KONG Channel 6 at 10 PM
KING Channel 5 at 11 PM and tomorrow morning.
Please check KING5.com if you can not see it on TV.
This will be very interesting to you all and a must see to follow our story line. Again, thank you to all who attending our hearing in Olympia.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The gist of the first episode of the king-5 program seems to be, if they could have just terminated the parents earlier who continue to screw up after four years this would not be happening and oh the foster providers love the girl so much.
I am a parent who has been accused of chemical dependency's. While this was true at one point in my life it was prior to my child's birth which is why I planned to have this child it should not have been a factor to CPS.
I immediately did all services I started taking my UA's as required.
What CPS did was forge positive results and present them in court to wrongfully keep me from my child Then they would not provide ua's so I started private testing my hair. I finally got them to provide hair test for me. Because I was suspicious of them I continued my private tests. Well wouldn't you know it the first test that they funded was presented to the court as a negative. Surprise I have custody controlled certified test results from two other private labs of the same hair with the true results NEGATIVE. The subsequent lab tests on the same uncut hair provided to the contracted hair test lab also tested NEGATIVE. Seven tests of the same hair hmmmm. When I went to court mine was called the forgery and they terminated my parental rights partially because they falsely contend that I am using drugs and refused treatment.
They are criminal child traffickers period. One of the first questions CPS asked early in my child's dependency was is she drug affected I told the truth as usual, no she is not. Well that made her marketable and a keeper.
?? Wellll......I guess the point is, the state errs in imbalance on all sides. In this story, "experts" were ignored and very angry about it. So who should decide the length of time a child is out of the home? Should a bunch of "experts" who have bought into public policy acting as lemmings decide? Should a judge decide or CPS?
Let's have a "fireside chat" about addiction and the system. The addicts "job" is to use their drug of choice while at the same time keep their children. Addicts are often breeders because of irresponsible protection practices therefore the problem is prevalent.
"OK" so the addict gets caught. Does the light come on right away? Not usually. Especially since there are lapses in requirements right from the beginning. After the 72 hour shelter care hearing, there is then a fact finding or review hearing a month later. It may take a month or more after that to get all the necessary assessments done then get them court ordered and paid for to complete all recommendations. Months may go by before someone even engages in treatment. Waiting lists are the norm.
Meanwhile, the child is "bonding" (there is that word again) to the foster family as the parents see the child the two hours or less a week that CPS allows.
IF a time limit is going to be put on a parent to complete requirements before being TPR then the state needs to get with it and change their M.O. THEN there is this tendency to blame the grandparents for the adult child using drugs. The social pressure to use has resulted in high percentages of youth experimentation and addiction. A parent can discuss drug use a thousand times and still fail against the tide of raging hormones.
So here is this outrageous ripple effect: Lax education systems that allow for virtually unregulated use that leads to unwanted pregnancy, that leads to CPS and court action, that leads to opposition of relative placement that leads to foster/adoption. Big business for the state and families are caught in the wake of poor decision making and community planning.
It's odd to me that they pick on DSHS eligible people. The biggest youth drug problems in the state exist in Bellevue and Issaquah.
Jan Smith
Dear Senator Roach,
Another case of DSHS behaving badly. The question I have to all of you DSHS lurkers out there is this..Why is it in the best interest of this child to move her out of this loving home?
Let me answer my own question!
This child will be so distraught that now the department can tag her with disabilities..such as maybe failure to thrive,attachment disorders and who knows what else. And guess what people..?? You are paying for this crap. When are we as a society going to wake up?
DSHS is nothing but a BIG BULLY. Retaliation is the name of their game.
There needs to be more Senator Roach's out there. Most of our legislatures need to develope some dangling participles and quickly!
Do some investigations on what your constituents are telling you about this entity. Start naming names. NOW! I do not know for the life of me..why any of you would want to live in fear of this BULLY??? The time for action is now! So just do it!!
CC Tillett
Washington Families United
"Lily's" grandmother has created a blogspot. bariwillardreport.blogspot.com for any of you that want to keep up on
"Lily" on a daily basis....
So many of these tragic stories are the same...just change the names.
1. Bad parents...abuse, drugs, alcohol, anger.
2. A neglected or abused child.
3. A loving caregiver steps in--maybe foster parents, maybe relatives--maybe even the dreaded "G" word--"Grandparents!"
4. Child thrives. CPS probably writes in ISSP: Child is in Best Possible Placement. Child is bonded to Caregiver(s).
5. Parents are non-compliant. Parents have failed to...(fill in the blanks: get drug/alcohol treatment, get a job, take counseling, comply with court orders and so on).
6. Case drags on for 3 or more years with no permanency for child.
7. Meanwhile, child is bonding with caregiver.
8. Caregiver complains, usually to CPS or the State Ombudsman, about the handling of the case or the failure to comply with federal and state laws.
9. Suddenly and without warning or explanation, the chid needs to be (and is) removed from the caregiver's home, and either returned to (bad) parents or placed in (a different) foster home.
10. The child is devastated, traumatized, sobbing, terrified...
11. The family is destroyed, in grief and shock...may go bankrupt trying to fight against the Behemoth in court.
12. All of the above was "IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD."
So it was with our case and our 4-year old. Except that in his case we can add in Sexual Abuse by his father--just before CPS took him from his Grandma and returned him to the abuser.
I'm sure this comment won't make it online, but there are always two sides to every story. And the media is equally corrupt and negligent in my opinion to twist and present only one side. Confidentiality prevents a fair argument and people like lovingfitfather can say anything without accountability. Susanna is framing the story. What I want to know is how come no one is doing a story on the Langley's adopted son Taylor they threw out with the bath water? If the Langley's are experts with kids with special needs, then how is it they gave up on him? Isn't Poca born drug affected? Could she be the next laid by the curbside to have some neighbor take in? And what kind of family will allow their home to foreclose and live in a van just to keep the family intact? Taylor was part of their family, how come they didn't fight as much for him? Is it about appearance that decides a parent's love?
Post a Comment