Social worker is after me…

cattlefarmer said:
I just called CPS and asked the person that answered the phone if all there calls were logged by a computer system and he told me they were. I asked about them being recorded and he told me they were. If someone did call then it should have been found by now.

If a CPS employee to take away the rights of my family when no one was in danger and there polices were not followed for the actions that they made do you think I should sit on my ass and let them do it to other people or stand up for my rights?

wikipedia
“In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. Or an untruthful oath.[1] "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[2]
False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[3] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.[3]”
If she reviled any information on my IEP or said that she changed her batteries then it slander.

There is a report that she came to my house. It states that both of my deaf kids must wear BOTH hearing aids at all times and I have to get CI’s put in all 4 ears.

That is illegal. No way CPS sanctioned any such thing.
We do abide to the IEP. Yes it dose get pulled off her head when the batteries are low to change the batteries. So I will tell her to let it die and just sit there. That way she follows the rules that were set up by keeping one HA on her head when at school and keeping it turned on. If the switch is on and the batteries are dead oh well. It will only happen a few times a year so it should not be a big deal. But yes I will go to the school and change the IEP to say that they can change there battery as needed to ensure the HA works.
Click to expand...


Now you are just being silly. That attitude won't get you far. Changing batteries is implied.
 
Never in my IEPs was there a stipulation that I had to wear one or both hearing aids. (Probably because I usually wore the phonic-ear, but not always.) And even if there was, I would think taking a "time-out" to change out batteries would be more than acceptable, just as Jillio said. It is kind of pointless to wear a HA if the battery is dead. In fact, that drives me crazy - to sit somewhere with a dead HA.
 
AlleyCat said:
Never in my IEPs was there a stipulation that I had to wear one or both hearing aids. (Probably because I usually wore the phonic-ear, but not always.) And even if there was, I would think taking a "time-out" to change out batteries would be more than acceptable, just as Jillio said. It is kind of pointless to wear a HA if the battery is dead. In fact, that drives me crazy - to sit somewhere with a dead HA.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If you were using the phonic ear, that was probably stipulated. BTW, AlleyCat...how did the exam go?
 
To me (the way I read it) it was made to look like I was going out of my way to get someone else in trouble that’s why it got stupid. I do have the documents to back up what I have said.

Yes she put down on paper that I need to get CI’s for my kids. If they will not wear HA why would they wear a CI?

I would not have gone there about tell my kid to sit there when the battery died but how many times did I say that she has to have one HA and have it turned on according to her she dose it but to keep bringing it up over and over. I think it’s understandable that once a month or so she might need 2 min (should be less) to change out the batteries.
 
cattlefarmer said:
To me (the way I read it) it was made to look like I was going out of my way to get someone else in trouble that’s why it got stupid. I do have the documents to back up what I have said.

Yes she put down on paper that I need to get CI’s for my kids. If they will not wear HA why would they wear a CI?

I would not have gone there about tell my kid to sit there when the battery died but how many times did I say that she has to have one HA and have it turned on according to her she dose it but to keep bringing it up over and over. I think it’s understandable that once a month or so she might need 2 min (should be less) to change out the batteries.
Click to expand...

Is this about changing batteries, or about someone demanding that you implant your kids?
 
Cattlefarmer- I am so sorry your family has to go through this! Your case is not unusual, though.

I am a deaf social worker in British Columbia, Canada and I work with Child Protection social workers who work with families that have deaf/hh/db members.
I hate to say, I have seen similar situations like this happen way too many times. I have seen social workers file a "non-organic failure to thrive" concern against parents who opt not to encourage their children to wear hearing aides or have them get a cochlear implant. Those sw's feel that if parents do not encourage their child to 'hear', it denies them access to communication and language which is their 'universal' right.

That is when I challenge them and explain that they are allowing their mainstream values and beliefs get in the way of their work and that the child is not considered at-risk if the family decides not to encourage hearing aides or have them get a cochlear implant. I add that as long as the parents are providing them with access to communication and language, ie. ASL then, it is not considered a child at-risk. A visual language gives equal opportunities as spoken languages for children to reach normal growth and developmental milestones so it should not be considered neglect.

​
Often times, social workers do not realize that ASL is its own language with its own grammar rules. Also, that many children who are raised by deaf parent(s), that their first language is ASL.

Most of the time, sw's are appreciative of the information they just received, and the case doesnt even reach the courts. I think the key here is communication even though it is a pain in the ass when we, as deaf people, have to deal with ignorant professionals all the time.

I admit, I didn't read all of the posts in here so I am just commenting in general here. Good luck and let us know what happens.
​
 
missywinks said:
Cattlefarmer- I am so sorry your family has to go through this! Your case is not unusual, though.

I am a deaf social worker in British Columbia, Canada and I work with Child Protection social workers who work with families that have deaf/hh/db members.
I hate to say, I have seen similar situations like this happen way too many times. I have seen social workers file a "non-organic failure to thrive" concern against parents who opt not to encourage their children to wear hearing aides or have them get a cochlear implant. Those sw's feel that if parents do not encourage their child to 'hear', it denies them access to communication and language which is their 'universal' right.

That is when I challenge them and explain that they are allowing their mainstream values and beliefs get in the way of their work and that the child is not considered at-risk if the family decides not to encourage hearing aides or have them get a cochlear implant. I add that as long as the parents are providing them with access to communication and language, ie. ASL then, it is not considered a child at-risk. A visual language gives equal opportunities as spoken languages for children to reach normal growth and developmental milestones so it should not be considered neglect.

​
Often times, social workers do not realize that ASL is its own language with its own grammar rules. Also, that many children who are raised by deaf parent(s), that their first language is ASL.

Most of the time, sw's are appreciative of the information they just received, and the case doesnt even reach the courts. I think the key here is communication even though it is a pain in the ass when we, as deaf people, have to deal with ignorant professionals all the time.

I admit, I didn't read all of the posts in here so I am just commenting in general here. Good luck and let us know what happens.
​
Click to expand...

Problem is, missywinks, this was not a social worker. It was an investigator from CPS.
 
jillio said:
Problem is, missywinks, this was not a social worker. It was an investigator from CPS.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a different system in the States...here in Canada, Social Workers do Child Protection investigations. Thanks for the clarification.
 
First thread I read from #1 to the end. haha. But wow, this case is too silly.

First of all, I'd ignore that lady and move on. Secondly, if a teacher is concerned with my kids, that teacher should contact me directly or a staff of school. And Lastly, shoot that lady, you have every right to scare her off your property, but then probably not a smart thing to do. But now it's all over, what will you do? Continue on breeding cattles?
 
missywinks said:
There seems to be a different system in the States...here in Canada, Social Workers do Child Protection investigations. Thanks for the clarification.
Click to expand...

Yes, here in the states, an investigator with CPS does not have to be a social worker. Unfortunately, they don't even have to have completed any relevent course work. A bachelor degree in any field is all that is required. They are not independently licensed, and under no professional code of ethics.
 
jillio said:
Unfortunately, they don't even have to have completed any relevent course work. They are not independently licensed, and under no professional code of ethics.
Click to expand...

Go figure !:blah:
 
faire_jour said:
My daughter's IEP says nothing about wearing her devices. Why would it?
Click to expand...

Because she is in a Bi-Bi environment. The children in question are in a mainsteam environment. Communication needs are different, as well as IEP requirements. It is a standard procedure to state that a child will use amplification in a mainstreamed setting, as it is very often their only means to access the curriculum.
 
Back
Top