Wanted to hear your opinion about this women’s circumstance. This was posted on a Facebook group I belong to:
“We have been staying at a mooring field in Florida and had an anonymous fellow boater call Child Protective Services because our kids were on deck without life jackets. That’s perfectly legal, but social services said they have to investigate no matter what. They showed up with police and insisted on interviewing my two daughters very intrusively. They had originally asked to schedule an appointment to inspect the boat, but after speaking to several lawyers we were advised not to show them without a warrant. It is our understanding that it is CPS’s practice to take children and figure out if it’s justified later. Has anyone had this experience? What was the overall process like? Did you have to put a lawyer on retainer?”
I told her not to worry about a lawyer and give child services the cfr reference on life jacket requirements. Although I did not look up the cfr, I do not believe child pfd’s are required to be worn if the boat is over 26ft and especially if it isn’t underway. I don’t see any reason for child services to board a vessel concerning pfd requirements. CPS should contact the USCG in this matter. What do you think?
Seems a bit rash for CPS to get involved, or take the kids over that…but what do I know… Is there another element to the story that was omitted? Such as there was a meth cloud spotted in the vicinity of the boat too?
Either the USCG or whatever local PD Marine unit/Harbor police or whatever it might be called can do a vessel safety inspection and as long as CPS and PD sees that your normal people they will move on. They’re not being intrusive, just their doing their due diligence as required. It’s that other boater that sounds like they weren’t minding their own business.
STATE boating laws dictate the age at which children are required to wear PFD’s, its not a CFR requirement. Here in Alaska, children 12 and under are required to wear a PFD at all times when on deck or outside of the boat’s cabin. In Florida, as per the original post: “A child under the age of 6 must wear a USCG-approved Type I, II or III personal flotation device while onboard a vessel under 26 feet in length while the vessel is underway. “Underway” is defined as anytime except when the vessel is anchored, moored, made fast to the shore or aground.”
Either way, I dont see how its a CPS issue to begin with…
[QUOTE=Deviated;176785]Wanted to hear your opinion about this women’s circumstance. This was posted on a Facebook group I belong to:
“We have been staying at a mooring field in Florida and had an anonymous fellow boater call Child Protective Services because our kids were on deck without life jackets. That’s perfectly legal, but social services said they have to investigate no matter what. They showed up with police and insisted on interviewing my two daughters very intrusively. They had originally asked to schedule an appointment to inspect the boat, but after speaking to several lawyers we were advised not to show them without a warrant. It is our understanding that it is CPS’s practice to take children and figure out if it’s justified later. Has anyone had this experience? What was the overall process like? Did you have to put a lawyer on retainer?”
I told her not to worry about a lawyer and give child services the cfr reference on life jacket requirements. Although I did not look up the cfr, I do not believe child pfd’s are required to be worn if the boat is over 26ft and especially if it isn’t underway. I don’t see any reason for child services to board a vessel concerning pfd requirements. CPS should contact the USCG in this matter. What do you think?[/QUOTE]
Actually, advice from an attorney is highly recommended any time CPS makes contact with you. I can’t believe you told them to simply kiss off CPS with a reference to a CFR that you couldn’t be bothered to look up.
If CPS showed up with the police, they need an attorney. They should hire one of the attorneys they interviewed and ignore idiots who pretend to be attorneys because they watched an episode of Suits.
[QUOTE=Deviated;176785]Wanted to hear your opinion about this women’s circumstance. This was posted on a Facebook group I belong to:
“We have been staying at a mooring field in Florida and had an anonymous fellow boater call Child Protective Services because our kids were on deck without life jackets. That’s perfectly legal, but social services said they have to investigate no matter what. They showed up with police and insisted on interviewing my two daughters very intrusively. They had originally asked to schedule an appointment to inspect the boat, but after speaking to several lawyers we were advised not to show them without a warrant. It is our understanding that it is CPS’s practice to take children and figure out if it’s justified later. Has anyone had this experience? What was the overall process like? Did you have to put a lawyer on retainer?”
I told her not to worry about a lawyer and give child services the cfr reference on life jacket requirements. Although I did not look up the cfr, I do not believe child pfd’s are required to be worn if the boat is over 26ft and especially if it isn’t underway. I don’t see any reason for child services to board a vessel concerning pfd requirements. CPS should contact the USCG in this matter. What do you think?[/QUOTE]
This is a good example of our aggressive liberal fascist NANNY STATE that is training American kids to be a bunch of helpless and useless wimps.
CPS and the police should focus their efforts on the neglected kids of drug addicts and welfare receipients, not the privileged kids of yachtsmen.
My advice for these cruisers is sail to the Bahamas tonight where no one will bother you or your kids.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;176803]This is a good example of our aggressive liberal fascist NANNY STATE that is training American kids to be a bunch of helpless and useless wimps.
CPS and the police should focus their efforts on the neglected kids of drug addicts and welfare receipients, not the privileged kids of yachtsmen.
My advice for these cruisers is sail to the Bahamas tonight where no one will bother you or your kids.[/QUOTE]
It is idiotic, but they are required by law to follow up every complaint.
I worked with a guy whose ex called them on him whenever he had the kids. Repeatedly. Finally a judge threatened her with jail for abusing the system. I helped him with some legal research. They have to check out every report, no matter how silly…but you have to tread carefully around them. It’s like talking to the cops. Anything you say can be used against you. Having a lawyer on speed dial is wise.
He was a good dad with a vindictive ex. That said, there are people who clearly need their kids removed from them, at least for a period of time. That’s what the system is supposed to be for.
Updated - - -
[QUOTE=cmakin;176811]Things like this make me glad my kids are adults. . . .[/QUOTE]
Having worked for CPS in Texas for four years in a previous life, I can say that I have seen investigators save kids’ lives, and I have seen investigators and “the system” be the absolutely worst thing that has ever happened to a family (kids and parents).
With everything I’ve seen and experienced first-hand, I would never allow CPS to enter my home or my vessel without a court order, and I would immediately get a lawyer if someone made a CPS referral, no matter how stoopid. In Texas, to get a court order, CPS must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence to a district judge that the health or safety of the children are immediately threatened. They can sometimes do this after the fact, after what’s called an “emergency removal,” and even if you get your kids back (within 14 days), they’ve been in foster care or a voluntary placement outside the home during that time.
As has been pointed out, the PFD issue is a state law enforcement issue. In Texas it’s under 13 while underway. I think any age underway is a great idea on a small boat.
A friend and his wife went shopping with their six month old daughter. The wife went into the store to shop. The child was asleep. My friend got out of the car to smoke. It was raining so he stepped under an awning 50 feet from the car and kept an eye on it. Some concerned citizen walked by, saw the child alone in the car and called the police. (Cellphones are a curse). The police showed up almost immediately. He immediately walked over to his car to find out what was going on. The cop wrote him a citation for “child neglect.” He was not “arrested”. He met with the prosecutor, explained the situation, and the charge was dropped.
Ten years later, he was driving the same daughter, then 10 years old, to a sporting event in Canada. Customs Canada refused to admit him to Canada because he had been charged (Not convicted) with “child abuse.”
These busybodies with cellphones, and these slightly above minimum wage cops and CPS twits have no idea how much damage they do to people. People have no idea that trivial offenses and even bogus accusations that are dropped still follow them forever.
We were a lot better off before cellphones and computers with too much instant information.
That’s insane, how did Canada know? I mean I know communication between LE agencies is supposed to improve in this day and age, but I’ve heard of someone having their license revoked and just going to the next state over and getting a new one. I’ll post an article I saw the other day if I find it.
[QUOTE=LI_Domer;177067]That’s insane, how did Canada know? I mean I know communication between LE agencies is supposed to improve in this day and age, but I’ve heard of someone having their license revoked and just going to the next state over and getting a new one. I’ll post an article I saw the other day if I find it.[/QUOTE]
My uncle had a DWI years ago. Fast forward about 15 years, and he and his buddies are taking one of their yearly motorcycle rides (not club affiliated) up north. . . he was refused entry into Canada. . .
http://longisland.news12.com/news/man-stopped-on-lie-had-88-license-suspensions-1.11287169 MEDFORD - A Pennsylvania man was arrested Sunday for driving on the Long Island Expressway with a license that had been suspended 88 times. Eric Dunbar was pulled over for driving 86 mph in the westbound lanes between exits 66 and 65 shortly after 12 p.m., police say. Dunbar was in possession of a Pennsylvania license, but a check revealed that he also had a New York state license that had been suspended 88 times on 25 dates for failing to answer traffic tickets. Dunbar, 43, was arrested and charged with aggravated unlicensed operation of a vehicle. He was also issued summonses for speeding and having more than one unexpired license. His vehicle, a 2016 Dodge Challenger, was impounded.
It caught up with him, but it’s crazy he was able to get away with it for so long.
Customs Canada has direct access to the US national crime information computer, and US passenger manifests.
US Customs has the same Canadian information.
The US treats Canadians poorly at the border so Canada has done the same to US Citizens.
It it use to be that you could fly to Cuba from Canada without a worry. And Canadian travel agencies promoted that fact to Americans. The Bush administration got access to Canadian passenger manifests, and Americans flying free m Canada started getting $10,000 tickets in the mail for violating the US Cuba trade embargo.
Every Cop that pulls up behind a car registered to you can get your name and your entire “criminal history” going back many years for all investigations, citations, arrests, and convictions. If you live in a low crime area where the bored cops don’t have much to do, if they see anything they don’t like in your history, they will then find an excuse to pull you over and try to provoke an incident to create some reason for a citation or arrest.
Most people have no idea how much computers have taken away our privacy and freedom.