Grand Jury Criminal Complaints DCF Workers
Posted in the Stamford Forum
#1 Jun 27, 2010
In the works are various Grand Jury criminal complaints against DCF workers and local Police officers for 4th Amendment violations.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies even to child neglect cases. As with other searches and seizures there are reasonable exceptions to the Fourth Amendment which are very limited. But it still stands that EVERY arrest or seizure without a warrant is considered unlawful absent these exigent circumstances.
The same applies in child neglect cases, the only exigent circumstance warranted by law to a child removal without a warrant is the term "imminent danger", that is if a child is in imminent danger then that would be an exigent circumstance.
What has happened in this state is that DCF and their minions has expanded and perverted the definition of imminent danger to their own liking.
The law is very clear on what imminent danger means, see below;
#2 Jun 27, 2010
About to occur; impending
1. liable to happen soon; impending
2. Obsolete jutting out or overhanging
1. Exposure or vulnerability to harm or risk.
2. A source or an instance of risk or peril.
3. Obsolete Power, especially power to harm.
In Tennenbaum v. Williams The court in essence concluded the following meaning, "close at hand", "on the verge of happening".
So now we must look into the DCF policy manual to see just what the policy is regarding imminent danger removals.
Immediate Removal/96-Hour Hold
he Commissioner, or designee, shall authorize the investigator or any law enforcement officer to remove a child from his or her surroundings without the consent of the child's parent(s) or guardian(s) when an investigation determines
* that there is probable cause to believe that the child is in imminent risk of physical harm from his/her surroundings
* that immediate removal from such surroundings is necessary to ensure the child's safety.
Legal Reference: CONN. GEN. STAT.§17a-101g(c)
Removal of Other Children in the Home The power of removal extends not only to the child who is the subject of the report, but also to other children in the home who are similarly situated and determined to be in need of immediate removal.
#3 Jun 27, 2010
Factors Determining Immediate Removal
Factors to be considered in determining if a child needs to be removed immediately from his home include the following:
* the risk level to the child and siblings
* the child's own request for immediate removal
* the parent's or guardian's request for immediate removal when a second parent or guardian is refusing to permit the child to leave
* when the child is considered to be in danger and the parent or guardian indicates that he/she is about to flee the state
* whether or not a prior report of abuse or neglect has been filed with DCF or there are reports in other states
* prior Termination of Parental Rights of a sibling
* prior serious injury to a sibling.
NOW CHECK OUT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REMOVAL;
he requirements for use of immediate removal/96-hour hold are as follows:
* immediate removal of a child shall be initiated only as a last resort when Superior Court intervention is not possible
* all less drastic procedures for intervention to secure the safety of the child shall be explored before considering immediate removal
* prior to immediate removal, the investigator shall
- evaluate the problem in accordance with protective service policies
- obtain approval from one of the persons authorized by the Commissioner to act as her designee (see list below).
Cross-reference: 34-10-2, "Alternatives to Removal".
Guess how often DCF explores these "Alternatives To Removal"?
#4 Jun 27, 2010
Alternatives to Removal
Policy Removal of a child from his/her home is a serious action. Therefore, other alternatives which can ensure the child’s safety shall be considered and used, if possible, before court intervention or a 96-hour hold is exercised.
The use of alternatives to removal shall be based on the risk to the child’s safety as determined by a current risk assessment.
Cross-Reference: 34-9, "Services to Prevent Placement..."
Alternatives The worker shall consider the following situations as alternatives to removal:
* The parent or guardian
- arranges for the child's placement with a relative or in a temporary shelter
- gives written permission for the worker to take the child to a medical facility to receive appropriate medical care
- agrees to remove him/herself from the home
- obtains a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the offending household member from returning to the home or having contact with the child
- agrees to allow a responsible adult into the home to alleviate the immediate physical danger to the child.
* If a child is brought to a physician or hospital, a physician can hold the child up to ninety-six (96) hours.
Legal Reference: CONN. GEN. STAT.§17a-101.
#5 Jun 27, 2010
Are you talking to yourself again?
You should go get a pet.
#6 Jun 28, 2010
No I am getting enough people together that have been wronged by DCF to redress their grievances, 1st Amendment.
#7 Jun 28, 2010
Again, if you would get a dog, maybe you could get her to be that second member of your group.
#8 Jun 29, 2010
What exactly is your objection to the people gathering to petition their servant government?
#9 Jun 29, 2010
None. I was merely making an observation regarding the popularity of your thread. Seems fairly lonely.
#10 Jun 29, 2010
BTW you mispelled your handle. Have you been making mischief under another name?
#11 Nov 19, 2012
I am noticing that people are using DCF as a tool, or shall i say weapon against others, when which in fact children are not in any danger, or being neglected, if one has a dispute with another, they pick up the phone and call dcf, to me this is a disgrace, when there are children out there being totally neglected, and abused, and living in cars etc, with no shelter, care, love, and food, these vindictive people are calling dcf case workers away from the children in need, while wasting time on bogus calls, this saddens me.
#12 Nov 19, 2012
They need to be sued for filing a false report.
Add your comments below
|An Azusa neighborhood has become a common groun... (Aug '09)||Jul 20||Ace kings||216|
|Obituaries||Jul 20||Barry Wood||1|
|Stamford police may hire consultant on complaints (Sep '09)||Jul 19||WorkAvoider||57|
|Amtrak Acela train travels along the shore wher...||Jul 18||Gavone||1|
|Feds: Norwalk doctors charged in fraud, ran pil...||Jul 16||Gavone||3|
|Bridgeport Burglar Who Targets Indian Families ...||Jul 13||BPT||4|
|Court upholds $28M verdict against tobacco company||Jul 13||America Gentleman...||2|
Find what you want!
Search Stamford Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC