social services, court judges!!

[Bells]

what are you talking about the kids in the clip?

if you are i know for 100% fact that they were not abused by the perants but abused by social services! like i said i know for fact!

No I meant all children in general whose parents are under investigation for abuse.

As to the children in "The Clip", that's for you to say. I personally do not know them or the situation which led to Social Services having to investigate and then consider the children's safety in the home before they were removed. So it is a bit of a moot point really.

what they should do is over haul the entire social service system and do away with the trainee rottweilliers that work amoungst them, and make sure they cannot rip families apart and keep the ones safe that need real help.

Indeed. If you had actually read the posts in reply to your own, you would have realised we were all saying the same thing. The system does need to be revised and maintained properly to ensure mistakes do not happen again.

i will never let a social worker in my house, they cause arguments and heart ache

They also save the lives of countless children on a daily basis, while putting their own lives in danger.

And if you treat your children well and they were not in danger while in your care, there is no need for them to be there. And before you start on a rant, no I am not saying you are a bad parent. Just that a social worker never needs to visit a home if the situation does not warrant it.

One other thing. You cannot deny them entry into your home. If a social worker deems that a child is in danger, the police will enter your home and the social workers will remove the child.

 

[Xev]

One other thing. You cannot deny them entry into your home. If a social worker deems that a child is in danger, the police will enter your home and the social workers will remove the child.

With a warrent, I presume.
Otherwise, I'm shooting the motherfucker.

(The, social worker, not the cops. They have more guns)

 

[Baron Max]

One other thing. You cannot deny them entry into your home. If a social worker deems that a child is in danger, the police will enter your home and the social workers will remove the child.

In the USA they can't enter your house without a warrant. And they need evidence of wrong-doing to get a warrant. And in the time it takes to get a warrant, the parents could murder the kids and hide all the evidence! Ain't civil rights a grand thing?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

With a warrent, I presume. Otherwise, I'm shooting the motherfucker.

Geez, you can just shoot people where you live? Wow, I want to move there, tell me where it is!!

Baron Max

 

[Xev]

Geez, you can just shoot people where you live? Wow, I want to move there, tell me where it is!!

Baron Max

Google "Stand your ground laws, Michigan."
I was more thinking that if some person entered my house and threatened me.

Now in the absence of threat - they enter without probable cause, they're going to get fucked by the full force of the law. No dipshit pansy social worker is going to violate the rights that my ancestors fought and died for/

 

[Bells]

With a warrent, I presume.
Otherwise, I'm shooting the motherfucker.

(The, social worker, not the cops. They have more guns)

Yes with a warrant. Although if the parent(s) are harming the children while the police are at the door, they can and will enter the home and remove the child.

And in the time it takes to get a warrant, the parents could murder the kids and hide all the evidence! Ain't civil rights a grand thing?

A warrant can be obtained very quickly. And as I said above, if there is a risk that the parents could harm or could be harming the child while waiting for the warrant, they can enter your premises without a warrant. The interest of the child will remain paramount in such an instance. The same applies in cases of domestic abuse. If you are abusing your spouse in your home and the police are at the door, they can and will enter your home by any means available.

 

[Baron Max]

A warrant can be obtained very quickly.

Sure ....AFTER they've uncovered sufficient evidence to convince a judge to sign the warrant. And that's AFTER they've been notified that there's even a problem enough to justify investigation. In the meantime, the kids are being abused and harmed.

Baron Max

 

[lucifers angel]

But you'll still accept social assistance and money from the system? You just don't want to be accountable for it, right?

Baron Max

i dont get social assistance i get govement assistance, which is money that i have a right to and that i have paid towards with my taxes!

i dont let social workers into my house because your kids can be at school one day and then you wont be able to see them again for months, the people in the clip are friends of mine and that is what happened to them.

the school and social workers came together and took the children and the first my friend (the mum) knew of it was when she went to get the kids from school.

 

[s0meguy]

Either its

- over protect the children and innocent parents get this sometimes
or
- protect them less (if you make the process more difficult, it will happen) and some guilty parents might get away.

Which one would you rather have?

 

[lucifers angel]

Either its

- over protect the children and innocent parents get this sometimes
or
- protect them less (if you make the process more difficult, it will happen) and some guilty parents might get away.

Which one would you rather have?

but that should not happen under any curcumstances

 

[Baron Max]

i dont get social assistance i get govement assistance, which is money that i have a right to and that i have paid towards with my taxes!

So since everyone paid taxes, shouldn't they get that same amount of money? Why should you and your family get it and not everyone else? Isn't that discrimination?

Baron Max

 

[lucifers angel]

So since everyone paid taxes, shouldn't they get that same amount of money? Why should you and your family get it and not everyone else? Isn't that discrimination?

Baron Max

its paid to me has almost a wage like income, i can then pay someone to look after my children while i work because the goverment here are fairly big on making sure mothers go to work, and its not only for people will disabled children either its for almost every mum,

 

[s0meguy]

but that should not happen under any curcumstances

What about the other option, do you think thats better?

 

[Learned Hand]

The system is not flawless. Mistakes are made. However, the best interests of the children are the greatest concern of the law, and if we live by the rule of law, we just have to tolerate the mistakes and provide more adept and intelligent social workers. Just as it is more tragic for an innocent person to be executed than a guilty man go free, it is a far, far worse thing for child abuse to occur under the cover of darkness than for an innocent family to suffer the heartache and headache of overly aggressive or mistaken protective service agency. Besides, you can later sue the latter.

 

[lucifers angel]

The system is not flawless. Mistakes are made. However, the best interests of the children are the greatest concern of the law, and if we live by the rule of law, we just have to tolerate the mistakes and provide more adept and intelligent social workers. Just as it is more tragic for an innocent person to be executed than a guilty man go free, it is a far, far worse thing for child abuse to occur under the cover of darkness than for an innocent family to suffer the heartache and headache of overly aggressive or mistaken protective service agency. Besides, you can later sue the latter.

oh you cannot, or it is almost imposible, my friend looked into it and they could not find a solicitor to take they're case, because they were all affraid of judges and social workers

 

[Learned Hand]

[/B]

oh you cannot, or it is almost imposible, my friend looked into it and they could not find a solicitor to take they're case, because they were all affraid of judges and social workers

Well, first off, in the US you couldn't sue the judge. They have absolute immunity in their determinations. However, if a child protective service agency goes overboard and does not act in accordance with standards of reasonableness and statute, there would be a cause of action against the person and the county agency. They are tough cases to prove, no doubt, but for me social workers do not place fear in my professional heart. If there are decent witnesses, the case may be worthwhile.

The laws may be entirely different in your country.

 

[Baron Max]

Well, first off, in the US you couldn't sue the judge. They have absolute immunity in their determinations. However, if a child protective service agency goes overboard and does not act in accordance with standards of reasonableness and statute, there would be a cause of action against the person and the county agency. They are tough cases to prove, no doubt, but for me social workers do not place fear in my professional heart. If there are decent witnesses, the case may be worthwhile.

The laws may be entirely different in your country.

Yeah, but it's just too bad that attorneys cost so damned much, ain't it? As "they" say, justice is only for the wealthy ....those wealthy enough to afford the services of an attorney.

Baron Max

 

[Learned Hand]

Yeah, but it's just too bad that attorneys cost so damned much, ain't it? As "they" say, justice is only for the wealthy ....those wealthy enough to afford the services of an attorney.

Baron Max

Ah, c'mon Baron Max, you've heard of contigency fees, right? No pay unless you win? As a civil case, most attorneys would accept a contingency fee on this type of case where there are some decent witnesses.

 

[Baron Max]

Ah, c'mon Baron Max, you've heard of contigency fees, right? No pay unless you win? As a civil case, most attorneys would accept a contingency fee on this type of case where there are some decent witnesses.

Yeah, I've heard of it, but in all the lawsuits that I've been involved in, one way or the other (mostly as expert witness), none of the attorneys worked on contingency.

My own view of attorneys is pretty low, and quite biased, so you don't want to ask me too many questions about attorneys, or get me into a discussion about 'em! ...LOL!

I'm still pondering the question; Which would you shoot first ...a rattlesnake or an attorney? I've been bitten by both, so ...the decision isn't so easy!

Baron Max

 

[Non-Logical-Idea-Guy]

i dont get social assistance i get govement assistance, which is money that i have a right to and that i have paid towards with my taxes!

i dont let social workers into my house because your kids can be at school one day and then you wont be able to see them again for months, the people in the clip are friends of mine and that is what happened to them.

the school and social workers came together and took the children and the first my friend (the mum) knew of it was when she went to get the kids from school.

a minority of cases really isn't enough evidence to call a impersonal system awful. how would you go about making sure there were no "rottweilers" in the social service? get a psychoanalyst in? how do you know she wont make a mistake? in which case the person losing their job on account of them being "rottweilers" is at the losing end. for every winner there will be half a loser, thats a fact.

by the way, your personal connection to the family in the clip has no relevance and if anything weakens your neutrality and so weakens your argument. for you to fairly analyze a system you need to be on the outside of it Luci.

now please just drop it and join the government policy agency and draw up some better plans of your own.