Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Child Protection Agencies: Too Much Power - No Accountability?
This is the story of The Harper Family, and their struggle to regain custody of their autistic son. And, as most everyone involved in this case agrees that one case cannot and should not be the sole basis to change the law - how can anyone disagree with compensating those who were wrongfully accused? Who could disagree with having the "Loser Pay" rule apply, and have the legal costs reimbursed by the losing party. Who?
Well, pick one: Minnesota, California, Massachusetts, Washington.
It should come as no surprise that the answer is Minnesota. (Not to mention that many laws have become law due to a sole individual or circumstance: Meagans Law and Dru Sjodin are two that immediately come to mind) - so perhaps one instance, at least in cases like the Harpers, would restore the financial loss they incurred due to the ineptitude of the county worker. Why does "ineptitude" always go along with (pick one) county/ state/federal worker? (Don't get all huffy, it certainly occurs in the private sector as well). But when the below happens, any level of government should make restitution to the harmed parties, in this case, The Harpers.
Excerpt:
[The Harpers] state senator, Cal Larson, has introduced a bill that says if the county removes a child and "the removal is found by the district court to be inappropriate", the county shall be liable for all costs.
The Association of Counties is lobbying against the bill.
Susan Ault is the Director of Children and Family Services for Ramsey county. She said of the bill, "That would be a huge cost to the taxpayers." [Oh, isn't that touching Ms. Ault, you're looking out for the taxpayers? Give me a break. You don't want any accountability, do you - that's what it's really all about!]
Ault say the law is a bad idea [Big surprise here!] but she says it won't change the way they make decisions. [Then why adopt your attitude? Because you don't want to be held accountable!] "We can't be running scared from anybody, so it will not affect our practice, our decision making." [Ms. Ault, with all due respect, just run away from all of us. Find another race to live with because I cannot count you among the human one anymore and am unable to see the world you see through your glasses.]
The Harpers are all for removing children actually in danger but say the county needs to be accountable when it tears families apart needlessly.
Otter Tail county would not discuss the Harpers case in detail. but agreed with other counties that the law should not be changed based on this one incident.
(c) 2005
Well, pick one: Minnesota, California, Massachusetts, Washington.
It should come as no surprise that the answer is Minnesota. (Not to mention that many laws have become law due to a sole individual or circumstance: Meagans Law and Dru Sjodin are two that immediately come to mind) - so perhaps one instance, at least in cases like the Harpers, would restore the financial loss they incurred due to the ineptitude of the county worker. Why does "ineptitude" always go along with (pick one) county/ state/federal worker? (Don't get all huffy, it certainly occurs in the private sector as well). But when the below happens, any level of government should make restitution to the harmed parties, in this case, The Harpers.
Excerpt:
[The Harpers] state senator, Cal Larson, has introduced a bill that says if the county removes a child and "the removal is found by the district court to be inappropriate", the county shall be liable for all costs.
The Association of Counties is lobbying against the bill.
Susan Ault is the Director of Children and Family Services for Ramsey county. She said of the bill, "That would be a huge cost to the taxpayers." [Oh, isn't that touching Ms. Ault, you're looking out for the taxpayers? Give me a break. You don't want any accountability, do you - that's what it's really all about!]
Ault say the law is a bad idea [Big surprise here!] but she says it won't change the way they make decisions. [Then why adopt your attitude? Because you don't want to be held accountable!] "We can't be running scared from anybody, so it will not affect our practice, our decision making." [Ms. Ault, with all due respect, just run away from all of us. Find another race to live with because I cannot count you among the human one anymore and am unable to see the world you see through your glasses.]
The Harpers are all for removing children actually in danger but say the county needs to be accountable when it tears families apart needlessly.
Otter Tail county would not discuss the Harpers case in detail. but agreed with other counties that the law should not be changed based on this one incident.
(c) 2005
Alabama Internet
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.
