HomeMy WebLinkAboutTucker''~ ~~ Page 1 of 3
From: Hazel Tucker [hazeltucker08@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:31 PM
To: Yamaguchi, Kim; Kirk, Maureen; BOS District 4; Wahl, Larry;
Connelly, Bill
Subject: Kern COUNTY SUPERVISORS settling CPS suit for taking Gild
not in IMMANENT danger.
As I thought, County Board of Supervisrs DO have responsibility re CPS`
actions. Here is an article re the illegality of detaining children that are not
in IMMANENT danger. And, again, the Laws apply to foster children too.
This must be addressed) Please put me on the agenda for ac~~~
Wednesday, Mar 14 2012 06:09 PM MAR 1 6 2012
oROVU~, cau~a~-
County„ agency reviewing practices on taking children
By Lois Henry
Kern County is reviewing how its Child Protective Services agency
removes children from their parents, according to Deputy County Counsel
Mark Nations.
Until now, CPS has routinely taken children without warrants if the agency
feels there is a credible allegation of "general neglect."
Law enforcement typically handles removal of children when severe
physical or sexual abuse is alleged. General neglect is handled by CPS and
runs the gamut from drugs being used in the home to no food available for
the children.
On Wednesday, sources close to CPS said social workers this week had
stopped taking children without warrants and were instead filing petitions
asking the court to detain the children.
Nations c onfirmed that a review was under way but said he had no
knowledge that any procedures had been changed thus far.
"Non-custody petitions {to the court) are not something new and whether
they will receive increased use in the future remains to be seen," he said in
an email.
The review of CPS procedures comes on the heels of a settlement offer in a
federal lawsuit that was considered bey the Boar~f Supervisors in closed
session on Tuesday. ~~ ; ~4`~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~
Page 2 of 3
' In that case, Darlene and Lawrence McCue allege
`:~ ~~~ CPS and the Kem County Sheriff s Department
illegally took their son, then 7, from his school on
March 6, 2008 without a warrant and with no
M evidence that he was being harmed.
The McCues were thought to be endangering their son
by having him undergo unnecessary medical
-~ x procedures for imagined or exaggerated conditions.
- Kem County kept the child for four months before a
juvenile dependency court found no evidence that
supported his removal.
' The McCues' attorney, Shawn McMillan, said the law
1 h h h
per, "There are no nuances," to the law, McMillan has said
previously.
~~.~
~ McMillan wouldn't say what the McCues' settlement
.GOIn offer involved, but did say there was no demand that
CPS alter its procedures. However, he said he
assumed that would happen as a result of the lawsuit.
a~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ -~~ ,v is very c ear t at aut orrt~es must ave a warrant to
take a child unless they believe the child is in
~~ ~ "imminent danger," which means they have reason to
believe the child wrll suffer serious physical harm or
fit. ~~~n~ death in the few hours it would take to get a warrant.
Nations said Supervisors did consider the settlement offer Tuesday
evening.
"It was more of an informational thing," he said. "Now, I need to move
forward with what they instructed me to do, which I'm not at liberty to
disclose."
Another portion of the McCues' lawsuit targets South Fork Union School
District. McMillan expects that that part of the case will go to trial.
The McCues allege the school district gave their son a peanut butter cookie
even though he's allergic to peanuts. They reported the district to the State
Board of Education and believe the district then retaliated against them by
fling false accusations with CPS, which resulted in the boy being taken by
Page 3 of 3
the county.
An attorney for the South Fork School District has said previously that
school employees were simply answering questions from doctors and law
enforcement.