BTW this case appears to be "all over". The Iowa case family hit another round of court, so there were 3. Case #1 included CPS/HHS structure on a child sex abuse risk issue. Case #2 undid that ruling, removed the structure responding to the proclamation of a risk and called for the destruction of the records that declared the risk, and then Case #3 reverted some or all of the agreement back to Case #1 and the news account noted community satisfaction was up, due to that Case #3 ruling and the addition of child support. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/videos/opinion/columnists/rekha-basu/20...
This is the Monday morning quarterback, where all these events are tapped out in a neat series in ink or recapped on the video replay. This is not the real time, lots of waiting and handwringing that goes into a case like this, which can last for months or years.
Take a look now at the accompanying video in the box above the article. It builds closer to a question this writer has had watching these patterns over the last few years as a parent, community member and professionally degreed social worker. Recently retired from a full advanced license and 25 years of practice in mental health and addictions this subject has been consuming for the last 6 months. This writer has no affiliations with the Iowa case, or anyone involved in it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDaUjjs60Ik
The YouTube video explains the path of this case over specific principle. Hot spots people in the community often see. This clip shows this case progression as more as a map of players and service than a narrative.
"The 9" references a set of potential bystanders in any case of child sex assault or sexualized child/adult interactions. In this case, there were two grade school age girls. 2 kids who had the same or separate representatives in each of the 9? You have to watch the video to see the 9 categories, and there can be more people, players and categories than that.
0001 ++ Question : A pervasive question in cases like this, is of course how does this happen?
0002 ++ Question : if kids are by a formal, acceptable standard deemed to be abused or at risk for abuse, how can the alleged perpetrator control and circumvent the deciding system ( of "the 9" or more) and be in partial or full unsupervised control of the disclosure or management of said risk due to direct child contact or control over the children.
Those TWO questions or any questions dealing with the child safety issues are excruciating to watch if 1.) a risk is unfolding and undealt with, 2.) known and established and undealt with and 3.) undealt with because it is wholly unknown and unanticipated, but would continue on due to the structure held in the active Case #2 or while awaiting Case #3.
Disregard of a child safety issue that is known, with preventative structure applied by involved designated responsible parties... disregarded on what appears to be a reactive whim is concerning and .......... psychotically bizarre....Psychosis is defined in part by a lack of insight, judgment and reality testing. WHAT?????? Briefly? well....
Insight... do you understand why and how something is happening. Judgment, if you have to make a choice from available choices will you pick one that does not cause your demise, or the demise of the person the choice is for ( most assume that decisions like are all about the kids.) Reality testing, do you know who you are, where you are and what is going on. In extreme circumstances you could see that you are, or are not the Dalai Lama... for instance ( my apologies if he is reading) and typically that point of origin problem ... like if you said yes.... would probably cause other people to take control of your person or independent decision making options.
But wait, there's more. Let's just say, that for argument sake there is more.
Flip it from the child as the question, which is what the news and video focused on in the Iowa case. Which BTW the case #2 was solely about the accused parents rights and NOT at all about the child rights in these given accounts.
So, flip it from the child or the accused parent back to the witness as the pivot point. Because this Case #2 was filed against the non-offending parent, by the accused offending parent, not against the CPS/HHS who rendered the decisions?
And in many of these parent v. parent ONE of the parents is the reporting party, and there is a dually filed complaint of "bad parenting" solely between the two parents AND also there is a cps issue, and a custody or divorce issue pending.
0003 ++Question : In Case #2, for the Iowa case, the actual argument was over the witness, which was the MGM ( Maternal Grandmother), and the vehicle to get to that was thru the non-offending parent, it seems.
That is what opens the door to this question that this writer has distilled much more plainly after reading this case. Because dual parenting of the girls completely drops away as an issue.
And what surfaces, as pointed out in the video is that "the 9" basically stand and gawk at the children, left 100% exposed with no allies. Everyone is so extremely stressed and righteously upset about that exposure to risk and actual or potential abuse that there is a myopic blindness.
It is also true that legal consultants rarely deal with full spectrums of issues and things get funneled to one or two core questions, so much can be left undealt with. So, all hands are on deck about the kid risk, though it is downplayed and noone actually acts. And that risk door remains open for "open season" on the children for how ever long it takes to get through appeal. IF the appeal ( case #3) closes out (case #2), then that risk is modified, reduced or removed. IF. Noone is driving that CPS/HHS bus someone said.
0004 ++Question: is there a law that bars the CPS from overriding the Judge's decision when these cases are in civil court like for Case #2 or waiting on Case #3. Really?
Child risks like those noted, if not directly showing injury, surely denote risk for injury. In the Iowa case, the girls were ongoingly making reports of injury (emotional, psychologicsl and physical?) and noone answered or evaluated or stopped the noted problems. ZERO. These judicial decisions permitting access increase the possibility of a circumstance used for criminality??? criminal gain???: if not establishment of criminal opportunity, networks or structures to be placed. Grafting actions or rules in closed court processes or behind door decisions is not uncommon, but where is the locus of control then?
That would be against the child's human rights to have safety and security to grow up. Here's the child abuse wheel http://www.docstoc.com/docs/80812035/child-abuse-wheel. Here is the child nurturing wheel http://www.avivafamilies.org.nz/I-Need-Info/Effects-of-Domestic-Violence/ If you need to understand more about child human rights http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/child.asp ( please note these are now UN human rights violations this appear to have happened upon).
In 12 step,people with problems typically have those problems in a certain place, in a certain way with certain others. This is referred to as playgrounds and playmates. To change the action, means one has to remove BOTH players, playing fields and the action causing the risk or problem otherwise it is consent and willful construction of an environment of risk. This system of "the 9" has something kinda cockeyed about it, in this mutual perpetuation of risk, for 30 years.
Setting up a situation, they call it on the street. Contrived problem for a gain. In Georgia, that is a version of racketeering, and has been prosecuted as same? In CPS/HHS cases or child custody? See this video of a Mrs. Schaefer for a quick illustration of same. http://vimeo.com/70915823
0005 ++Question: IF these systems of open door that happen amongst "the 9" episodic psychosis, amnesia, court ordered hands off.. whatever..... IF it had anything to do with something along those lines. Is there true crime happening in these processes? Is it possible the systems have any version of criminal networking for gain .... formal or informal? Dr.Lori Handrahan of Maine has posed that question in a multitude of ways, and currently has an active review of the role of Guardian Ad Litem system in child human rights in court in Maine.
Switch on to this question of the witness handling .................. This method of "debunking" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debunk the witness, so to speak always seems to include some stab at the witness' mental health, in a pretty specific profile, over many if not all the cases this writer has seen. It also, includes failure to use collateral witnesses and failure to meet under specific standards common in forensic psychology to do that. In the Iowa case, the witness noted that the opposing (? professional? licensed? ) witnesses never spoke to her, and the evidence presented as collateral to the reports shared had also not met her. And there was a gross absence of use of provided collateral, which happened to be soundly opposite the debunkers.
So just prior to discovering this Iowa case......... in that, (FYI Iowa case came up in a recipe search of the Iowa Register....) in a wholly unrelated search of topics.......... of unidentified missing girls who are dead (Racine Jane Doe http://www.examiner.com/article/amazing-secrets-unclaimed-child-evidence...)........ this odd document below presented a profile on child sex assault reporters and child sex assault reporting... in a very odd lane of reporting. Very odd.
This found essay, excerpted below as 1-4... reflected on a document from the FBI that was reportedly created and distributed as educational material, from the FBI ( Federal Bureau of Investigations) staff in mid 1980's.
0006++Question: Is there some rule about sexual assault, particularly child sexual assault that has rules on witnessing or witnesses, or reporting, investigations or like, that the public just................... doesn't know about................. but that is actually first string response for taking any reports or complaints.
This document mentions some things that EXACTLY match many problems found in problem trends for victim or family reporting of sexual assault of any age across the United States.
0007++Question is below information, is it real? Is it work reduction? Is there some paperwork matching the mid 1980's summit where this was presented. Because to know who generated it back then and where it went after this paper was written, presented or turned into an action? And is this antiquated approach still in play? For law enforcement, cps and court or even taught in law school or to law makers? Is it a Memorandum of Understanding between the feds and states or internationals and what does it say, who holds the format of the agreement?
And again, recall there is no national standard for any sex assault reporting in the United States. www.examiner.com/article/potus-reveals-sex-assault-report-here-ar... which is very dangerous, and probably contributes to the numbers of sex assaults currently circulating as a tallied... or fact. Though most reports these days show almost that same exact disclaimer, we don't know how many assaults there are. Below 50% reporting.
These highlights are gleaned from this excerpted FBI document, which is actually some version of the original work and intended as a training for law enforcement in the 1980's or early 1990's on a specific topic.. http://www.cultwatch.com/satanicabuse.html Again, this is very specific and it is SO RARE in what is described, that it is almost completely guaranteed, for instance that the Iowa case MGM witness, never even heard of such a thing in her lifetime. REMOTE. ODD. UNLIKELY to match anyone. This is what it says:
For example, an adult survivor’s account of ritual victimization might be explained by any one of at least four possibilities:
First, the allegations may be a fairly accurate account what actually happened.
Second, they may be deliberate lies (malingering,) told for the usual reasons people lie (e.g. money, revenge, jealousy.)
Third, they may be deliberate lies (factitious disorder) told for atypical reasons (e.g. attention, forgiveness.)
Lies so motivated are less likely to be recognized by the investigator and more likely to be rigidly maintained by the liar unless and until confronted with irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
Fourth, the allegations may be a highly inaccurate account of what actually happened, but the victim truly believes it (pseudomemory) and therefore is not lying.
A polygraph examination of such a victim would be of limited value.
Other explanations or combinations of these explanations are also possible. Only thorough investigation will point to the correct or most likely explanation.
Many non-abusing parents are accused loosely of "Facitious Disorder" "Munchausen Syndrome" ..... both of which are bizarre and rare, and processed as court complaints following a report of their child being abused. Sometimes, one after the other law enforcement, cps and then court allegations switch like channels, canvassing to pin a falsified complaint. This only puts things related to the child victim in a tailspin of #systemsinducedtraumas.
See #3 in this actual FBI document in the link, not the recap. If you have never read this, you might wish to.... for antiquated fallacies and pointed avoidance "we cannot figure this out, so we won't act" This document also says Scalia has in 1985 perhaps set forward some structure that is the #USDOJhallpass. This document has some core things missing like knowledge of the role of PTSD and TBI Traumatic brain injury in longterm abuse patients, also in repeat sexual maltreatment in a lifetime it is possible to be victimized more than once.
0008 ++Question is THIS #USDOJhallpass what that document sifted for in policy, custom, clause or law... is it considered best practices? Is this work reduction?
#USDOJhallpass disengages or extinguishes the issue of risk or harm to the child, permanently and no other actions are or can be pursued against the alleged perpetrator. Court proceeds on this note, solely. The child seemingly obliterated.
- halts all questions of child safety or maltreatment
- seems to include forcing a mental health diagnosis through some process on the reporting party.
- includes custody, visitation issues
- in our cases seems magnified as our partners were internationals, so is this an international rule pulled forward in our situation freeing them?
With this #USDOJhallpass, ( which is probably a Memorandum of Understanding) the alleged abusing party is absolved almost magically of any questions in what sure looks like some charade of a court process as previously stated. The absolution in many cases is permanent, or highly inflexible, and even if overturned, the allegations against the witness appear to leave the witness permanently disabled.
Noone seems to know if this actually exists as a policy, custom, clause, law or Memorandum of Understanding within the USDOJ, or even the FBI for that matter and if it applies to all states or is only present in some states, or was somehow later revised out of play in some states, but remained in others. Or the reverse, originally only some states signed.
But it is certainly implied that diving on the identified witness and obliterating their testimony is then the key, independent of realities to collapsing any reasonable suggestion of a protective voice of the child.
0009++ Question, does every agency in " the 9" have to defer to law enforcement AND USDOJ or just how does that work?
Really, in no other circumstance could "the 9" get away with not responding to the pleas and cries of children. If there were 9 around the family and they did that, everyone become deaf, mute and amnesiatic http://www.naturalhealthadvisory.com/content/memory-loss/do-you-have-mem... "civilians" would be charged and prosecuted upon discovery.
00010+++ Why are "the 9" for all practical purposes be overtaken by the psychosis, the seances........... that appears to be driving the request for the case of harm to be dissolved in the first place? The acceptance and approval of the sitting judge and all those who had to await the pending judgment over how every many months or years.
00010a++Question: Why make children cry and feel unsafe? Why induce possible or actual acute stress or PTSD? http://www.witnessjustice.org/health/ptsd.cfm ( please note the source of this article link.)
00011++ Question, if adults cannot provide a safe environment for kids to trust, learn, attach and grow .... how will kids ever do that? Or will kids in apathy abandon and go with reactivity? http://youtu.be/1cduF11Okx0 Kids who COME from systems that are reactive work hard to survive THAT and giving them PTSD, systems induced trauma or cause them to want to run to escape crazy adults really doesn't help. Telling kids they need to control their safety by telling them to tell and then ripping supports away is so thoughtless and unnecessary and causes a lifetime of disintegration of self awareness, trust, confidence and goal directed responses. What is the goal with kids who are at risk to be abused or are?
Many complain as a culture of children who don't understand about boundaries, cannot reason in series, are impulsive, have bad judgment and cannot tell the truth, do not trust or respect authority and have reactive, aggressive victimizing interactions with one another and those younger and older than they. Things have to be stable with proper teachings to learn. It isn't magic like fairy dust, and stability has to be consistently present.
Look again at the national attempts to cull statistics of child sexual maltreatment which are probably low, due to NONREPORTING or poor reception in systems receiving them.
00011a+++ Question: Is there incentivism at the heart of this and is it cash or traded favors? Then look at "the 9" who do as they please? or are ambivalent? ... afraid? forced by a policy, custom or law? not operating from best practices? insufficiently trained or unsupportive in laws? Perfoming for incentives for self, agency or issue?
Systems induced trauma, is just systems induced trauma. http://www.examiner.com/article/systems-induced-trauma-lynchpins-just-wh... It is a waste of money and flatly, avoidably abusive. Plain, and simple. It is not ok to falsely accuse, whether the perpetrator or the non-offending parent or the witness or the CHILD VICTIM.
Angie Debo, an Oklahoma Native American historian discovered a variety of things that she did not anticipate in her very thorough research of the Five Civilized Tribes. Those finds disturbing and unbalancing socially, to her personally and to those around her. Her work was refused for publication by our alma mater, the University of Oklahoma, citing how it might upset and cause more questions or discover even more problems in things that were clearly already upsetting and bothering many lives.
See this comment from her, regarding her quest that Oklahoma history/learning be fact based, held forward here. "Our culture is disintegrating - no traditions, no standards, no loyalty in the sense other ages have had them & in human nature, craves them. There must be some way by which we can express our natural championship of causes and ideals and yet do it in a scientific way." "Critically and objectively examine sources and evidence, and respect dogma."
Child sexual maltreatment issues, whether child sexualized conversations, molestation, grooming, child porn, child sex trafficking, sodomy or rape requires professional nationalized standards of intake reporting, investigation and court processes that reflect best practices, use objective versus reactive formal measures, and illustrate care for our youngest citizens.
It is grossly inappropriate to tell the public that children and witnesses should report same, or any child maltreatment and then be placed on unsteady footing at any point following... by the system they are subjected to use to make the report and seek safe havens.
Something is grossly wrong with the public understanding of this issue. Somehow, there are rules or processes being used first that support danger, actual or potential crime risks and avoid honoring child human rights in court.
Cases like this are supposed to be subjected to a #USDOJ Investigation, except, the USDOJ will be the first to say they don't investigate anything. Victim Advocates from the #USDOJ have then directed the concerned on to the #FBI, who also do not investigate said cases and don't refer the question on to others.
There is implication that litigation of some kind needs to be filed, but why does a victim have to hire an attorney to substantiate being a victim. Children cannot vote, and cannot hire an attorney. There is no mention in these cases that anyone offered the Iowa case children attorneys. And a public defender, Guardian Ad Litem or conflicts attorney wouldn't be allowed to file with the USDOJ due to funding issues. The Grandmother is defenseless as the reporting party.
00012++ Question: So, who gets help, and why is a perpetually unanswered question.
In that it has taken 6 articles to even attempt to explain the general profile of these type cases, and it is still unclear who might be able to validate these questions, and then provide comprehensive answers regarding their critical pathways in this child human rights in court process.
To date, pleas for review nationwide have fallen on deaf ears, while meanwhile in courts all "the 9" fall in line like well trained soldiers, again and again.... generating lots of time in court, lots of uncertainty, lots of risk and lots of abuse, overload in CPS courts.
Just remember, children are only that for so long. Eating up lives with bad adult decisions in #systemsinducedtrauma actions is just not ok. 30 years of hostages and the cradle to prison pipelines now cradle to fostercare to trafficking to prison pipelines are not ok.
Please share this, tell someone over dinner, pass it to your clergy or spouse or elected official. Host a discussion group. It isn't just IOWA. It is all of us.
www.examiner.com/article/family-court-word-to-the-9-child-human-r... ( this is the finale, 7)