It makes sense. In the case of Isabel Celis, CPS went to the point of forcing a no-contact rule upon Isabel's father, Sergio Celis, due to the threat he poses to his two sons.
When a child goes missing, the first thing a CPS worker will do is assess, rather than investigate. The two are very different, even though an assessment includes an investigation.
1. Neglect
2. Threat of
3. Placement
1. Neglect
When a child goes missing, the CPS worker seeks to know if the child went missing due to parental neglect. Let's take the case of a wandering child, which is a situation that is not very uncommon.
a. When did the child go missing?
b. What was the parent's reaction?
c. How long until the parent sought help?
d. How long was the child missing?
Next, the worker begins a series of questions regarding substance abuse. Sometimes these questions are asked by one worker while the other worker walks around the house. A CPS worker will look in the medicine cabinets for Rx, while 'using' the bathroom. Foster parents sometimes find this infuriating but get used to it. The worker will look in the trash, and around back for empties; that is, empty beer bottles, wine bottles, etc.
Most times kids go missing, there is a passed out parent on the couch, and the little one took off.
2. Threat of...
a. Does the parent express regret?
b. Does the parent show defiance? indifference?
c. If the parent was drug/high, is the parent willing to get help?
d. Does the parent have a close relative who can care for the child while getting help? If so, this avoids foster care and the trauma of going to a stranger's home. It also reduces the high expense for the State to endure.
The parent's attitude is what is gauged by the worker. If the parent, for example, lies, the threat of neglect continues for the child, and for siblings. The parent's attitude is gleaned from a lengthy interview, where every aspect you can think of, about child safety, is explored: everything from discipline to doctor visits to brushing teeth to homework, and everything in between. The only exception is now CPS workers no longer ask what has always been asked: "How do you provide for your child?" It is politically incorrect to ask, since welfare has become common place in the work.
Interviewing working parents is rare. Some young, able bodied males, when asked what they do for a living, have actually answered, "Tanif, man!" Or, "I have trouble working with people." "I have anger." "I have ADD", answering while not missing a beat in the video game. If you think this is a stretch, when you talk to a CPS worker, ask him or her how many interviews did they conduct while the parent was answering questions while playing a video game. The young males don't appreciate interruptions, either. It is like stunted growth, stuck at age 11, yet old enough to have children and become angry at being asked questions about children.
In the ongoing assessment, the pediatrician's records are needed, as well as an opinion from the doctor and/or staff. Even the care of the pets is assessed as there is some correlation between animal neglect and child neglect. (This is not something I have ever encountered. In every case where a child was neglected, I found the dog or cat to be well cared for; better than the child, including having the dog to the vet for check ups while missing well child check ups with the doctor. This is for another article).
Drugs, alcohol, criminal history, CPS history, known sex offenders visit the home? Any sex offenders in contact with the child? (You'd be amazed how just one registered sex offender can talk his way into babysitting for so many different mothers...and all for free!)
In the case of Baby Ayla, we have the worst-case scenario for child welfare. The baby did not wander off, was not found, and the father, his sister, and his girlfriend, all stand defiantly against police, so that Ayla is not found.
In this case, we have the known association with drugs. Any connection is a bad connection.
In this case, we have 3 parents who have all lied. CPS does not have to prove that they lied, they can simply present the police opinion to a judge, with the proof that a baby is actually missing.
The affidavit would be presented to a judge to show that the threat of Neglect is so acute, that the two children (of Elisha DiPietro and Courtney Roberts) are in a state of jeopardy because they were present when a child went missing and police report that they have lied (failing polygraphs, statements, etc).
Next on the affidavit, they can show that in withholding information critical to Ayla's recovery, they have shown depraved indifference to the safety and well being of Ayla, herself, therefore, given the similarity in ages to their own children (incapable of self protection), both children are in a state of ongoing jeopardy.
Lastly, the CPS worker can present to the judge the blood spilling and clean up. If evidence showed that the children were at the Portland address of Robert's sister, the tie to drug use is even stronger.
3. Relative Placement
In continuing to avoid taking a child into custody, a suitable relative is sought out to place the children with. The suitable relative must have a clean criminal history and a clean CPS history (which is no history at all), and must exhibit protective capacities.
This means that in the interview of the relative, the relative is asked a series of questions that will exhibit either protective capacities, or denial; that is, the refusal to acknowledge that the mother poses a severe risk of neglect. Without sober answers, the CPS worker will not vouch for the relative before a judge.
The grandmother, Phoebe DiPietro, by virtue of her television appearance in which she lied for her son, would be considered inappropriate for placement of Elisha's child, due to the lie. The lie shows that she would put her own son before the vulnerable child, incapable of self protection, and incapable of advocating for herself.
If DiPietro has a history with child protective services, or is unable to pass a drug test, she would not be entrusted with the child.
When a parent poses a risk to the child, the grandparent must exhibit behavior and belief that said grandparent will protect the child, even from his or her own child, if that be the case. The stronger the grandparent's resolve to protecting the vulnerable, the more likely placement would be considered, after background checks, drug tests, collateral interviews, and so on.
In what we know about the case of Baby Ayla, it is very difficult to understand how it is that Elisha DiPietro and Courtney Roberts may still have custody of their children.
They have both shown that they not only were silent for Ayla last December, but that they are both willing to lie, via withholding information, to police, about what happened to Ayla.
How is that not jeopardy? How is that, somehow, safe to the little children in their care?
In fact, I have a question about Courtney Roberts and Elisha DiPietro that has been bothering me for quite some time.
Do either of them have a life insurance policy against their own child?
Due to confidentiality laws, CPS cannot speak publicly. It may be that Roberts and DiPietro's children have been placed with relatives and the two women have supervised visits only. We don't know, but it does not appear to be so, given Elisha's recent public appearance, though she only answered questions in the same twisted way Justin does.
With a life insurance policy, a broken arm, a history of abuse, lies and a bounty of blood found in the basement, I cannot explain why there has been no arrests.
http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com.es/2012/05/ayla-reynolds-cps-and-missing-children.html
