Ex-foster mom: I warned authorities n...

Ex-foster mom: I warned authorities not to return child to home

There are 454 comments on the The Indianapolis Star story from Nov 27, 2007, titled Ex-foster mom: I warned authorities not to return child to home. In it, The Indianapolis Star reports that:

Janice Springfield was horrified at Tajanay Bailey's death Tuesday, but she was not surprised.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indianapolis Star.

First Prev
of 23
Next Last

Since: Nov 07

Clearfield, PA

#456 Dec 13, 2007
Military Man .... Thanks for your replies and the link .... I will certainly give it a hit.

Likewise thank you for providing your backround and qualifications. I cetainly was not play philosophy with you I simply ask for a legal definition, per se....... Honor to your rank, I am sure you serve your command well....

You are correct, court is really pretty simple ..... Right is right and wrong is wrong ----- Period. BTW I was not asking for a crash course in "Family law 101" .... I have already read Am Jur, CSJ, ILE, ILD, and yada yada yada...... yada yada yada and, more still.

I only have one question ....... do you think the guardianship laws in Indiana will pass contitutional muster....?

I don't think they will, but then that's just my take on matters, we'll have to leave that decision up to the judge. Right? Simple hey!!

Oh, one more question....[D]o you think that the practices, policies, and procedures, Of Indiana guardianships will pass constitutional muster? Equal Protection? How about Substantive Due Process?????? In sum, are you certain that how you guys do, what you do, is legal???? Hummmm pretty straight forward, don't you think?

So tell me - An Idiot is ________?

Since: Nov 07

Clearfield, PA

#457 Dec 13, 2007
One more thin Military Man ------ How long you been an attorney??? And JAG?

Bing a JAG would be cool!!!!

Bust some A** like Jack Nicolas played would be great!!! And the hot chick .... booooowaaa
Military Man

Duncan, OK

#458 Dec 13, 2007
Well, the law in this regard is debatable in regard to the constitution, but I believe it is arguable to suggest that these laws are constitutional. It provides for the rights of the parents to be given due process. However, the majority of guardianships are voluntary, meaning the parent is consenting to guardianship. Remember, the constitution was written when children's right were not even a forethought. The idea of a childhood and the right of the children is relatively a new idea. In the constitution, children would be seen as property. Today, we don't really use that language.
oh2beme wrote:
Military Man .... Thanks for your replies and the link .... I will certainly give it a hit.
Likewise thank you for providing your backround and qualifications. I cetainly was not play philosophy with you I simply ask for a legal definition, per se....... Honor to your rank, I am sure you serve your command well....
You are correct, court is really pretty simple ..... Right is right and wrong is wrong ----- Period. BTW I was not asking for a crash course in "Family law 101" .... I have already read Am Jur, CSJ, ILE, ILD, and yada yada yada...... yada yada yada and, more still.
I only have one question ....... do you think the guardianship laws in Indiana will pass contitutional muster....?
I don't think they will, but then that's just my take on matters, we'll have to leave that decision up to the judge. Right? Simple hey!!
Oh, one more question....[D]o you think that the practices, policies, and procedures, Of Indiana guardianships will pass constitutional muster? Equal Protection? How about Substantive Due Process?????? In sum, are you certain that how you guys do, what you do, is legal???? Hummmm pretty straight forward, don't you think?
So tell me - An Idiot is ________?
Military Man

Duncan, OK

#459 Dec 13, 2007
Mental retardation has replaced idiocy in legal jargon and is classified within certain levels to determine competency.
Military Man

Duncan, OK

#460 Dec 13, 2007
oh2beme wrote:
One more thin Military Man ------ How long you been an attorney??? And JAG?
Bing a JAG would be cool!!!!
Bust some A** like Jack Nicolas played would be great!!! And the hot chick .... booooowaaa
Haha, being a lawyer in the army is not like the movies. The majority of time, its just small claims and paperwork. Rarely in front of a judge, really.
Military Man

Duncan, OK

#461 Dec 13, 2007
trish wrote:
I'm willing to go that route. The only thing I know about CPS and guardianship is that they take guardianship when they open a CHINs case, even when the kids remain in the parents custody.
I do not believe he is referring to wardship. Are you, Oh? When you speak of guardianship, that referrs to placement of a child, and the courts order that the parents do not have any legal rights to the children without terminating parental rights. Guardianships are not as binding as adoption and they can be dissolved by a judge. You are referring to DCS taking wardship of children in which DCS operates as the legal guardian of the children while DCS is involved.
trish

Columbus, IN

#462 Dec 13, 2007
Military Man wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not believe he is referring to wardship. Are you, Oh? When you speak of guardianship, that referrs to placement of a child, and the courts order that the parents do not have any legal rights to the children without terminating parental rights. Guardianships are not as binding as adoption and they can be dissolved by a judge. You are referring to DCS taking wardship of children in which DCS operates as the legal guardian of the children while DCS is involved.
Yes, you're right. I did mean wardship.
In a CHINs case, children are made wards of the court even if they remain in the parents home.

Since: Nov 07

Clearfield, PA

#463 Dec 13, 2007
Military Man wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not believe he is referring to wardship. Are you, Oh? When you speak of guardianship, that referrs to placement of a child, and the courts order that the parents do not have any legal rights to the children without terminating parental rights. Guardianships are not as binding as adoption and they can be dissolved by a judge. You are referring to DCS taking wardship of children in which DCS operates as the legal guardian of the children while DCS is involved.
Military Man ..... The appointment of a guardian, or the creation of a guardianship is a "wardship"
you know ------- the law of guardian/ward .... it is the legal realtionship. The ward is one for whom a guardian has been appointed, and a judge does not dissolve a guardianship..... Guardianships are terminated by one of three conditions.

1) Death of a ward
2) A juvenile reaching the age of majority
3) by an order of the court finding one
previously found incompetent is now restored
of competency

How long you been an attorney ..... you know what the conflict in all this is ----- DCS is a "guardianship in chivalry" ..... It's the state acting under their authority as "parens patraie", much like the schools standing "in loco parens".

You know something Military Man ..... with all due respect, have you read Blackstone Commentaries and Weorner on the American Law of Guardianship ----- In sum, if you don't know your history, which it appears you may not, you are really not "fully informed"....... Let's be careful ..... your jumbelling the words now!!!!

BTW ---- An "Idiot" is one born wholly devoid of reason, who possess no ability to ever attain reason..... "Mental retardation" qualifies, but mental retardaation may not be the sole condition of idiocy.

P.S. Thanks for the other posts I'll get back to those in a bit

Since: Nov 07

Clearfield, PA

#464 Dec 13, 2007
trish wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, you're right. I did mean wardship.
In a CHINs case, children are made wards of the court even if they remain in the parents home.
Trish, in legal theory and doctrine, all children a "wards" of the state ..... it is an old English legal doctrine that pre-dates the Magna Carta.

Essentially, it does not require a CHINS case, this same legal relationship exists by simply putting your child in a public school.... Why do you think the public schools are so involved in "eyeing" you/the parent and their student/the child.

You know, when you hear Hillary talk about the "Village" ...... this is what she is talking about. You are your kids parents, but when you put you kids in a public school, the school becomes the parent, and when prompted the state shows up and assert to be "the ultimate parent"
It is called parens patraie .....

It's no wonder our kids are so confused .... they don't know who to call mommy or daddy. Why? Because there are three different groups of adults clammering for the authority.
Military Man

Duncan, OK

#465 Dec 13, 2007
oh2beme wrote:
<quoted text>
Military Man ..... The appointment of a guardian, or the creation of a guardianship is a "wardship"
you know ------- the law of guardian/ward .... it is the legal realtionship. The ward is one for whom a guardian has been appointed, and a judge does not dissolve a guardianship..... Guardianships are terminated by one of three conditions.
1) Death of a ward
2) A juvenile reaching the age of majority
3) by an order of the court finding one
previously found incompetent is now restored
of competency
And you are trying to prove what point? Guardianship being granted to a relative over a ward/ or a friend is not wardship. Although, the state could subsidize (only in DCS cases), the legal authority no longer resides with the state. Wardship is referred to the state having legal authority over a minor due to circumstances, etc. I guess you can argue that wardship/guardianship is the same in that of DCS, but a court order will only reflect wardship.
Military Man

Duncan, OK

#466 Dec 13, 2007
oh2beme wrote:
<quoted text>
How long you been an attorney ..... you know what the conflict in all this is ----- DCS is a "guardianship in chivalry" ..... It's the state acting under their authority as "parens patraie", much like the schools standing "in loco parens".
You know something Military Man ..... with all due respect, have you read Blackstone Commentaries and Weorner on the American Law of Guardianship ----- In sum, if you don't know your history, which it appears you may not, you are really not "fully informed"....... Let's be careful ..... your jumbelling the words now!!!!
Ummm, you remind of Good Will Hunting when the guy in the bar tries to impress a girl by attempting to make another guy look stupid by repeating books, then he gets called out as repeating the book. The jargon you said above is "textbook" stuff 101. Do you really think attorney's use legal jargon 24/7? If we did, we wouldn't be married, have friends, etc. People want to know what things mean in layman terms. We know what we are talking about by just mentioning simply words, such as guardianship. Now, you just gave a dictionary presentation of what guardianship is. Good for you, you can read, repeat, and type.

In the real world of law, it means more than what you just typed. Can you tell me what a subsidized legal guardianship is and what are the qualifications for it and what is the motion you file to ask the court to grant it? Can you tell me what AAP is, how it is dispersed and how it is presented in court? Not very many attorney's are going to remember or care about the history of guardianship which you seem so passionate about, they only care of the laws that are operational presently. I am familiar with the books you mentioned, I own one. Woener lived in a different time. He discussed what was presently going on. Yes, history builds upon itself, but also learns from it. Woener also focused more on the point of the court in regard to wardship which was the estate. Still, children were viewed as property and the law reflected that. Children did not really have rights in regard to safety, but more to their inheritance or estate.

Since: Nov 07

Clearfield, PA

#467 Dec 13, 2007
Military Man wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are trying to prove what point? Guardianship being granted to a relative over a ward/ or a friend is not wardship. Although, the state could subsidize (only in DCS cases), the legal authority no longer resides with the state. Wardship is referred to the state having legal authority over a minor due to circumstances, etc. I guess you can argue that wardship/guardianship is the same in that of DCS, but a court order will only reflect wardship.
Gosh, Military Man, the legal authority always resides with the state because the State and the court itself [agency] is always "the untimate guardian" ...... The "appointed guardian" stands in agency with the court and he owes the duty of honest dealings, just as the state owes Honest services. The duty of the guardian first and foremost is to protect and preserve and he is held strictly to account for his actions. The only guardianship where there is no such duty is under the guardianship in chivalry, which is a phraseology you'll never hear used...... I guess this is what you are calling "wardship" ..... BTW I am not trying to prove any point, I am just trying to make sense of all the word jubmbelling.... seems to be pervasive in guardianship law.

Since: Nov 07

Clearfield, PA

#468 Dec 13, 2007
Military Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummm, you remind of Good Will Hunting when the guy in the bar tries to impress a girl by attempting to make another guy look stupid by repeating books, then he gets called out as repeating the book. The jargon you said above is "textbook" stuff 101. Do you really think attorney's use legal jargon 24/7? If we did, we wouldn't be married, have friends, etc. People want to know what things mean in layman terms. We know what we are talking about by just mentioning simply words, such as guardianship. Now, you just gave a dictionary presentation of what guardianship is. Good for you, you can read, repeat, and type.
In the real world of law, it means more than what you just typed. Can you tell me what a subsidized legal guardianship is and what are the qualifications for it and what is the motion you file to ask the court to grant it? Can you tell me what AAP is, how it is dispersed and how it is presented in court? Not very many attorney's are going to remember or care about the history of guardianship which you seem so passionate about, they only care of the laws that are operational presently. I am familiar with the books you mentioned, I own one. Woener lived in a different time. He discussed what was presently going on. Yes, history builds upon itself, but also learns from it. Woener also focused more on the point of the court in regard to wardship which was the estate. Still, children were viewed as property and the law reflected that. Children did not really have rights in regard to safety, but more to their inheritance or estate.
Well, one thing is for sure ..... it is not as simple as "did you do it or did you not" ...... and as you pointed out previously the real world is nothing like the movies hey ....

You state that in the real world of law it is more than what I typed .... but previously you said court was actually pretty simple .... Yet, I concede, you have got me on this "subsidized legal guardianship", it's qualifications and the motions practice for such an appointment. Explain please? Equally so AAP and its' dispersement? Fill me in....

Still though, you state that not many attorneys are going to remember nor care about the history, preferring instead to focus on the laws that are presently operational ....... hummmmm, Do you think this might lend itself to our previous posts wherein you conceded that constitutionally these laws may be suspect?

Boy at this juncture you have really got me confused with what you are saying ..... Now, when speaking of Woerner, the wardship which was the estate.... Is there more than one type or genre of wardship? I understand that children were viewed as property, and that they enjoyed no substantial rights but to say that a child has no right in their saftey is to obviate the entire purpose of appointing a guardian in the first place. If a child's saftey is of no concern why would there be a concern for an inheritence or an estate .......? Scratchin' my head I am. Help me out here

Since: Nov 07

Clearfield, PA

#469 Dec 14, 2007
Military Man wrote:
Mental retardation has replaced idiocy in legal jargon and is classified within certain levels to determine competency.
After caareful review .... I ask...

"... is classified within certain levels to determine competency."

And what does this mean ...... As a matter of law one is either competent or incompetent, sane or insane ...... There are no varying degrees or levels .....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 23
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Snakes Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Should you buy your Child a Pet Snake? (Jan '10) Mar 31 Mikayla_o3o 64
News South Dakota man gets $190 fine for snake witho... (Apr '17) Apr '17 andet1987 15
Male and Female Albino Ball Python For Rehoming... (May '07) Feb '17 Matt 26
News Pet snake strangles toddler (Jul '09) Feb '17 Pharts Arise 99
News Snakes Alive! Missing pythons on the loose in n... (Sep '16) Nov '16 Go Blue Forever 14
News Snakes, other reptiles, fill expo in Brentwood (Oct '15) Oct '15 sun sun 1
News John Martinez, Alligator Wrestler on Gator Boys... (Sep '13) Sep '15 Beachlifer 107