Saturday, March 1, 2014

 clean baby proof home with no safety hazards. The same home  that was stocked with plenty of food.


A case worker entered a private residence without consent, warrant, or exigent circumstance. According to criminal justice law she is required by law to have and present to a judge one of the three. She must also be able  must be able to present physical proof of probable cause as well as physical proof of imminent danger. Something that is comparable to leaving a 2 year old, 4, and 6 year old unattended on the edge of a cliff for any amount of time.
According to Schroer’s paper work these children were well bathed  and removed from a well stocked home with food and clean clothes.According to Schroers own documentation the children were left unattended due to resources and a threat made by Sally Schroer of truancy if the mother did not call the school. The caseworker notes in the exparte order that she is aware of the deficiency in resources .Sally Schroers job is to provide support services to prevent this kind of neglect, but instead she threatens to harm the mother and insists she make that happen with no resources.

lATER SCHOER ALMOST TORTURED THE TRAUMA SURVIVOR IN TO A NEAR  FATAL BREAK DOWN 
APPROVED OF BY HEAD OF HUMAN SERVICES SUE RYNDA OR SUSAN RYNDA











 Schroer had threatened the mother with a criminal charge the day before  if she did not call the children in to school. Schroer seems to have knowledge that the mother has a limited support circle being new in town. Schroer also knows the mother cannot afford a phone or a car. These three things combined seem to be making it difficult  for the single mother of three to  make and attend doctor appointments and call the children in to school.
At least that is what I got from Sally Schroers assessment she had written in the exparte order that County Attorney Brent Christian signed for approval to file a motion to have the children removed from their mother.
Schroer offered her the following services;
Advice : 
I told Genie she better make that phone call to the school tomorrow happen ! It does not matter if You are a single mother,Your support  circle consists of one, you have no transportation, you have no phone. If you don't make that call happen you could be charged with truancy.
Then reminds her that the reason she was charged with maltreatment  and criminal child endangerment was the result of  Genie mistakenly assuming Tri city united would not endanger children by creating a system to save money on busing that has 5 year olds walking up to two miles twice a day with no adult.That is why she thought it was safe to allow the boys to play at the park for a few minutes. 
Victor Atherton tells Genie her actions of using a school system as a form of measurement to determine  what is age appropriate and being wrong is a  Crime in Le Center. He gives genie a brochure to educate her on how old a child must be to be left unattended and for what amounts of time  because she sincerely did not know it was wrong according to the officer.
Victor Atherton  then clarifies the school endangers children with a special pass.  
Sally also drops off tampons
Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Placement
Recent preventive efforts - homemaker, parent aide, visiting nurse, day care, parenting classes, substance abuse or mental health treatment
Recent casework contacts or counseling by agency or someone agency has facilitated
Relevant past efforts – particularly as it relates to current issues  - ex.- past offers of help with DV situation

Relevant emergency type assistance – again as it relates to current issues – ex. – efforts to provide emergency shelter
Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Placement
Non-foster care safety plan
Use of non perp parent
Perp parent in a different setting
Use of relative of fictive kin

Use of court-ordered protective supervision
Remember. . .
There have been no efforts that could have been reasonably made to prevent the placement.
This is not “no efforts,” this is “no efforts could have been reasonably made.”
Reasonable Efforts – Finalize Permanency Plan
Federal Standard – every 12 months

Initial permanency hearing must be held
 within 12 months of the removal under 
Minnesota law
Participation: 
Parent, Child (court will “consult with child in an age

 appropriate manner”), Relative caretakers and foster  
care providers 
 (entitled to notice and opportunity to
 be heard – “right to be heard” )

Full hearing Independent judicial review
Timing:
Within 12 months of the removal or Within 30 days of a judicial determination that reasonable efforts to help a child safely return home are not required
Every 12 months thereafter as long as child is in foster care