Please note- All of the facts on this case - 04 JV 1159 - are supported with documentation. I have extensively documented my interaction with the DHS Colorado Child Protective Services program. Unlike other fathers who simply endured the process I realized going into it that I would have to document my efforts if I was to ever prove my case that they are biased against men. I have the documentation to assert and prove a position without any reasonable doubt that this organization indeed shows preference to women.
Please note- Case worker names will be provided to legal team members only. this protection exists as well for any other involved minor children aside from my daughter Penelope aka "Penny" Arnold of whom I retain full legal discretion. Reason for intervention- Family Service Plan 07/28/2004; initially a voluntary case after was opened by P.O.W.E.R Team received report of child neglect and possible drug use was received by the CWI hotline on 6-3-04.
Law enforcement was never contacted!
On July 19, 2004 A very credible report was made... that Mother and oldest minor daughter were using drugs together. Who made this credible report? Was this the reason law enforcement was denied in this instance? If so... was protocol violated intentionally to protect the mother -my ex-wife- at the request of the reporter of this instance -I assume this credible reporter to be Helen Ballard - the grandmother-. It was either overlooked intentionally or this assertion is provided in error. Why wasn't law enforcement brought into this situation when it was confirmed that a positive urinalysis for Crystal Meth was discovered following this event?
Why wasn't law enforcement brought in for child abuse neglect? Why was DHS called numerous times by observant neighbors and no reaction by this service? Which caseworker was trained on meeting the needs of a down's syndrome child? Which case worker was trained to recognize abuse in special needs children? My ex-wife was required to provide urinalysis as part of her DHS treatment plan. She obtained urine samples from her oldest daughter to pass 3 tests. - Why was she allowed to provide a urine test unobserved? - Why was she still considered clean even though it was discovered that she found a way to overcome the system? - How many other participants in the system are not being observed while providing samples? DHS provided Treatment plans for all involved parties.
- Why was the home at 2240 Anthony Crt literally trashed when I received it on 1 May 2005? The DHS treatment plan demanded that the home remain safe and stable, all roomates approved by DHS and the GAL, as for the home; keep her home clean as to ensure her children's safety. All roomates have had background checks completed by DHS prior to moving in? ON THIS MATTER THEY SERIOUSLY LET ME DOWN! ALLSTATE INSURANCE REFUSED TO COMPENSATE ME FOR THE Over $30,000 in DAMAGE. LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT STATED THEIR HANDS WERE TIED and they could do NOTHING!
- Did DHS check the safety and security of the home? I believe no such required check took place, nor were any roomates approved by DHS and the GAL.
-- DHS for their lack of action contributed to the damage of my home.
Why impose such requirements as a result of a treatment plan if you are not going to enforce them and report findings to the court?
- I reported to the DHS phone contact line in April 04 - why no response? Neighbors also called as early as January 2004. Why no response? I shared my observation that teenagers were smoking marijuana inside the home, no adult supervision was present, and Penny was left to the means of her middle sister who was too young legally to provide for her care
- I observed Penny walking amongst the house naked and undressed and the home in total disarray unkept and unclean. Did DHS notice this same observation?
04/21/2004 Penny bitten by dog inside home
- Did DHS notice this injury? If not... why not? It was significant enough to cause scaring on Penny's knee.
7/19/04 Ms. Deborah Arnold tested positive for Marijuana and crystal Methamphetamine
7/21/04 Penny Arnold was placed into REM foster care 08/25/04 Penny received occupational, Physical, and speech therapy evaluation. Recommended that she be seen weekly.
- Currently functions at a 20 month old level at 6 years of age Sept 2004
Parental visits arranged for Mr. Arnold -supposed to be 2 visits per week - 6 hours unsupervised time per week is authorized
9/14/04 Dispositional hearing @ 3:30 Conflict noted on explanation of termination of Rights in prior court hearing on 8/10/04. Allowed 1 hour a week for visit.
9/14/04 Family Services Plan reflects that "father is unable to care for his daughter and feels that she would be best served inan adoptive home." -Part 3B - Visitation Plan developed on
7/23/2004- Note: I disagree with this assertion and it was never offered up as an option with DHS. It was only debated in conversation with case workers but was never my intended position.
Special considerations to note- As of August 14, 2004 Ms Arnold has not produced a clean UA. Until the treatment plan is effect and Ms. Arnold has produced a clean urine sample, unsupervised visits are not recommended.
9/21/04 A referal for Global Assessment to focus on Mr. Arnold's mental health was made.
Why was this action required? There is nothing to note or cause concern in regards to this demanded response. No legal action was pending, no illegal drug activity noted or reported, and no financial irresponsibility was ever proven.
9/28/04 Written Status report on Contested Custody hearing hearing @ 2:30pm - Expressed to a caseworker that I desired Full Custody Ex wife reported to caseworker that he has friends and neighbors watching her and her actions. Ambivalance is noted in regards to my wanting to care for Penny in the beginning of this case. -NO REASONS NOTED-
10/29/04 Staffing held to discuss recommendation of couples classes and parenting classes. Couples Therapy demanded. Note- My relationship with Angie Long began February 13, 2004 and we started cohabitating May 28, 2004. What requirement is to be noted that would demand fullfilling a requirement of Couples Therapy for a man who is not divorced? My divorce would not be final till March 9th 2005.
- In my opinion this is yet just another instance of anti-male bias, a demanded response, a hurdle that I had to accept as it was imposed upon me. A hurdle intended to test my newly created relationship and impose strain on it.
- Case in point, did my ex-wife have the same requirement imposed for her relationships? Is this an action DHS imposes on every male involved in the system? Does DHS ever impose this requirement on women involved in the system?
11/22/04 In-home parenting classes required. Reports are required. Please Note: Total hours of visitation allowed by DHS was 22 hours between 08/06/2004 and 12/02/04 this is supported with documentation.
- Additional hours were requested and denied.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment