• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

dealing with cps

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

kimberly hillis

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? washington
i need to know if the state can do this, ok i had a dependency case prior after a contested trail the order was overturned on appeal and remanded for a new trail but instead it was dimissed, so now five years later the state is trying again for dependency but can they use the evidence from the first trail weather it be hearsay or anything used at that trail.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
 


mistoffolees

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? washington
i need to know if the state can do this, ok i had a dependency case prior after a contested trail the order was overturned on appeal and remanded for a new trail but instead it was dimissed, so now five years later the state is trying again for dependency but can they use the evidence from the first trail weather it be hearsay or anything used at that trail.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
They can certainly use any legal information from the first trial. If the evidence was legal the first time, it's legal now. If it was hearsay the first time around, it's still hearsay.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
They can certainly use any legal information from the first trial. If the evidence was legal the first time, it's legal now. If it was hearsay the first time around, it's still hearsay.
However it may not be relevant now to prove the child is dependent.
 

kimberly hillis

Junior Member
They can certainly use any legal information from the first trial. If the evidence was legal the first time, it's legal now. If it was hearsay the first time around, it's still hearsay.
but the dependency was over turned and remanded back to court for a new trail, doesn't that make the denpendecy like null and void until proven again?
and the fact that they then just decided to dimiss instead. trust me my children are the most important thing in life. and they found me non dependent at first then got me for failure to protect and denied me counsel at fact finding, thats why it was appealed.
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
but the dependency was over turned and remanded back to court for a new trail, doesn't that make the denpendecy like null and void until proven again?
and the fact that they then just decided to dimiss instead. trust me my children are the most important thing in life. and they found me non dependent at first then got me for failure to protect and denied me counsel at fact finding, thats why it was appealed.
That's not what you asked.

They can't use the decision if it was overturned, but they can certainly use the evidence that was presented.
 

kimberly hillis

Junior Member
o.k. can you tell me who has juridiscition the courts I first filed my divorce in or a juvenile court where new dependency charges were filed after the fact?
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
o.k. can you tell me who has juridiscition the courts I first filed my divorce in or a juvenile court where new dependency charges were filed after the fact?
Juvenile court. And you were not found to be nondependent or dependent. Dependency is the condition of the CHILDREN. Not a finding of fault of the parent. Nor is abuse or neglect. It is the CONDITION of the children.
 

kimberly hillis

Junior Member
ok if they found the condiction of my children nondependent at first gave me my kids back didn't file the paperwork with whom ever, came back a little over a week later said that I had failed to protect, so they started a new fact finding, denied me counsel, this time finding it to be dependent.
I appealed it due to the fact I was denied counsel, it was overturned and remanded back to the courts for a new fact finding but instead the courts and cps just demissed the dependency. after four years later I go to superior court to file my divorce and then low and behold my inlaws make the same false alligations they did the first go round, and of course cps bought it again.
I filed for divorce by default and three days later cps set an appointment for a family team meeting, when i talked to the social worker and asked why what is the problem, I was told you have custody of children and you can go get them at any time. well no duh there my kids, so i go to the meeting and I hear the alligations for the first time, I'm upset because of what they are and also the fact that my youngest kids I've already had let them stay at grandmas because i had no electric and my house was forclosed, I ended up leaving the meeting, you could see my inlaws were just wanting custody of my children before my divorce was final. the very next day cps came to my home took my 14yr old in to police custody and then to a foster home, mean while my two boys were with my inlaws, my 3yr old daughter was with my mother and I was told that was fine. they also served me with dependency papers and told me when shelter care hearing was, the shelter care hearing got postponded by my request. while i wait for hearing my inlaws call my mother and tell her the children were all place with her except my oldest daughter. my mom said bulls---, called cps and they told her you have her back within two hours or your going to jail, she had to drop her off at my inlaws. what the hell is going on? why is this being allowed? in the new dependency paperwork its saying that the children were found to be dependent as to the last dependency that was overturned and remanded back to the courts.
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
ok if they found the condiction of my children nondependent at first gave me my kids back didn't file the paperwork with whom ever, came back a little over a week later said that I had failed to protect, so they started a new fact finding, denied me counsel, this time finding it to be dependent.
I appealed it due to the fact I was denied counsel, it was overturned and remanded back to the courts for a new fact finding but instead the courts and cps just demissed the dependency. after four years later I go to superior court to file my divorce and then low and behold my inlaws make the same false alligations they did the first go round, and of course cps bought it again.
I filed for divorce by default and three days later cps set an appointment for a family team meeting, when i talked to the social worker and asked why what is the problem, I was told you have custody of children and you can go get them at any time. well no duh there my kids, so i go to the meeting and I hear the alligations for the first time, I'm upset because of what they are and also the fact that my youngest kids I've already had let them stay at grandmas because i had no electric and my house was forclosed, I ended up leaving the meeting, you could see my inlaws were just wanting custody of my children before my divorce was final. the very next day cps came to my home took my 14yr old in to police custody and then to a foster home, mean while my two boys were with my inlaws, my 3yr old daughter was with my mother and I was told that was fine. they also served me with dependency papers and told me when shelter care hearing was, the shelter care hearing got postponded by my request. while i wait for hearing my inlaws call my mother and tell her the children were all place with her except my oldest daughter. my mom said bulls---, called cps and they told her you have her back within two hours or your going to jail, she had to drop her off at my inlaws. what the hell is going on? why is this being allowed? in the new dependency paperwork its saying that the children were found to be dependent as to the last dependency that was overturned and remanded back to the courts.
Care to try translating that to English, please?
 

>Charlotte<

Lurker
Care to try translating that to English, please?

Her in-laws made certain allegations. The children were removed from the home and the matter was investigated. The children were declared "non-dependent" and returned to OP.

A week later CPS said OP "failed to protect" and started a new "fact-finding", this time the children were declared "dependent". OP successfully appealed and the ruling of dependency was dismissed.

Four years later when OP filed for divorce, CPS scheduled a meeting and when OP asked the reason for the meeting she was assured that she did have custody of her children. At the meeting, she discovered the in-laws had repeated their earlier allegations. At this point, the youngest children had been staying with their grandparents (the in-laws?) because OP had no electricity and her home was being foreclosed upon.

OP left the meeting and the next day CPS removed the 14 year old from her home and placed him in foster care. Her two younger boys were already with the in-laws, and the three year old was with OP's mother. OP was told by CPS that this arrangement was acceptable.

OP was served with dependency papers pending another hearing, for which OP requested a postponement. During the delay, the mother-in-law called OP's mother and said that all of the children except one had been placed with her (the MIL) and she wanted the three year old. OP's mother didn't believe her and called CPS, who advised her to take the three year old to the in-laws or she would be arrested.

The children have been found "dependent", retroactive to the initial finding of dependency (which, OP claims, had been overturned).

She wants to know why this is happening and what the hell is going on.
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
Her in-laws made certain allegations. The children were removed from the home and the matter was investigated. The children were declared "non-dependent" and returned to OP.

A week later CPS said OP "failed to protect" and started a new "fact-finding", this time the children were declared "dependent". OP successfully appealed and the ruling of dependency was dismissed.

Four years later when OP filed for divorce, CPS scheduled a meeting and when OP asked the reason for the meeting she was assured that she did have custody of her children. At the meeting, she discovered the in-laws had repeated their earlier allegations. At this point, the youngest children had been staying with their grandparents (the in-laws?) because OP had no electricity and her home was being foreclosed upon.

OP left the meeting and the next day CPS removed the 14 year old from her home and placed him in foster care. Her two younger boys were already with the in-laws, and the three year old was with OP's mother. OP was told by CPS that this arrangement was acceptable.

OP was served with dependency papers pending another hearing, for which OP requested a postponement. During the delay, the mother-in-law called OP's mother and said that all of the children except one had been placed with her (the MIL) and she wanted the three year old. OP's mother didn't believe her and called CPS, who advised her to take the three year old to the in-laws or she would be arrested.

The children have been found "dependent", retroactive to the initial finding of dependency (which, OP claims, had been overturned).

She wants to know why this is happening and what the hell is going on.

That was so kind of you! :)

(Does this OP have an attorney? This OP NEEDS an attorney almost as badly - if not worse - than spinner needed an attorney)
 

>Charlotte<

Lurker
That was so kind of you! :)

(Does this OP have an attorney? This OP NEEDS an attorney almost as badly - if not worse - than spinner needed an attorney)
I think this is probably part CPS shenanigans and part "where there's smoke...".

She said she was "denied counsel", so I guess at one point she tried to get a lawyer? I'm sure the actual facts of that part would make more sense than just OP having been told she couldn't have an attorney.
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
I think this is probably part CPS shenanigans and part "where there's smoke...".

She said she was "denied counsel", so I guess at one point she tried to get a lawyer? I'm sure the actual facts of that part would make more sense than just OP having been told she couldn't have an attorney.
I suspect that "denied counsel" means "they wouldn't give me a free attorney".

There's no way they can stop you from hiring an attorney.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
I suspect that "denied counsel" means "they wouldn't give me a free attorney".

There's no way they can stop you from hiring an attorney.
Usually however the courts are REQUIRED to appoint an attorney in these types of cases because it could involve termination of parental rights. Hence not providing her with counsel if indigent would be a violation of her civil rights and would cause a reversal.
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top