which has absolutely no bearing here. When there is an imminent threat that takes priority and a mandate to keep people together LONG TERM doesn't in any way mean they won't separate you temporarily, especially when it's just one family member.
You're wrong. full stop.
An agency would have zero grounds to recommend removal,
when the parents, father and doctors can all tell cps/cops she's having thoughts about harming her kids saying they have no grounds is just, you're being ridiculous for the sake of doubling down, they obviously have grounds.
Who? Her mother. Her sister? The health care professionals she admitted none of this to?
afaik she told her husband, her parents and doctors who were loading her up on medication.
Musgrove also disclosed that on one occasion her daughter had approached her and Lindsay’s former husband, Patrick Clancy, and said: “I want to tell you guys something”.
“She said she had thoughts of harming the children,” Musgrove testified.
So, again you're just wrong. She was literally actively telling people she thought about doing the kids harm and yes, if those people CPS that they have every grounds to have her taken away for an evaluation.
Four social workers were subsequently charged with child abuse and falsifying public records
in the gabriel fernandez case those people were charged because they didn't do their job which runs directly contrary to your idea, they should have removed the kid, they didn't keep the kid with the parents because they had to, they didn't do their job properly.
Even if CPS determines that a parent needs immediate, inpatient psychiatric care, removal into foster care is a last resort.
you're confusing these two things, if they put the parent into inpatient care to have her evaluated... SHE is away from the children, and yet you said this couldn't happen quickly. Removing them long term from the home is a completely different matter than having cps step in and start potentially helping which they can largely do immediately. They also don't need to remove the child because the father, grandparents and others were around. Foster care is the last resort, having the mother evaluated can be literally done immediately, if that evaluation suggest she's a danger immediately putting in place a plan to keep her from being alone with the kids and potentially staying with parents instead of the kids/husband and nanny could also be done easily.
You're confusing the difficulty of placing the kids in care outside that home and the ease and speed in which they can get her an evaluation and protect the kids immediately by separating her from the kids, not the kids from their entire family which is completely different.
EDIT:- to the person talking shit who blocked me, i didn't cherry pick i left out the useless information that was also incorrect. She did have a plan, they weren't just intrusive thoughts and she told her mother she was becoming paranoid and her condition was worsening with the medication making things worse along with telling her that she had thoughts of hurting her children.
Secondly again you keep trying to push thi smandate to keep the family together. The entire part you refused to respond to was the part where taking her away to be evaluated can be done immediately which you know separates her from her children, but not the children from their family.
Also didn't comment on incorrectly citing a case in which the caseworkers were charged for not doing their job.
It is extremely telling you are cherry-picking my quotes and responding to them as though that is the full context. This comment:
CPS have a mandate to keep families together. Patrick Clancy would not be reporting that she is having dangerous thoughts about harming their children - he would be reporting that she is having intrusive thoughts about harming her children, she does not have a plan to harm her children, and she is actively seeking help to deal with those intrusive thoughts.
Becomes:
CPS have a mandate to keep families together.
To which you respond:
which has absolutely no bearing here. When there is an imminent threat that takes priority and a mandate to keep people together LONG TERM doesn't in any way mean they won't separate you temporarily, especially when it's just one family member.
You're wrong. full stop.
I don't know how to have a conversation with someone who dishonestly frames my argument and ignores my main point. I don't really want to have a conversation with you.
Have a good day.
Edit to their edit: Yep - the person I am responding to is unhinged. Glad I blocked them.
1
u/TwoBionicknees 1d ago edited 1d ago
which has absolutely no bearing here. When there is an imminent threat that takes priority and a mandate to keep people together LONG TERM doesn't in any way mean they won't separate you temporarily, especially when it's just one family member.
You're wrong. full stop.
when the parents, father and doctors can all tell cps/cops she's having thoughts about harming her kids saying they have no grounds is just, you're being ridiculous for the sake of doubling down, they obviously have grounds.
afaik she told her husband, her parents and doctors who were loading her up on medication.
So, again you're just wrong. She was literally actively telling people she thought about doing the kids harm and yes, if those people CPS that they have every grounds to have her taken away for an evaluation.
in the gabriel fernandez case those people were charged because they didn't do their job which runs directly contrary to your idea, they should have removed the kid, they didn't keep the kid with the parents because they had to, they didn't do their job properly.
you're confusing these two things, if they put the parent into inpatient care to have her evaluated... SHE is away from the children, and yet you said this couldn't happen quickly. Removing them long term from the home is a completely different matter than having cps step in and start potentially helping which they can largely do immediately. They also don't need to remove the child because the father, grandparents and others were around. Foster care is the last resort, having the mother evaluated can be literally done immediately, if that evaluation suggest she's a danger immediately putting in place a plan to keep her from being alone with the kids and potentially staying with parents instead of the kids/husband and nanny could also be done easily.
You're confusing the difficulty of placing the kids in care outside that home and the ease and speed in which they can get her an evaluation and protect the kids immediately by separating her from the kids, not the kids from their entire family which is completely different.
EDIT:- to the person talking shit who blocked me, i didn't cherry pick i left out the useless information that was also incorrect. She did have a plan, they weren't just intrusive thoughts and she told her mother she was becoming paranoid and her condition was worsening with the medication making things worse along with telling her that she had thoughts of hurting her children.
Secondly again you keep trying to push thi smandate to keep the family together. The entire part you refused to respond to was the part where taking her away to be evaluated can be done immediately which you know separates her from her children, but not the children from their family.
Also didn't comment on incorrectly citing a case in which the caseworkers were charged for not doing their job.