New DHS Probe

[jacduggar]

I have had 2 friends have welfare checks done on them. One sent her 4 year old to get the mail while she watched from the window, the other was reported by an estranged family member over seeing a photo of her infant with a little scratch on her face (very obviously a nail scratch which happens all the time on babies). I'm not saying it was unsubstantiated, but it doesn't take too terribly much to have a welfare check considering DHS/CPS/DCFS is required to do welfare checks on reports. I'm not leghumping here, I said previously that I think there should be a thorough check. But I stand by my statement that someone could have very well called and reported something to stir the pot, and CPS is pretty much required to act given certain information. It's not unlikely.

Also, I think it's against the law to do a welfare check on a minor without parents present. So if they weren't in JB and Ms care at the time, they would have had to come back. A cps welfare check doesn't take away parent's rights. It is against the law to question a minot without a parent or legal guardian present, warrant or not. To have police called over it indicates JB and M were there.

[Hera]

I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a moment and ask, isn't it within their rights to refuse to cooperate without a warrant?

Yeah outsiders will make assumptions of guilt, but based on other posts I've been reading around FJ this morning, it seems that there are folks out there who don't cooperate with authorities as a matter of course because 'they know their rights.' I'm not trying to be snarky, though I know that last bit might seem so. I have had the good sense (or just good fortune) to not have CPS show up at my house or have my name come up in many police reports. I thought I knew my constitutional rights as an American, but I haven't had to actually exercise them with the authorities. :?

The thing about refusing to cooperate with DHS is that it just escalates the situation. They're not just going to let it go. They call the police and if you get in a confrontation with the police, that could lead to an arrest. Or, they'll just use your refusal to allow access to justify getting a warrant from a judge. Letting the social worker talk to the kid would have been the wiser choice. Unless they have something to hide, which, all things considered, they well may at this point.

While I in general agree with the theory that if you're in custody or being questioned - officially or not - it's not a good idea to speak to the police without an attorney present, sometimes - when they want to check on your minor child due to a report of abuse, for instance (or in a traffic stop) - it's better to cooperate in a limited fashion (i.e., answer questions, but don't allow a search, etc.) because in cooperating, you limit what the police can actually do. I remember cases in my criminal constitutional law class where refusal/belligerence upon being stopped by the police created suspicion which justified probable cause to arrest which justified a search of the person/immediate vicinity, which lead to the discovery of something to charge the person with. Not being a dick is a useful tool in a lot of situations. Even if someone is being a dick to you.

[justoneoftwo]

The thing about refusing to cooperate with DHS is that it just escalates the situation. They're not just going to let it go. They call the police and if you get in a confrontation with the police, that could lead to an arrest. Or, they'll just use your refusal to allow access to justify getting a warrant from a judge. Letting the social worker talk to the kid would have been the wiser choice. Unless they have something to hide, which, all things considered, they well may at this point.

While I in general agree with the theory that if you're in custody or being questioned - officially or not - it's not a good idea to speak to the police without an attorney present, sometimes - when they want to check on your minor child due to a report of abuse, for instance (or in a traffic stop) - it's better to cooperate in a limited fashion (i.e., answer questions, but don't allow a search, etc.) because in cooperating, you limit what the police can actually do. I remember cases in my criminal constitutional law class where refusal/belligerence upon being stopped by the police created suspicion which justified probable cause to arrest which justified a search of the person/immediate vicinity, which lead to the discovery of something to charge the person with. Not being a dick is a useful tool in a lot of situations. Even if someone is being a dick to you.

I think it is a difficult call without knowing the details. In general I would be very hesitant to let CPS into my home without an attorney present. I would set up a time for them to interview a child after I talked with my attorney but just let them in because they want to? No, they would have to tell me the basis. I have seen enough legal cases where people were being nice because they were sure the police/CPS would help them out if they did, it often ends worse for people who do not stand up for their rights. Before CPS is involved families have the right to do things largely as they believe is best for the child, once CPS is in the door a huge number of demands can turn up, which would not have been sufficient to start an investigation.

[halcionne]

This is the one thing that has bothered me during this whole mess, this child is 5 or 6 years old. Even if you subscribe to the who line of crap the Duggar's are throwing out, someone should make sure this child is OK. Child molestation is a serious thing and I am not convinced that Josh isn't still prone in this direction. If he truly has no inclination in this direction, he shouldn't object to someone talking to Mac. (sp)

:shifty-kitty:

I think it's in poor taste to speculate about any potential victims in a new DHS case. Can we not go there right now?

[gemma]

Maybe the child in question is Mackenzie. ....and if so, I think it's a really good idea for someone to just talk to her. Better safe than sorry.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Perhaps they were going to interview her in MD and now she's in the TTH.

[Hera]

I think it is a difficult call without knowing the details. In general I would be very hesitant to let CPS into my home without an attorney present. I would set up a time for them to interview a child after I talked with my attorney but just let them in because they want to? No, they would have to tell me the basis. I have seen enough legal cases where people were being nice because they were sure the police/CPS would help them out if they did, it often ends worse for people who do not stand up for their rights. Before CPS is involved families have the right to do things largely as they believe is best for the child, once CPS is in the door a huge number of demands can turn up, which would not have been sufficient to start an investigation.

I suppose. I just look at it from the lens of if its a BS claim, then there's no need to formalize the process by making an appointment and bringing the kid downtown and hiring a lawyer. Escalation and all of that. If it's a murky issue, then, for sure do that. But, even with a lawyer present, you may not avoid CPS's demands if they decide something is warranted. CPS has a startling amount of power in a lot of states.

[LittleOleMe]

We've been talking about this in another thread but it bears repeating here. You just can't trust CPS. They're no different than the police. Unless they have a warrant, don't let them in the house. Just like talking to the police without a lawyer can and will be manipulated to be used against, letting CPS in without a lawyer or without a warrant can and will be manipulated to be used against the parents. My mother used to work in the system. We still have several friends who are in the system and one is actually in charge of the entire juvenile system for our area. (Or however that works. I forget her actual title) Even they will secretly agree that you don't just let CPS in for whatever reason. A child who just got out of time out will say "mommy was mean to me" and an overzealous social worker will use that as grounds to immediately remove the child.

I'm not saying the Duggars don't deserve to be investigated. They do. They all do. And unlike Zzu and PP, this won't just go away. (Although I haven't kept up with them - has anything else happened with that??) But they were within their rights to refuse the CPS worker entrance into their home.

Again, I support a full investigation into this family. But it needs to be done correctly. The most important thing here is that the children - including the kidults - are healthy and being taken care of and receive any sort of therapy they most certainly need.

[justoneoftwo]

I suppose. I just look at it from the lens of if its a BS claim, then there's no need to formalize the process by making an appointment and bringing the kid downtown and hiring a lawyer. Escalation and all of that. If it's a murky issue, then, for sure do that. But, even with a lawyer present, you may not avoid CPS's demands if they decide something is warranted. CPS has a startling amount of power in a lot of states.

Yes, they have startling amounts of power, that is why I would recommend escalating. If it is a BS claim they can still find ways to continue it if they want to (for example if you have been in the news for not correctly dealing with a prior issue and the state is being looked at for not dealing with it either . . . ). But it is a strategy issue really.

[Furbabies]

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

Or the parents could have been out and whoever was in charge could have made a bad call.

I'm pretty sure that, without legal guardianship, they wouldn't be able to refuse. They'd only be able to say the legal guardians weren't present, and DHS wouldn't have called for a police escort (they would have just returned later).

[justoneoftwo]

I'm pretty sure that, without legal guardianship, they wouldn't be able to refuse. They'd only be able to say the legal guardians weren't present, and DHS wouldn't have called for a police escort (they would have just returned later).

Wouldn't it make sense that someone under 18 wouldn't be able to give consent for them to come in? Similarly, without the guardian no one can consent to a minor being interviewed?

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

Wouldn't it make sense that someone under 18 wouldn't be able to give consent for them to come in? Similarly, without the guardian no one can consent to a minor being interviewed?

Sorry I didn't mean refuse. I meant consent. Lol

[justoneoftwo]

Sorry I didn't mean refuse. I meant consent. Lol

Lol. Makes much more sense that way. :wink-kitty:

[SassyPants]

Did GMM move out? She's usually around and older than 18.

[Ananas103]

I worked as an elementary school couselor and CPS came to interview children at school. Parents were not present for the interviews. It also was not required that we inform parents about it beforehand. CPS wanted to interview without the influence of parents to evaluate more effectively for abuse. I called CPS and was often with the child during the report. This was in California a few years ago. Refusing to let CPS do their job is going to bring the police and more scrutiny.

[Koala]

I think it is a difficult call without knowing the details. In general I would be very hesitant to let CPS into my home without an attorney present. I would set up a time for them to interview a child after I talked with my attorney but just let them in because they want to? No, they would have to tell me the basis. I have seen enough legal cases where people were being nice because they were sure the police/CPS would help them out if they did, it often ends worse for people who do not stand up for their rights. Before CPS is involved families have the right to do things largely as they believe is best for the child, once CPS is in the door a huge number of demands can turn up, which would not have been sufficient to start an investigation.

I used to subscribe to the "those who are innocent have nothing to hide" theory, but after reading a thread here recently I changed my position. I agree with what you are saying. We have rights and I fear that we often operate from a position of feeling that someone is guilty if they assert those rights.

I think the Duggars warrant an investigation for sure, but I also think they should just go ahead and go through the proper channels and get a warrant.

[OodOnTheLoo]

Rambling thought but does anyone know if having Joy go in and demand the police record be destroyed could have sparked a follow up? If she had to make a statement about being damaged by it Could that have been an auto check in?

My other thought goes to the poor child shamed and cruelly punished for masturbation. If that story just came to light I can see it triggering an investigation.

Third, maybe Fox News saw something and made a report. Thankfully just because you are Christian and conservative doesn't mean you stand by and let other abuse kids even though they claim its gods rules.

[gemma]

My other thought goes to the poor child shamed and cruelly punished for masturbation. If that story just came to light I can see it triggering an investigation.

I read about this. It's sick. Do we know for sure it's a fact or is it just a rumor?

[Koala]

Wha????

[anon710]

Personally, I think they (along with other 'reality star' kids) should be protected more. They aren't covered in the actors' guild, who else is going to be watching out for these kids (especially looking at the Duggars on this one) some of whom have been on TV since the moment of their birth???...

And those poor 8 Goosleings.

(I liked that Hayes family, with the set of sextups and 2 sets of twins; they were normal, and had different challenges ~ But maybe that's why they aren't on TLC; not enough of a freak show.)

Anyway, recovering from Duggar burn out, the day this broke I was at a school function and was getting texts from those in my life who know my favorite obsession is odd cults. And I think I have only posted once or twice these past two weeks.

I think it is safe to say that no one here wants the children to be hurting, and well, the DQ & Boob clearly stated in the MK interview that they just want to "move past it" (Or was it Jessa that said that?) Either way, skeletons seem much better kept in closet "We've moved past it" (COUGH COUGH)

I'm in my 40s and still go to therapy and my childhood was awesome compared to those children.

I don't know what makes someone into a child molester, aside from the statistics that link child abusers to people that have themselves been abused (Perhaps it was the perfect storm of sexual repression and strict values and absent parents, al la the buddy system )

As I'm sure it's been mentioned, Josh was grooming and his behavior was escalating. I REALLY hope that Josh can get some help; and that no further abuse will be perpetrated so the cycle can stop.

I realize that I went off topic a smidge, but there really needs to be actual safeguards in place (Did I hear one of the girls call them "safety guards"? ~~ ALSO would love to know what safeguards the Duggars put into action)

CPS should be involved in these young reality show 'stars' lives. It was mentioned a while back (and I'm sure it has come up again since then; that we really don't know how being on tv from birth forward psychologically impacts a developing person~ Let alone adults. Can't imagine if I had cameras following me)

I digress, the more protection for these exploited kids, the better.

[for_the_Kitties]

I read about this. It's sick. Do we know for sure it's a fact or is it just a rumor?

What?? Is this some new story "intouch" is trying to spin?

[mamallama]

I could have also been Jana or Jinger even DQ if she believed she should talk it over with her headship. Clearly in retrospect it was a bad call to not talk to them. I was once visited by CPS and I was so blindsided that I didn't even think about whether to allow it or not. They actually came with the police the first time. They asked me to leave while they talked to my kids. I don't know what was asked or what my kids said but the worker came out rolling her eyes and saying she couldn't believe they wasted her time with this. But, I've never spanked my kids. I can't even think of anything in our lives that could get misinterpreted. I'd bet my youngest was trying to report me for banning TV until everyone's homework was done.

[Walking Cat Bed]

Please stop speculating about the Duggar children. They are children and deserve SOME privacy.

(Yes, this includes "which kid did DHS want to talk to".)

[JesusPony]

What?? Is this some new story "intouch" is trying to spin?

It's an anonymous tip from a Gawker reader, so grain of salt and all that: http://defamer.gawker.com/jim-bobs-puni ... 1707675683

[twinmama]

Curiosity got the better of me and I bought a copy of the magazine (well played, In Touch). There's nothing new except for the transcript of the 911 call. The investigation was for one minor in particular, but there's zero specifics on anything.

I have to say, I'm loving how the Duggars just keep digging that hole deeper. They could have cooperated with DHS and no one would have known. But no, they had to be paranoid dicks and force the investigator to call 911, thereby creating a record that's obtainable through FOIA.

Upside, I bet that in addition to learning about bankrupcy law, they will now have a booklet on FOIA laws.