New DHS Probe

[Mela99]

Two things; in a lot of these situations, a sheriff or someone will go along so I wonder why they just sent a DHS worker. Secondly, I can't believe they would be stupid enough to refuse them entry.

To be a fly on the wall ....

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

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

Haha yea. I'm blaming the skunk oil (my dogs were sprayed and shared their earnings with all porous surfaces in the house) and 2 hours of sleep. Both of them are affecting my ability to think today. :p

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

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

She's still not a legal guardian.

[mamallama]

They don't need a legal guardian. They're not investigating the kids. The requirement for having a parent present is so a kid has the ability to assert his rights if he's a suspect. In this case the parents are suspects.

[Tiny Bubbles]

Presumably, since police assistance was asked for, police assistance was provided and the minor child did speak with the authorities.

Let's hope it all worked out without any further drama for those poor kids in TTH and that it was nothing serious.

Fingers crossed.

[littlesparklingflame]

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 don't live in the US and this piece of information shocked me.

Is it really so easy to immediately remove a child from the family there?

If that's the case, then it's quite scary.

[mamallama]

Interesting that it happened before the Kelly interview and they didn't bitch about it.

[SassyPants]

She's still not a legal guardian.

Is Jana?

They certainly secured emergency medical care when Josie was in need.

NOW a legal guardian is going to be of the utmost necessity?????

FFS, why weren't they needed or around making decisions for the last 27 years?

IMO, that's a weak cop out where the Duggars are concerned.

[justoneoftwo]

I don't live in the US and this piece of information shocked me.

Is it really so easy to immediately remove a child from the family there?

If that's the case, then it's quite scary.

In most states removal is not quite that easy. They would need generally reasonable belief that there will be imminent harm. A child appearing afraid can do it in some places. There would then be a hearing to determine if the social worker was correct about there being a risk, often this is also a fairly easy bar to pass. Then the social worker would put in place a reunification plan, in which the family must comply with whatever rules the social worker has in place (there are some limits, but often very few). During this time the child is in foster care or in the custody of some approved family member. There will usually be visitation, but this is limited and sometimes supervised. As the family goes through the plan additional requirements are often added, and these do not have to relate to the original reason for the child's removal. If the family does everything the social worker says and "passes" whatever marks are in place the child is returned. If not additional steps can be taken and the parent's rights are terminated.

Terminating rights is somewhat difficult, and that is when the parent definitely needs a lawyer.

[Trynn]

If it were that easy to get a child removed, my cousins wouldn't be in The same home with their step dad who uses them as punching bags and slaves.

It is damn difficult to get your kids removed. I think it should be easier, but that's just because I have to watch my cousins suffer.

[justoneoftwo]

If it were that easy to get a child removed, my cousins wouldn't be in The same home with their step dad who uses them as punching bags and slaves.

It is damn difficult to get your kids removed. I think it should be easier, but that's just because I have to watch my cousins suffer.

One of the problems that comes up is that it depends on the individual social worker and what they are willing to do. Yes, many many children should be removed who are not. Unfortunately, children are removed who shouldn't be as well. The reactions of the children being interviewed, the temperament of the social worker and the external evidence all make it complicated. I have seen many cases that go wrong in both ways, as well as cases where they got it right (although they could always have stepped in earlier, but some of that is hind sight).

[skulduggery]

From: http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/new- ... lled-60330

After identifying himself as a Washington Country DHS employee and stating the Duggar family address, the caller tells the 911 operator, “We have an investigation and I guess they’re not being cooperative. We have to see the child to make sure the child is all right. So we just need police assistance.â€

Oh what is this? If memory serves correctly, didn't Boobchelle, Jill and Jessa say in two different interviews on national television that their family was BFFs with DHS to the point of praising them for how they handled Josh molesting little girls? Now Boobchelle won't let DHS in their home without a 911 call being issued by social workers? How very contradictory! Tell me again why Josh sued DHS and how that also contradicts that DHS approved of everything they did?

If DHS has a reason to believe that the children are in immediate danger, then they have a legal obligation to ensure the children are safe. After everything we've seen and heard from the interviews, if people can't acknowledge there's a damn good reason to believe the kids aren't being well cared for, then that is a level of denial I refuse to engage in. Warrant, my ass.

Now I'll sit back and watch the leg humpers go all defensive on behalf of the poor, rich Duggars :roll:

[littlesparklingflame]

In most states removal is not quite that easy. They would need generally reasonable belief that there will be imminent harm. A child appearing afraid can do it in some places. There would then be a hearing to determine if the social worker was correct about there being a risk, often this is also a fairly easy bar to pass. Then the social worker would put in place a reunification plan, in which the family must comply with whatever rules the social worker has in place (there are some limits, but often very few). During this time the child is in foster care or in the custody of some approved family member. There will usually be visitation, but this is limited and sometimes supervised. As the family goes through the plan additional requirements are often added, and these do not have to relate to the original reason for the child's removal. If the family does everything the social worker says and "passes" whatever marks are in place the child is returned. If not additional steps can be taken and the parent's rights are terminated.

Terminating rights is somewhat difficult, and that is when the parent definitely needs a lawyer.

Thank you Justoneoftwo for taking the time to describe this.

That sounds like a fair, balanced and cautious procedure, as it should be.

When I read about this new intervention of the authorities on the Duggars (although I don't know what CPS is or what it involves) I was very, very glad. That family lives in a bubble, what they need is the Institutions to intervene and understand what's going on.

I was a bit puzzled that most of the posters here were expressing fear about the authorities' intervention rather than welcome it.

[LilahBelle]

Just got home from work,and saw this report on my news feed.

Wow....

Remember when the big excitement with the Duggars was who is pregnant and what they'll name it.....

[halcionne]

From: http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/new- ... lled-60330

Oh what is this? If memory serves correctly, didn't Boobchelle, Jill and Jessa say in two different interviews on national television that their family was BFFs with DHS to the point of praising them for how they handled Josh molesting little girls? Now Boobchelle won't let DHS in their home without a 911 call being issued by social workers? How very contradictory! Tell me again why Josh sued DHS and how that also contradicts that DHS approved of everything they did?

If DHS has a reason to believe that the children are in immediate danger, then they have a legal obligation to ensure the children are safe. After everything we've seen and heard from the interviews, if people can't acknowledge there's a damn good reason to believe the kids aren't being well cared for, then that is a level of denial I refuse to engage in. Warrant, my ass.

Now I'll sit back and watch the leg humpers go all defensive on behalf of the poor, rich Duggars :roll:

The Megyn Kelly interviews were taped after this DHS/911 call situation.

[jacduggar]

Thank you Justoneoftwo for taking the time to describe this.

That sounds like a fair, balanced and cautious procedure, as it should be.

When I read about this new intervention of the authorities on the Duggars (although I don't know what CPS is or what it involves) I was very, very glad. That family lives in a bubble, what they need is the Institutions to intervene and understand what's going on.

I was a bit puzzled that most of the posters here were expressing fear about the authorities' intervention rather than welcome it.

Our system is extremely broken. The process isn't as fair and balanced as it seems here. We don't have enough social workers to handle the case load. The entire CPS is a mess. That's why posters are talking about it.

I don't think removing the kids from their home right now would do them a damn bit of good. Here you have all of these brainwashed minor children, let's take them and try to integrate them into a society they don't understand, have been raised to hate, and are currently the hottest topic in the tabloids. It would break those kids up and make this SO MUCH worse for them. It's an absolute lose-lose.

[justoneoftwo]

Our system is extremely broken. The process isn't as fair and balanced as it seems here. We don't have enough social workers to handle the case load. The entire CPS is a mess. That's why posters are talking about it.

I don't think removing the kids from their home right now would do them a damn bit of good. Here you have all of these brainwashed minor children, let's take them and try to integrate them into a society they don't understand, have been raised to hate, and are currently the hottest topic in the tabloids. It would break those kids up and make this SO MUCH worse for them. It's an absolute lose-lose.

Agreed. My statement about what is done is based on the rules, not based on the practicalities or realities of the situation. In theory it is balanced and fair. In practice people are over worked, and at the same time it is almost impossible to deny or show a social worker who brings a case is wrong. I also have a problem with the fact that if my case is started because there is abuse in the home (mother v. father or some such) they can also add that you can't drink, or can't associate with someone or other potentially unrelated issues. These requirements can keep kids out of their homes even after the original problem was solved.

[littlesparklingflame]

Our system is extremely broken. The process isn't as fair and balanced as it seems here. We don't have enough social workers to handle the case load. The entire CPS is a mess. That's why posters are talking about it.

I don't think removing the kids from their home right now would do them a damn bit of good. Here you have all of these brainwashed minor children, let's take them and try to integrate them into a society they don't understand, have been raised to hate, and are currently the hottest topic in the tabloids. It would break those kids up and make this SO MUCH worse for them. It's an absolute lose-lose.

I never said nor meant to say that I advocate for the kids to be taken away from the family.

I just do believe that the family situation should be investigated by the authorities, provided of course that it's done under the appropriate legal grounds (which I am absolutely ignorant about).

I don't think the situations should be exposed to the public (for ex. the reason for this specific 911 call or the kid it was related to), but I do find that it is a good thing that authorities are looking into the family, finally.

[Alexa]

Here we go again. I really hope for the sake of the kids that there is no more abuse going on in the home. However, my gut feeling says there is a lot more information to come.

[Cleopatra7]

I don't think that anyone in DHS relishes having to deal with the Duggars. This is already a family who thinks they're above the law, and there are probably people in DHS who remember what things were like 10+ years ago. From what little we know about the investigation of that time, it appears like the Duggars were stonewalling the agency, much they are now. It wouldn't surprise me if DHS had experience with crank calls related to the Duggars before the first In Touch article came out, so I would think that something must have distinguished this 911 call, especially if it was about one child in particular rather than the entire group.

[Evenkeel]

Devil's advocate: I totally understand not talking to police or authorities without at least talking to a lawyer first. In this case, if DHS truly just wanted to lay eyes on the child and if a guardian was needed and there, what would the harm have been of calling the child to the door for a few seconds and then sending them back off? Maybe I'm bring too literal but I'm also enough of a snarky person to say "There, you saw him/her, if you want anything else then I have to call my lawyer first."

[Toothfairy]

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. :?

They have that right, but depending on the situation it makes it look bad on them. Cps still have to investigate. Sometimes a cps worker might make a judgment call in cases of emergency that the child's life and well being is in danger. It also makes the parents look like they're hiding something.

[gustava]

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

What is your source?

[gustava]

I don't live in the US and this piece of information shocked me.

Is it really so easy to immediately remove a child from the family there?

If that's the case, then it's quite scary.

Hyperbole....

[Willowbrook5]

I have worked in community mental health for 25 years. In my experience (and my state), things have to be quite, quite bad before children are removed from their homes. Taking children from their parents is close to the last thing most CPS workers want to do. For one thing it's expensive to place children in the overburdened foster system and another thing is some foster care isn't very good or is even pretty bad. There also aren't enough social workers in CPS so it is a challenge for them to keep up with big caseloads. Last, removing children from their homes is very traumatic for the children. Even in homes that are abusive or neglectful, the children almost always still love their parents and are afraid to be taken away from everything and everyone they know. For all those reasons I haven't seen very many children who were removed without very significant causes that were readily apparent.

Even when abuse or neglect is substantiated, CPS works with parents to keep the kids in their home. Have the abuser move out. Get temporary intensive parenting support and education. Counseling. A last ditch effort before foster care is trying to find a relative placement which is cheaper than foster care and the child will know and hopefully have a good relationship with the new care taker. But sometimes the extended family is very messed up or no one will take the children, so that isn't always an option.

Terminating parental rights usually takes at least a year before that would happen and parents are given lots of opportunities to to change whatever it is they got the kids removed in the first place. I have seen terminations that took years and it felt like kids and parents were being tormented before rights were finally terminated. Some of that is due to inefficiencies of the court system but some of it is understanding breaking that most primal of bond between child and parent should never be done quickly.

Anyhow, I have seen lots of kids stay with marginal (at best) parents, even with substantiated abuse and neglect. Parents I wouldn't leave my dogs with (of course, I am quite protective of my dogs but I still find it sad). I doubt the Duggars need to fear a child being removed unless they really do have a "House of Horrors."