Can you say "Improper storage?"

[Glockster30]

This is all very interesting... considering that there are plenty of stories I found in Mass, and across the country where kids aren't taken away from parents when an accident happens. We'll see if there is more to the story, but I doubt it.

I'll be generous because of Christmas Spirit, and just say that if you aren't even considering the potential that this has political undertones, you (a general YOU, I don't want to hurt any snowflakes in particular) are dense.

I don't want to hurt any snowflake LEOs, but due to the lack of comprehension for anyone that missed it, I'll repeat what I stated in post #32":

"I didn't state that politics is never involved, but at least I would wait to hear the facts before making or assuming that determination."

 

[Synyster]

I can't imagine my 3yo niece being able to grip (assuming it was a full size) gun, and reach her little booger hook into the trigger to pull it. She just doesn't have the muscles in her hand to possibly do that.

 

[42!]

Yes, because it's happened. Also, consider that a removal from custody isn't always (or usually) permanent. Kids have been removed while an investigation was conducted and returned back after after it's been determined that there was no abuse or neglect.

I probably wrote a few hundred 51As over the years. The problem with doing that is that once I wrote them and called the 800 number, I never got follow up. What might have looked like a huge deal to me, might not have turned out to be that. And vice versa.

The threshold for a mandatory reporter to file a 51A is very low. Filing one doesn't mean that the initial report will turn out to be substantiated or that abuse took place.

Aren't there potential criminal penalties for a mandatory reporter that fails to file a 51A? I would think this would create a "better safe than sorry" self preservation attitude, basically setting a very low bar to filing a 51A and letting the process work it out.

 

[drgrant]

Yes, because it's happened. Also, consider that a removal from custody isn't always (or usually) permanent. Kids have been removed while an investigation was conducted and returned back after after it's been determined that there was no abuse or neglect.

I probably wrote a few hundred 51As over the years. The problem with doing that is that once I wrote them and called the 800 number, I never got follow up. What might have looked like a huge deal to me, might not have turned out to be that. And vice versa.

The threshold for a mandatory reporter to file a 51A is very low. Filing one doesn't mean that the initial report will turn out to be substantiated or that abuse took place.

Well, I knew that much WRT mandated reporters.... So basically you're telling us its now SOP for DCF to swoop in and steal custody of a kid every time they get hurt at home? I guess they are consistent in applying the thug action, at least.

-Mike

 

[Glockster30]

I can't imagine my 3yo niece being able to grip (assuming it was a full size) gun, and reach her little booger hook into the trigger to pull it. She just doesn't have the muscles in her hand to possibly do that.

That's what I questioned in post #28 too, which is why before any determination as to what really happened cannot be made until the investigation(s) are completed.

 

[JAD]

Yes, because it's happened. Also, consider that a removal from custody isn't always (or usually) permanent. Kids have been removed while an investigation was conducted and returned back after after it's been determined that there was no abuse or neglect.

I probably wrote a few hundred 51As over the years. The problem with doing that is that once I wrote them and called the 800 number, I never got follow up. What might have looked like a huge deal to me, might not have turned out to be that. And vice versa.

The threshold for a mandatory reporter to file a 51A is very low. Filing one doesn't mean that the initial report will turn out to be substantiated or that abuse took place.

Where I am, in Connecticut, they do follow up. My experience has been a phone call from the social worker who receives the case the day after reporting (usually to review details) followed by an eventual letter with a generic description of the outcome (most frequently that the case is closed and that the family will not be receiving any more services.

And given the consequences for not filing, it's always better to file.

 

[Garys]

I haven't read the statute in a while, but I think the penalty is a fine. It's a bigger fine for failing to report child abuse than failing to report elder abuse, which I always found odd.
Mandated reporters include teachers, police officers, firefighters, doctors, nurses, EMTs, and social workers. It's a much longer list than that, but those are the ones I recall off the top of my head.

By the letter of the law, everyone that comes into contact with the child of children is supposed to file. In practice, it fell on EMS to do it, at least where I worked. It was a PITA, because we had to do the paperwork and then call what was then DSS. It usually put us out of service for an hour.

Aren't there potential criminal penalties for a mandatory reporter that fails to file a 51A? I would think this would create a "better safe than sorry" self preservation attitude, basically setting a very low bar to filing a 51A and letting the process work it out.

 

[Garys]

We only got follow up if we got back to the hospital during the same shift and found the nurse that took care of the kids. They'd get follow up and tell us if we asked. DCF is going to default to at least a temporary removal if any of the kids is injured. No one wants to be the one named in the Herald (and the hypocrites on NES) as letting a kid get harmed by not doing a removal.

Being a social worker for the state is a thankless job.

Where I am, in Connecticut, they do follow up. My experience has been a phone call from the social worker who receives the case the day after reporting (usually to review details) followed by an eventual letter with a generic description of the outcome (most frequently that the case is closed and that the family will not be receiving any more services.

And given the consequences for not filing, it's always better to file.

 

[HuntMaine]

My only point is the guy is an irresponsible jackass and doesn't appear to have the capability to be a responsible adult


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[firestorm]

We only got follow up if we got back to the hospital during the same shift and found the nurse that took care of the kids. They'd get follow up and tell us if we asked. DCF is going to default to at least a temporary removal if any of the kids is injured. No one wants to be the one named in the Herald (and the hypocrites on NES) as letting a kid get harmed by not doing a removal.

Being a social worker for the state is a thankless job.

That same nonsense attitude is why 209A's are always issued for women even if they have no proof or even a real argument about being abused. I understand that sometimes things will slip, but the fact that something bad MIGHT happen does not and should not obligate you to take someone's kids away and then determine if anything bad happened. Same as they should not issue a restraining order unless there is proof of abuse or at least a realistic argument that abuse is happening.

This leaves some people, or some kids slipping through the cracks and being hurt. But it prevents or at least minimizes the loss of rights or loss of parental rights for those who have done nothing wrong. Lets say you get your kids back, months later (Maybe) after they finally determine it was just an accident. Your kids are now scarred from time spent in the system, your reputation ruined at least locally and possibly in the media. You are now that guy who had his kids taken away, there will be no story about how it was actually an accident, not your fault at all, kids back with you.

And that's just assuming you don't lose your job from the media attention, and they give the kids back. Which is not guaranteed even if it wasn't your fault, they are not on your side and out to prove that you don't deserve the kids back thus justifying their quick and brutal removal in the first place, nobody likes to be wrong.

 

[whacko]

(thing flips around with your quote on it)

Contestant Shouts: "Excuses people make for statists??!?!??"



If this kid burned the shit out of her hand on a hot stove, or fell into a swimming pool and had to be resuscitated, do you think DCF would have taken her away? Honest question. If you think this should be "yes" at least you're being consistent. Most of the time the MA statist types would likely turn up the heat if a gun was involved because "a gun is extra bad!!!" etc. vs some other typical household accident.

It's probably all protected BS but I'm sure somewhere in MA some toddler cut their fingers/hand off with a radial arm saw or something but nobody gives 2 shits because it didn't involve a gun.

-Mike

This x1000. I forget where I read it but it was last year......A report that thousands more kids are poisened annually than are injured by a gun. They are poisened by carelessly stored household chemicals. Do those dumb parents get their kids taken away? Never.

UNSUB......Get a grip. It's not "extra worserer" cus it was a gun. Dumb on the parents side....Yes.....

 

[Len-2A Training]

That same nonsense attitude is why 209A's are always issued for women even if they have no proof or even a real argument about being abused. I understand that sometimes things will slip, but the fact that something bad MIGHT happen does not and should not obligate you to take someone's kids away and then determine if anything bad happened. Same as they should not issue a restraining order unless there is proof of abuse or at least a realistic argument that abuse is happening.

This leaves some people, or some kids slipping through the cracks and being hurt. But it prevents or at least minimizes the loss of rights or loss of parental rights for those who have done nothing wrong. Lets say you get your kids back, months later (Maybe) after they finally determine it was just an accident. Your kids are now scarred from time spent in the system, your reputation ruined at least locally and possibly in the media. You are now that guy who had his kids taken away, there will be no story about how it was actually an accident, not your fault at all, kids back with you.

And that's just assuming you don't lose your job from the media attention, and they give the kids back. Which is not guaranteed even if it wasn't your fault, they are not on your side and out to prove that you don't deserve the kids back thus justifying their quick and brutal removal in the first place, nobody likes to be wrong.

Our new reality is "guilty until proven innocent", especially when it comes to guns or accusations (but no proof) of domestic abuse (209A). Other states treat both differently, but this is MA!

 

[Frizzle Fry]

This x1000. I forget where I read it but it was last year......A report that thousands more kids are poisened annually than are injured by a gun. They are poisened by carelessly stored household chemicals. Do those dumb parents get their kids taken away? Never.

I recently read an article about two junkies who OD'ed and died... their baby starved to death in the four days leading up to the neighbors finding them.

Apparently DSS (or DCF, or whatever) was there a few weeks earlier. When the mother OD'ed and had to be revived with narcan, the first responders put in a call. DSS/DCF/whatever checked the place out and said there was food in the refrigerator and the baby had a crib, so it was deemed a "suitable household" in their eyes. Good thing the junkies didn't have an improperly stored firearm, or whatever. Just a load of heroin laced with fentanyl laying around.

 

[peterthefish]

That's what I questioned in post #28 too, which is why before any determination as to what really happened cannot be made until the investigation(s) are completed.

There's a reason a lot of toddlers shoot themselves in the face - typically the only grasp they have strong enough to pull the trigger involves holding a firearm backwards and squeezing with their full hand / thumb against trigger. All things considered this could have been much worse.

 

[KBCraig]

In Pennsylvania: dad charged with child endangerment because his 5 year old thought that Saturday was a school day.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/28/5-year-old-boy-accidentally-walks-to-sch

 

[Len-2A Training]

In Pennsylvania: dad charged with child endangerment because his 5 year old thought that Saturday was a school day.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/28/5-year-old-boy-accidentally-walks-to-sch

That article has just the right amount of sarcasm and criticism in it.

I walked to school every day by myself or with other neighbor kids when I was his age. I also used to play on Rte. 9/Boylston St/the only turnpike to NY back in those days and chat with the cop on the beat. No issues.

These days any kid alone under 21 yo is a reportable crime! Sad, so very sad.

 

[Dennis in MA]

When it comes to anything to do with guns, they declare the gun owners as unfit to have children and yank them. DCF does such a wonderful job of raising children . . . not!

While I tend to have this opinion, there are a LOT of good foster homes that take in DCF kids in this state. They aren't just welfare moms looking for some extra jing. My oldest/youngest son in the AF, his younger siblings were removed from the home 2 years ago. They have flourished in 2 separate foster homes monitored by DCF. One was one of my daughter's friend's parents (good people) and the other one reminds you of Evelyn Mercer from Four Brothers. Older tough broad who loves these kids deeply.

Now, that said, the DCF caseworker is a toolbag. Just an overall PITA. I can see limiting heroin-addict Mom from seeing the kids. But grandma? AF older brother? C'mon. Chill out, lady.

 

[UNSUB]

This x1000. I forget where I read it but it was last year......A report that thousands more kids are poisened annually than are injured by a gun. They are poisened by carelessly stored household chemicals. Do those dumb parents get their kids taken away? Never.

UNSUB......Get a grip. It's not "extra worserer" cus it was a gun. Dumb on the parents side....Yes.....

I don't remember inferring "extra worser" because it was a gun" in my response as at all as you so eloquently put it "cus" what I was simply stating was I don't like irresponsible parents. Be responsible for your kids and your guns or your kids and your pets or your kids and your chemicals /radial arm saws et al. The guy in the post wasn't teaching his kids shooting and they got injured which would be unfortunate, he screwed up and left something unattended thats irresponsible and foolish.

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

 

[MAGA99]

Update:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/lo..._act_sentence_after_3_year_old_shoots_herself

Hopefully this guy gets the benefit of the doubt and his whole life isn't ruined 'cuz guns.'

 

[knfmn]

Update:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/lo..._act_sentence_after_3_year_old_shoots_herself

Hopefully this guy gets the benefit of the doubt and his whole life isn't ruined 'cuz guns.'

I hope so. Was he an idiot for leaving his gun out negligently while he had a child under the age of responsibility in his home? Yes. Does he deserve to have his entire life ruined because of it? Not at all.

 

[firestorm]

I hope so. Was he an idiot for leaving his gun out negligently while he had a child under the age of responsibility in his home? Yes. Does he deserve to have his entire life ruined because of it? Not at all.

And not just his life, the child's life potentially. Currently with grandparents, but that's temporary and the state could easily take the kid totally if he winds up convicted.