make a horrible, traumatizing mistake.

The family states the kids never even took that supplement. And if they DID take it, wouldn't a simple warning that it's dangerous and they shouldn't give it to the kids suffice?

It seems to be sold legally. So why on earth would CPS have the right to just haul the kids off. This is much more a situation where if there were concerns the appropriate response would be to develop a plan with the parents, not take the kids away. Unless there is MUCH more going on, which is, of course, possible.

It really bugs me when adult authorities, parents or CPS, don't understand the impact of tearing children away from their surroundings and family. Even if it's for a short time.

Just to be clear, that "supplement" is bleach.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I agree the vast majority are in it to help. And most work hard in a really incredibly difficult and stressful job. Seeing horrific things nobody wants to see. But just like there are awful cases of abuse where they obviously dropped the ball and should have pulled the kids years prior -- there really are times when some rash/over zealous/power hungry/biased CPS worker pulls kids without valid cause. Yes, they have oversight, and structured decision trees and the goal is to keep families together and all of that -- but it still comes down in large part to how the Social Worker evaluates the situation.

What I don't understand is why people completely get it that sometimes the police abuse their authority, but think it doesn't happen, or it's one in a million, with CPS. I can think of several times CPS workers behaved in a wildly biased manner just in my own professional life off the top of my head. Of course there are hundreds more where they were just fine and did everything right. They are people, like everyone else.

I don't think most cops are bad cops. I don't think most CPS workers are bad Social Workers. But yeah, some people in those professions are crap at their job. Or just happen to let the stress get to them and snap. Or seriously under or over-react to something that personally triggers them. The only difference between them and , say, a department store manager or waitress in the same situation is that it can be life-altering for other people if they suck at their job, or just seriously fu k up for whatever reason.

I have no idea about this particular family situation. They could have been using the kids as professional guinea pigs for this supplement. Or kept them chained in the basement manufacturing it. Who knows. But I don't get why it's okay to point out cop oversteps on social media --But people should shut up about any perceived injustice by CPS? Or, for that matter, vice versa. Cause it seems a lot of people who denounce CPS entirely think all the cops are great all the time. I just don't get it.

I don't know , it's a disconnect to me.

There is a need for scrutiny. The problem with social media is that it can point to cases with potential issues, but it's pretty rare that you would ever get fair and accurate reporting. Laws vary from place to place, but I know that here (Ontario, Canada), there are some pretty strict laws in place that prevent anyone from disclosing confidential information or revealing the identity of anyone involved in a child protection case. We have situations where the mainstream media gets a tip (Lev Tahor, kids removed from spanking Mennonites, etc.) and is permitted to sit in court to report the case, but they are required to avoid reporting any names. Of course, those cases can go on for quite some time, and social media is often about making instant judgments.

I'd also say that there are occasions when only someone who was really close to the workings of the CPS would know all of the backstory on why certain decisions were made, or what traumas or biases might be at work. I accidentally discovered with one of my cases that the social worker was being so rigid because she'd had a previous case where a baby died. [i did a high volume of child protection in a particular court at that time, and happened to have 3 cases with weird overlap, like a client pointing to a social worker and saying "she let my son die".] Sometimes, it was also a matter of an agency getting particularly concerned about certain types of cases, or not trusting certain psychologists/shelters/other agencies, etc. Some of this stuff would never be recorded in the file. Other times, there would be information deep in the file that nobody really questioned or paid attention to, esp. with medical issues. A child's weight would appear to be going down, but nobody ever checked if it was a matter of different scales giving different weights. Two x-rays would show that a baby's ribs weren't broken at point A but were broken at point B, but nobody would clue in that the second set of x-rays were taken at a pediatric hospital with better equipment for young children.

[Grimalkin]

I think it's possible that CPS workers are overzealous and this may be the case, it seems to me though that all to often it falls the other way where kids fall through the cracks. I think it has to be an aweful job. I doubt I have the stomach for it. I think it's also a thankless task. Rarely do we hear how wonderful CPS is, but how aweful they are. I am going with there is likely more to this story.

I had to go through an investigation once when my daughter fractured her arm. We to this day, 8 years later are not sure how it happened. The best theory we have is it happened by her falling out of bed. The break was so slight it was hard to catch x-Ray. She also would run around and play, then complain her arm hurt. I was reported for delaying medical help. It was a few days before I took her in. It was scary, but honestly at least someone cared.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I read the article.

I'm guessing a few things:

1. If this is family that avoids most contact with the government, homeschools their 9 kids and considers themselves "preppers", I'd assume that (a) it wasn't possible to simply speak to the kids' teachers to make sure that they were okay, and (b) this may be a family that might be influenced by the Homeschool Legal Defence group, and that would be unlikely to simply open the door to a CPS worker and say, "sure, come on in, feel free to look around and talk to the kids".

2. Someone must have tipped them off about the "supplement", in order for them to get that search warrant. CPS doesn't randomly look for that stuff.

3. It's possible that a CPS worker or the police may have been quicker to act precisely because it was a family of government-avoidant "preppers", if they thought that the risk was higher as a result.

4. If there is no evidence that the kids were exposed to the "supplement" or that anyone even planned to give it to the kids, after interviews and medical examinations, the kids would likely be returned. It may happen within the 72 hour window to get a warrant, and would likely happen before the first court hearing after 5 days.

[Evilbad]

I don't believe for one second that these kids were removed because there is a "Supplement" in the house. Much like the whole debacle with Jahi McMath, CPS' hands are tied and you don't get to hear their side, only the parents who, of course, are going to make themselves sound as innocent and victimized as possible.

See: Lethbridge Family for further information on how there are two sides to every CPS story. That one is pretty tragic, though.

[eh02]

My experience with knowing many people in social work is overwhelmingly that it attracts great, self-sacrificing, extremely hardworking people, and that the people who are "out in the field" tend to be blamed for any issues in "the system." If their caseload is twice what it should be, for example, and they have an oversight in a case because they simply DO NOT have enough time in a day to devote to each case, they are the ones who are held responsible. It is hard for me to be immediately suspicious that the social workers at fault here unless some actual evidence was brought up to support that. There is no reason for them to WANT to take kids into state care. It's expensive, a strain on resources, and can be traumatic even for kids who are leaving very poor living situations.

And as people mentioned, CPS workers conveniently cannot defend themselves in cases like this. Should we blindly trust authority? Of course not. But we also shouldn't blindly trust the parents.

There is no reason for them to have MMS in the house if someone wasn't taking it. Maybe it was just the father. But I doubt it. If they truly think it's not only safe, but a "miracle" supplement, I have a hard time believing they'd not also give it to the children, personally. And my gut feeling is that they told someone the kids were taking it and got reported.

[Terrie]

I don't doubt for a moment that there was something more going in that house. Remember, we're hearing what the parents are claiming, not what the real reason is. The parents can say whatever they hell they want, and CPS can't counter it.

[Palimpsest]

Obligatory disclaimer: I have never worked for CPS (I have worked for "vulnerable adult" protective services, so help me doG) and have no knowledge of this particular case.

But this is a classic example of how CPS can NEVER get it right! In the eyes of the general public.

We discuss many situations on FJ where some members are screaming that CPS *should* be involved. See Rodrigues, Jeub, and Shrader (and more) for examples.

Then other posters (with hands on knowledge in the area) point out that there is insufficient evidence for CPS intervention (see Jeub).

My gut says that these children would not have been removed from the home without more evidence than just the (possible) drinking of a (possibly toxic) quack supplement.

Honestly, CPS does not and cannot implement an Emergency Protective Order without due process. Due Process involves a judge who weighs the evidence presented.

Yeah, these are team decisions and supervisors are involved that should control for undertrained and emotional case workers. In my state, although mistakes *may* occasionally be made, it is very unusual that children are removed without due cause. I do think it is better to err on the side of caution, however.

Mama Mia and I have been back and forth on this several times. From my point of view of (former) Protective Services in the trenches and then kicked upstairs to management and training -- it is a shamefully underfunded and incredibly stressful job for which it is extraordinarily hard to retain qualified and trained staff ...

Mama Mia has somewhat agreed with me in the past on the difficulties of CPS work. However, apparently, in her opinion and experience, CPS screws up all the time and intervenes too often. She and I have a fundamental difference going on there, because I err on the side of caution (dead people/children don't float my boat) and she seems to err on the side of parental rights.

Don't get me wrong: Mama Mia and I both have valid points and I respect her input and opinions, as I hope she respects mine. :)

[singsingsing]

I can say from professional experience that law enforcement almost never provides the public with the whole story on any case, let alone extremely sensitive cases such as this, for very good reasons. There is without a doubt more to this story than what we're hearing. I am 100% certain of that. Whether CPS was wrong in this case or not, I have no idea - but I know that we're not hearing everything, probably not even most of it. It can be incredibly frustrating when you do know more to see people convinced they understand what's really going on, demanding this or that, blaming and basically ready to crucify whoever they think is at fault - but it's not like you can set the record straight. You'd be breaking your oath of secrecy and most likely forfeiting your job. So unfortunately in such cases we only get one side of the story. Who knows what really happened here. I expect more will be revealed in time.

[Palimpsest]

I can say from professional experience that law enforcement almost never provides the public with the whole story on any case, let alone extremely sensitive cases such as this, for very good reasons. There is without a doubt more to this story than what we're hearing. I am 100% certain of that. Whether CPS was wrong in this case or not, I have no idea - but I know that we're not hearing everything, probably not even most of it. It can be incredibly frustrating when you do know more to see people convinced they understand what's really going on, demanding this or that, blaming and basically ready to crucify whoever they think is at fault - but it's not like you can set the record straight. You'd be breaking your oath of secrecy and most likely forfeiting your job. So unfortunately in such cases we only get one side of the story. Who knows what really happened here. I expect more will be revealed in time.

Uh, what is your "professional" experience? While I agree in principle with much of what you said -- I doubt that you have much experience professionally or personally with Protective Services simply because of the way you worded this. So clumsy that it made me wince.

CPS is not Law Enforcement -- although CPS and Law Enforcement certainly do work hand-in-hand on the worst - read criminal - cases. CPS is social services and is primarily staffed by social workers. The original intent of CPS was to prevent or ameliorate situations before they escalated to criminal offences. However, the situation being what it is - CPS evidence and testimony is all too frequently required in criminal abuse cases.

An "oath of secrecy" is a really odd choice of words. What you mean is "confidentiality." CPS is bound to keep child abuse cases confidential by both federal and individual state laws, to say nothing of the NASW ethical code.

CPS can't say anything about ongoing cases (see professional confidentiality requirements above) except when under subpoena by a court of law if a case goes to court. Nothing. Nada. Nowt.

Law enforcement, think police officers, are not bound by confidentiality. They can talk to the press at the discretion of their supervisors -- and many police officers and their supervisors do talk to the press. They don't necessarily spill all the details, just what they need to say.

The general public will only ever know what the press reports and what court records (if it reaches court) say.

That is: what the (alleged) perpetrators say, and they can claim anything and talk as wildly as they like; what law enforcement/ attorneys choose to leak at their discretion, and what a judge allows to be brought as evidence in a court of law (and that will not be the whole story with a half competent defense attorney.) And all of that is only if a case actually reaches criminal levels and isn't pleaded out before it even goes to court.

So, yes, you are correct that the general public will never know everything that happens in a child abuse case. More may be revealed in time, but we will never know the full story here.

Because "confidentiality."

[2xx1xy1JD]

Uh, what is your "professional" experience? While I agree in principle with much of what you said -- I doubt that you have much experience professionally or personally with Protective Services simply because of the way you worded this. So clumsy that it made me wince.

CPS is not Law Enforcement -- although CPS and Law Enforcement certainly do work hand-in-hand on the worst - read criminal - cases. CPS is social services and is primarily staffed by social workers. The original intent of CPS was to prevent or ameliorate situations before they escalated to criminal offences. However, the situation being what it is - CPS evidence and testimony is all too frequently required in criminal abuse cases.

An "oath of secrecy" is a really odd choice of words. What you mean is "confidentiality." CPS is bound to keep child abuse cases confidential by both federal and individual state laws, to say nothing of the NASW ethical code.

CPS can't say anything about ongoing cases (see professional confidentiality requirements above) except when under subpoena by a court of law if a case goes to court. Nothing. Nada. Nowt.

Law enforcement, think police officers, are not bound by confidentiality. They can talk to the press at the discretion of their supervisors -- and many police officers and their supervisors do talk to the press. They don't necessarily spill all the details, just what they need to say.

The general public will only ever know what the press reports and what court records (if it reaches court) say.

That is: what the (alleged) perpetrators say, and they can claim anything and talk as wildly as they like; what law enforcement/ attorneys choose to leak at their discretion, and what a judge allows to be brought as evidence in a court of law (and that will not be the whole story with a half competent defense attorney.) And all of that is only if a case actually reaches criminal levels and isn't pleaded out before it even goes to court.

So, yes, you are correct that the general public will never know everything that happens in a child abuse case. More may be revealed in time, but we will never know the full story here.

Because "confidentiality."

Good general summary.

Where I live, releasing a child protection file or identifying a child in a child protection case gets you in serious shit with the courts - as in contempt of court and potential of jail time. Members of the press can be in the courtroom, but are required to use initials only instead of names. The general public is not permitted.

Police, depending on where you are, still do have some privacy rules to follow. For example, I can't just go to the police station and ask for all the police records associated with my neighbor without his permission. They don't have the specific privacy laws that apply to child protection cases though, and criminal court cases are fully open to the public unless there is a order to the contrary (which is very rare).

[2xx1xy1JD]

Obligatory disclaimer: I have never worked for CPS (I have worked for "vulnerable adult" protective services, so help me doG) and have no knowledge of this particular case.

But this is a classic example of how CPS can NEVER get it right! In the eyes of the general public.

We discuss many situations on FJ where some members are screaming that CPS *should* be involved. See Rodrigues, Jeub, and Shrader (and more) for examples.

Then other posters (with hands on knowledge in the area) point out that there is insufficient evidence for CPS intervention (see Jeub).

My gut says that these children would not have been removed from the home without more evidence than just the (possible) drinking of a (possibly toxic) quack supplement.

Honestly, CPS does not and cannot implement an Emergency Protective Order without due process. Due Process involves a judge who weighs the evidence presented.

Yeah, these are team decisions and supervisors are involved that should control for undertrained and emotional case workers. In my state, although mistakes *may* occasionally be made, it is very unusual that children are removed without due cause. I do think it is better to err on the side of caution, however.

Mama Mia and I have been back and forth on this several times. From my point of view of (former) Protective Services in the trenches and then kicked upstairs to management and training -- it is a shamefully underfunded and incredibly stressful job for which it is extraordinarily hard to retain qualified and trained staff ...

Mama Mia has somewhat agreed with me in the past on the difficulties of CPS work. However, apparently, in her opinion and experience, CPS screws up all the time and intervenes too often. She and I have a fundamental difference going on there, because I err on the side of caution (dead people/children don't float my boat) and she seems to err on the side of parental rights.

Don't get me wrong: Mama Mia and I both have valid points and I respect her input and opinions, as I hope she respects mine. :)

There are different levels of due process, and of evidence of risk that is required, at each stage.

An initial report generally triggers the first contact. If the concern is not resolved at that point, you get into warrants. If there is a serious enough concern, you can have the kids apprehended, and then you need to be in court within days with the paperwork to start the court case and keep the kids in care. After that there may be a temporary hearing where there's a full argument on whether there is enough reason to keep the kids in care, and eventually there may be a full trial.

All along the way, the investigation is continuing, explanations may be provided, parents may cooperate and agree to do certain things, other relatives may step forward to provide care, etc. So, for many reasons, kids are often returned home sooner or later.

Part of my issue with those who spread paranoia about CPS (as opposed to reasonable and fair criticism) is that they actually cause cases to escalate, when those cases could have likely been resolved easily at an early stage.

[singsingsing]

Uh, what is your "professional" experience? While I agree in principle with much of what you said -- I doubt that you have much experience professionally or personally with Protective Services simply because of the way you worded this. So clumsy that it made me wince.

I think we've both fallen victim to a miscommunication here. I can see now that I wasn't clear - I was referring specifically to law enforcement, NOT to CPS, and I was trying to make a point based on my own experience about members of the public jumping to conclusions or thinking they have all the facts when they don't - not trying to make any kind of statement about the workings of CPS. I meant case in a general sense, like 'this situation' - obviously that was a very poor choice of words given the context! :doh:

I did in fact mean oath of secrecy - again, I was referring specifically to law enforcement and not attempting to conflate it in any way with CPS. You are absolutely right that I don't have much experience personally or professionally with CPS. In fact, I don't have any. I'm not American. That may be where some of the confusion over terminology is coming from as well, but again, my post had nothing to do with CPS. I may be stupid, ignorant and ridiculous in many ways, but I can guarantee you that I would never be idiotic enough to claim that I had any kind of professional experience with an organization that doesn't even exist in my country. :)

[busdrivingmom]

I think there is more going on with the family than we know. I was threatened by a family member that DCFS was called on me because I posted a back to school pic on Facebook and refused to take it down. The pic did not show location or any details of where they go to school, but he felt it was "inappropriate." I never heard from DCFS. A friend of mine who had a child get burned with hot water by a sibling on accident did get a visit, but nothing more.

Based on what I have seen from personal experience, it takes A LOT to get DCFS in my state to take children out of a home and away from parents. Hopefully more will come out for this to make sense.

[Palimpsest]

I think we've both fallen victim to a miscommunication here. I can see now that I wasn't clear - I was referring specifically to law enforcement, NOT to CPS, and I was trying to make a point based on my own experience about members of the public jumping to conclusions or thinking they have all the facts when they don't - not trying to make any kind of statement about the workings of CPS. I meant case in a general sense, like 'this situation' - obviously that was a very poor choice of words given the context! :doh:

I did in fact mean oath of secrecy - again, I was referring specifically to law enforcement and not attempting to conflate it in any way with CPS. You are absolutely right that I don't have much experience personally or professionally with CPS. In fact, I don't have any. I'm not American. That may be where some of the confusion over terminology is coming from as well, but again, my post had nothing to do with CPS. I may be stupid, ignorant and ridiculous in many ways, but I can guarantee you that I would never be idiotic enough to claim that I had any kind of professional experience with an organization that doesn't even exist in my country. :)

Ah, many thanks for the clarification. Your apology is certainly accepted. Please accept my apology for my knee-jerk reaction to your rather (IMO) poor choice of words. I usually try not to do that but you caught me at a bad moment. :)

As I said, we certainly agree in principle.

You do rather intrigue me, however. What country are you from that doesn't have some version of CPS/DFCS? If your country has laws to protect children I would bet that the implementation of those laws is just as problematic as in the USA -- and the agencies who implement those laws are just as much under fire as CPS.

Are you Australian? I'm rather fascinated by the way Sparkling Lauren dodges Australian laws to protect children. She is a real piece of work.

[Howl]

My experience with knowing many people in social work is overwhelmingly that it attracts great, self-sacrificing, extremely hardworking people, and that the people who are "out in the field" tend to be blamed for any issues in "the system." If their caseload is twice what it should be, for example, and they have an oversight in a case because they simply DO NOT have enough time in a day to devote to each case, they are the ones who are held responsible. It is hard for me to be immediately suspicious that the social workers at fault here unless some actual evidence was brought up to support that. There is no reason for them to WANT to take kids into state care. It's expensive, a strain on resources, and can be traumatic even for kids who are leaving very poor living situations.

And as people mentioned, CPS workers conveniently cannot defend themselves in cases like this. Should we blindly trust authority? Of course not. But we also shouldn't blindly trust the parents.

Our local newspaper (Austin American Statesman) is currently running a major investigative series on the high number of CPS child-death cases Texas. The numbers are appalling but the series also clearly points out the harrowing existence of CPS case workers with beyond overwhelming case loads, burdensome paperwork requirements, ridiculously low pay and long hours in an insanely stressful job.

Most last no longer than 3 years, and many less than that, meaning very few develop long-term experience (read that as deep intuition about what's really going on in a given situation) -- thus no institutional memory. The paper has also added social media comments on various topics in the print edition.

Today the Statesman printed comments on the CPS series. Six were sympathetic comments on how very hard it is to be an effective CPS worker; one gave the party line on "never let CPS in the door, even if they are accompanied by a law enforcement officer", which really was not the point of the article or the comments.

[Walking Cat Bed]

I'm also on the "more to the story" side. CPS is a government agency, and my military experience showed me that government agencies have a LOT of criteria to meet before they can act -- I had to have my work checked by three different people before it was deemed "finished" and approved to go on. If a CPS agent/social worker/whatever skipped a step (or several), they'd be in deep shit.

And I'm skeptical about the claim (from the original articles) that this was all about a "supplement" being in the house. First, it's a bleach concentration, not a supplement; second, even if children raised in a home where meth is being produced never use it, they're still in danger. There's a difference between cleaning products that are kept in a specific cabinet that children can't easily access and keeping a bleach solution in the house, claiming that it has nutritional benefits.

[DarkAnts]

Chemist speaking

Sodium Chlorite is not bleach. It is an strong oxidizer like bleach. But not chemically the same. Bleach is Sodium hypochlorite. It's chemical structure is in no way equilivent to sodium chlorite. It is also a strong oxidizer.

Both chemicals are toxic to the human body in low doses.

[Evilbad]

Ugh, it was MMS I was thinking of.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/can ... -hiv-cure/

It's been heavily marketed and pushed in some of the more AIDS stricken areas in Africa. Absolutely terrible.

[singsingsing]

Palimpsest - no worries. :) I'm Canadian. Our equivalent of CPS is the Children's Aid Society (in Ontario). My assumption would be that it is quite similar to CPS but although I have had some limited personal and professional experience dealing with CAS I couldn't tell you specifically how they compare to CPS. There do seem to be similar issues involving public perception, concerns that CAS has too much power and not enough oversight, or on the flip side that they don't do enough. I'm neutral on the issue myself, though!

I saw a couple comments regarding privacy laws, confidentiality rules and law enforcement which caught my interest. Something I do have professional experience with is information and privacy in law enforcement, and I'm getting the feeling that things may work a little differently south of the border. We may have more stringent privacy guidelines here.

Anyway, my point stands - there is pretty much always more to the story than what's hitting the media, but people with an agenda will spin it in whatever way benefits them most. I don't know who's right or wrong in this case, just that we're almost certainly not getting the whole story.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Palimpsest - no worries. :) I'm Canadian. Our equivalent of CPS is the Children's Aid Society (in Ontario). My assumption would be that it is quite similar to CPS but although I have had some limited personal and professional experience dealing with CAS I couldn't tell you specifically how they compare to CPS. There do seem to be similar issues involving public perception, concerns that CAS has too much power and not enough oversight, or on the flip side that they don't do enough. I'm neutral on the issue myself, though!

I saw a couple comments regarding privacy laws, confidentiality rules and law enforcement which caught my interest. Something I do have professional experience with is information and privacy in law enforcement, and I'm getting the feeling that things may work a little differently south of the border. We may have more stringent privacy guidelines here.

Anyway, my point stands - there is pretty much always more to the story than what's hitting the media, but people with an agenda will spin it in whatever way benefits them most. I don't know who's right or wrong in this case, just that we're almost certainly not getting the whole story.

Canadian here too. I've been using CPS and CAS as interchangeable in this thread, although I'm sure there are some administrative differences.

Yes, Canadian laws on privacy of police records are stronger. You can't do random checks on someone's police records, for example, without consent.

[salex]

this. if a judge signed a warrant, that means cps had something sufficient to go on to present to the judge.

Are the warrants public information?