So Ms. Shaw leaves and I call the CPS worker who was Austin's "probation officer" in Wisconsin and tell her what's going on. She is flabbergasted and tells me that our family was never investigated in Wisconsin because there was nothing to investigate. Austin was NEVER a threat to his siblings and we always gave appropriate supervision. I asked her to please call Ms. Shaw and explain that to her and she says she will.
Below is my dated documentation of the events following:
July 6, 2011 10:30am- I receive a call from Mandy Shaw that our request to have Jacksen interviewed by a therapist who works with ASD children has been denied by her “supervisor’s supervisor” as it is their policy not to close a case without interviewing the children at their facility and that if we don’t comply they will have to file an “aid to assist” court order to have the children interviewed there. I tell her I will discuss it with my husband.
July 6, 2011 11:15am- I call Mandy Shaw and ask for the contact information for the supervisor she spoke with so that I can speak with her regarding my concerns of having Jacksen interviewed by someone not trained in ASD. She does not supply the name or any contact information but tells me she will have her call me.
July 6, 2011 12:30pm. I contact the DFPS department of consumer affairs via their web form and am responded to with and apology and the name of the supervisor’s supervisor. Ms Patricia Villifana-Nunex and a telephone number to contact her.
July 6, 2011 1:00pm- I call the number provided, unfortunately it is not Ms Villifana-Nunex but another worker who takes my information and says she will give Ms villifana-Nunex the message that I am aware she had discussed my children’s interview with Ms. Shaw and had denied my request for an interview done by someone trained with Autism and would like to discuss my concerns with her as soon as possible.
July 6, 2011 2:45pm- Received a call back from Ms Villifana-Nunex. She stated she was aware of my concerns with Jacksen with “these kinds of allegations it is essential for us to interview the children” I asked her what the allegations actually were. She said she was surprised Mandy hadn’t discussed that with me and that the charges were of Neglectful supervision by Craig and I and sexual assault by Austin. I asked her what neglectful supervision meant and that we had all the safe guards in place as far as the door alarm, my leaving my job to be home, the “must be seen AND heard” rule. She stated that sometimes even though we do our best to make sure nothing happens sometimes it does happen. I asked her how that would be neglectful supervision and she didn’t really answer my question but stated that they would consent to Jacksen being interviewed by the therapist we had in place but that the other children needed to be interviewed in the controlled setting of the advocacy center. I informed her that I had Mandy on video stating that she did not believe we had intentially put our children in danger at the conclusion of our visit last night and she did not respond to that but to reaffirm that our “normal” children needed to be interviewed at the advocacy center. I corrected her that we do not refer to our children as “normal” and “abnormal” and prefer to use words like “typical”. She responds with ok “typical” as you say. I told her that I would talk to my husband and should I call the advocacy center directly to request a tour and she stated that I should call her first.
July 6, 2011 4:00pm- Attempted to contact Ms. Nunex at the number she provided, she did not answer multiple pages to her from the receptionist.
July 6, 2011- 4:35pm- Ms Nunex calls me back and I tell her I would like to tour the advocacy center, she tells me she will call them and I can call and set up the tour in 10 minutes.
July 6 2011- 4:45pm Spoke with Mikey Battencort at the Williamson county child advocacy center and set up tour for Monday July 15th at 4:30pm since Mr Battenocort stated that the tour would have to take place at the 4:30 mark and Monday is the first available date to do that and have the investigation the following day as he requested. I am informed that Detective Vasquez will have to decide if he can do the interview Tuesday. I am confused by this, since CPS is investigating why the detective is the one requesting the interviews?? I will call the CPS supervisor again tomorrow to clarify this. I will be visiting an attorney tomorrow at 1pm and discussing the case with him as well. I am still planning to keep the kids’ appointment with the therapist at Lonestar circle of care and will decide pending attorney advice which environment would be least stressfull for the children.
July 7, 2011 9:00am- Spoke with Kelly Van Gilder of Barron County CPS asking her if she had any information on what we had spoke about yesterday as to why Wisconsin does not interview children based solely on the fact that Austin lived in our home. She asks if I would like a letter to the fact and I say yes.
July 7 2011 9:30am- Kelly leaves me a voicemail saying that her supervisor stated she cannot provide me with that information.
July 7 2011 9:45 am- I receive a call from Mikey Battencort of The advocacy center who says to me that he had talked with Christy Smith who is taking over our case with CPS while Ms Shaw is on vacation and since he has a meeting on Monday he would like to reschedule our tour of the facility for Wednesday July 13th at 4:30 PM. I agree on that time and date.
July 7 2011 10:00am- I leave Kelly a voicemail stating that I would like to view and copy my record as per my rights under Wisconsin statute.
July 7 2011 11:40am- Kelly calls me back and says that while she cannot provide me with a letter as to why they decided not to investigate our family that I absolutely may review my record and she will confer with her supervisor as to the steps I need to take to do that. She asks me what I am looking for and I tell her that I am just trying to arm myself with information to defend myself. She asks what is going on and I tell her that we are being charged with neglectful supervision and Austin is being charged by CPS with sexually abusing our children. She states that there has never been any question as to our ability to protect our children, that we followed every rule in place and that there was never an investigation done on our family because there was never any reason to do so. She also states that she had told Ms Shaw that we were always very cooperative. She tells me that there really isn’t anything in my record that will be very helpful since there was not an investigation as to our family so there is nothing to find on one. I tell her I understand that fact completely I’m just really feeling attacked and am trying to do whatever I can to protect our children. I tell her that they are trying to force us to have our children interviewed by their interviewer despite having an appointment with a therapist in place already for the 19th that was initiated by me and that they have a signed release from me having access to speak with that therapist about her findings upon evaluation and that I am very uncomfortable with my children being forced into a sensitive line of questioning by a forensic investigator with no real reason to subject them to that as she knows I have always been the first to say that if Austin had done something wrong that he should pay the consequences for that and have always been forthcoming with any information to that fact to which she agreed. I also told her that on the flipside of that I have a vested interest in protecting Austin’s innocence if he has not done anything wrong as well as protecting my other children’s innocence from interrogation. She agreed with me on that as well. Kelly told me she would call Christy Smith and explain to her why an investigation was not done and that we have always followed all of the rules and that there has never been any reason on their part to suspect we were not or were not capable of protecting our children in our home, if there ever had been they would not have allowed Austin in our home and she would call me back, she hoped that her conversation with them would help them to put an end to this.
July 11th 2011- 9:00am. Austin’s hearing. I was not able to speak to his attorney but his attorney approached the bench and for reasons I could not hear asked the judge to reschedule the hearing. Rescheduled for July 29, 9am.
July 11 2011- 10am- Left a voicemail with Austin’s attorney asking him to return my call and let me know why it was rescheduled.
July 11 2011- 1:30 pm- Spoke with Brooke Hall who called me wondering how court went. I told her that for some reason they rescheduled the hearing and I have not been able to speak with his attorney despite 2 voicemails today to get an answer as to why they did that. She asked me to please let her know when I find out anything as since she’s juvenile and this is an adult case she doesn’t know anything unless I tell her. I clarified with her that this is not a probation hold this is a new charge and she agreed. So right to a “speedy trial” would come into play here.
July 11 2011- 2:20pm- (see audio recording) I called Christy the CPS worker who has taken over our case for Mandy Shaw due to her vacation and asked her about who was requesting the interviews with the children as I had been told by Mr Battencort at the CAV that it was Detective Vasquez and he would be present for the interview. Christy informed me that she thought that law enforcement had dropped their part but that she would check for me. I also went over with her our concerns about having our children interviewed with explicit subject matter with no allegation, she said that they would not be able to ask any leading questions or approach any subject matter not brought up by the children but that on our tour on Wednesday they could talk with me more about how they go about their questioning. She told me that after the tour to please call her on her cell phone number to discuss anything that came up in the tour. She reiterated CPS policy not to close a case without interviewing the children and I told her that I understood that but that as parents our children’s well being and being protected from questioning on subject matters they shouldn’t know anything about was of our utmost concern. She gave me her cell phone number and asked me to call after the tour on Wednesday to discuss any further concerns with her.
July 11 2011- 3:30pm- (see audio recording) Received call back from Brock Kumbuck, Austin’s public defender. I told him that after being in court this morning I was aware that Austin’s hearing had been reset and was wondering why. He told me that the state hasn’t decided what they want to do with this case yet so that was the reason for the reset.
July 13, 2011 4:30 pm- My husband and I arrive at the Williamson county children’s advocacy center with S and N. (see audio recording). We learn that the video is not submissible in court and that we will in no way be allowed to view the interview not even by closed circuit camera.
July 13, 2011 6:00pm- I leave a message on CPS worker Christina’s voicemail asking her to please return my call as I have questions about the interview
July 13, 2011- 8:40pm-(see audio recording) Christina returns my phone call and I discuss with her my concerns about bias, subjectibility, and the interview being legally defensible due to the fact that Mr Battencort stated that the DVD was not admissible and could not be viewed by anyone but CPS. After a bit of clarifying my question she said she would contact her supervisor and find out the answers to me
July 13, 2011- 9:00pm- (see audio recording). Christina calls and we talk about the video, she states that the dvd is property of CPS and it is at CPS’s discretion who sees it. I again address our concerns about subjectivity and ask why we simply cannot have our own therapist talk to the kids since there haven’t been any allegations, and reiterated to her that if something came out in therapy the therapist is, in fact, a mandated reporter, plus they also had a signed release of information from us. She re-affirmed that that’s not how they do it at which point I informed her that my husband and I had serious concerns over the subjectivity of this interview and it’s bias and that we would not be consenting to an interview and that we would, at this point, be most comfortable with a judge, upon finding, probable cause, making the decision that it’s necessary. Advised her to familiarize herself with the Calbreta V Greene case as it is very similar to ours.
Continued
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment