The nutters in CA who chained up 13 kids...

[Imzadi]

Here is the latest "Cliff notes" update video of the case on ABCNews/GMA this morning. It talks about how there were so many people listed in the protective restraining order that they had to make up two separate documents.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/judge-bans-turpins-contacting-kids-2021-52600868

ABC somehow got a copy of the oldest son's college transcripts. Maybe some other people can pick out all the courses than what I saw. I can't freeze the video, it just goes black. What I was able to catch of some of the courses from Spring 2014 -2017 are:

Basic Auto Mechanic
Auto Brake Systems
Engine Performance
Basic Music Fundamentals
Guitar I & II
Guitar Ensemble
Introduction to Mult
Freshman Composition
College Algebra
Intermediate Algebra
Intro to Archeology
Public Speaking


It was also noted on some news clip I saw that the parents are no longer looking at each other as they are sitting in the courtroom. I bet one of them, or both of them will flip on each other and blame it all on the other one, saying the other one was in charge & tortured them too into complying.

Someone here listed how they had abandoned their two dogs in the last house they were in, with no food and the dogs ended up eating the used diapers that were left in the house, until they were found. They had also tossed a kitten in the dumpster, which luckily was found by a neighbor. Neither of these two have any regard for human or animal life. I bet they will flip on each other, using the "battered spouse" defense.

 

[Imzadi]

According to the transcript on the video (at about 1:07) the oldest son in college had other classes including Intermediate and College Algebra, Public Speaking, English Fund, Freshman Composition, Basic Auto mechanics, Auto Brake Systems, Engine Performance I, as well as music related classes (Guitar I, II, and Ensemble etc) http://abc7.com/perris-torture-case-eldest-son-maintained-393-gpa/2978384/

You posted as I was typing up what I could see.

 

[Minnesota!]

I am positive that, financially, these kids (and adult kids) will be taken care of. I am sure there are news organizations that will pay $$$$ to get interviews. That kind of money would set up them for a long time. Plus services provided the state, etc. The psychological aspect of it is going to be the mountain to climb.

 

[cabanafrau]

So in CA, the family court, settles all matters regarding contact, custody, and visitation in one emergency hearing regarding minor children and this can be accomplished in a bit over a week?
Admirable! Other states' court personnel should visit and see how this is accomplished.

That is not at all what I said. I said that by statute they would already have had the emergency hearing, at which time the Court would have reviewed the preliminary evidence to determine whether or not there was probable cause to remove the children from the custody of their parents. That is part of due process. And yes, at that hearing they do decide whether or not to give preliminary custody to the department of human services or appropriate agency in the state or return them to the custody of their parents. The agency is then given discretion to place the children according to need and availability. They also set the parameters on visitation at this hearing.

Because parental rights are considered so inviolate the hearings are held generally within 24 hours as a matter of due process. There are hearings held on weekends for this very reason. It is not the final decision in the case, not by a longshot. Generally within 30 days a regular hearing is scheduled. That is when it would be expected in a case like this any family members who would like to request placement of the children would appear before the court if they are being told that DHS will not approve them. From that point on hearings are required to be held quarterly, with reports being offered by the foster care worker. The children will also have an attorney appointed at the emergency hearing who is required to visit them at least quarterly and be kept abreast of any and all matters pertaining to the case, the children and their needs.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

That is not at all what I said. I said that by statute they would already have had the emergency hearing, at which time the Court would have reviewed the preliminary evidence to determine whether or not there was probable cause to remove the children from the custody of their parents. That is part of due process. And yes, at that hearing they do decide whether or not to give preliminary custody to the department of human services or appropriate agency in the state or return them to the custody of their parents. The agency is then given discretion to place the children according to need and availability. They also set the parameters on visitation at this hearing.

Because parental rights are considered so inviolate the hearings are held generally within 24 hours as a matter of due process. There are hearings held on weekends for this very reason. It is not the final decision in the case, not by a longshot. Generally within 30 days a regular hearing is scheduled. That is when it would be expected in a case like this any family members who would like to request placement of the children would appear before the court if they are being told that DHS will not approve them. From that point on hearings are required to be held quarterly, with reports being offered by the foster care worker. The children will also have an attorney appointed at the emergency hearing who is required to visit them at least quarterly and be kept abreast of any and all matters pertaining to the case, the children and their needs.

Help me understand the legal aspect of this... You're talking about physical custody of the children which is different than parental rights, correct? What is the process for terminating parental rights and, until that happens, what kind of say and decision making power do the Turpins continue to hold over their children? Can they make decisions about their diets, medical care, religious teachings, anything at all?

I'm only vaguely familiar with parental rights in the sense that it's something a parent can choose to sign away or sign over to someone else, but what happens if a parent doesn't want to sign away their rights? A court can force that, correct, legally severing those ties if it's in the best interest of the child(ren)?

 

[punkin]

Help me understand the legal aspect of this... You're talking about physical custody of the children which is different than parental rights, correct? What is the process for terminating parental rights and, until that happens, what kind of say and decision making power do the Turpins continue to hold over their children? Can they make decisions about their diets, medical care, religious teachings, anything at all?

I'm only vaguely familiar with parental rights in the sense that it's something a parent can choose to sign away or sign over to someone else, but what happens if a parent doesn't want to sign away their rights? A court can force that, correct, legally severing those ties if it's in the best interest of the child(ren)?

Yes a court can terminate parental rights, but it is not an easy or quick thing. In this case, there may be extenuating circumstances allowing the court to move faster to terminate rights. However, that is entirely dependent on State law.

 

[Mizzoufan]

Will they lose the rights to/ the baby since they arent being charged with anything in terms with her

 

[cabanafrau]

Help me understand the legal aspect of this... You're talking about physical custody of the children which is different than parental rights, correct? What is the process for terminating parental rights and, until that happens, what kind of say and decision making power do the Turpins continue to hold over their children? Can they make decisions about their diets, medical care, religious teachings, anything at all?

I'm only vaguely familiar with parental rights in the sense that it's something a parent can choose to sign away or sign over to someone else, but what happens if a parent doesn't want to sign away their rights? A court can force that, correct, legally severing those ties if it's in the best interest of the child(ren)?

Having authority to make decisions about where children live, how they are educated, their medical care, their religious instruction, etc. are all components of parental rights. The legal removal of the children from the care and custody of their parents has opened up an abuse and neglect case, which is the path to determining whether the parental rights will be terminated. The parents will have their own attorneys for the abuse and neglect action, who can raise matters pertaining to the care and custody of the children to the court on their behalf, however the court decides who has the right to make those decisions. The parents can be kept abreast of medical appointments/needs, educational matters, but once the court has taken jurisdiction the court holds the reins and determines who will be empowered to make decisions for the children. The children will have an attorney of their own who is also kept abreast of all matters regarding the children and will give input to the court regarding what the children need -- including informing the court what the children have to say about different matters.

As abuse and neglect cases open and move through the process goals are set. Generally the goal of abuse and neglect cases is family reunification and a treatment plan will be established in an effort to achieve that goal. Some cases are set for termination outcome at the start. For obvious reasons this case would be the latter type. Depending upon the legal machinations for either the abuse and neglect action or the criminal action the adjudication in the abuse and neglect action may be rather swift, or it may drag on for quite some time because of the ties to the criminal case. The next hearing is the first regular hearing and will be the one where DHS makes a request to the court to order the parents to cooperate with a treatment plan or requests the permission of the court to file a petition for termination of parental rights.

Parents can choose to sign away parental rights. The process for the court to terminate parental rights against a parent's will is an involved process, as it should be. Removal of children from their home and the care and custody of their parents is a very serious matter. That is why there is an almost immediate hearing before the court to determine if child welfare and law enforcement were justified in removing children from their parent's custody. As I explained above, many things have to be decided at that emergency hearing, but that is merely a starting point where they decide if the children should go home immediately or if further action is needed.

 

[cabanafrau]

Will they lose the rights to/ the baby since they arent being charged with anything in terms with her

As to one, as to all.

ETA If the mother were pregnant right now and give birth while free on bail that baby would be taken into protective custody at birth.

 

[DopeyDame]

As to one, as to all.

ETA If the mother were pregnant right now and give birth while free on bail that baby would be taken into protective custody at birth.

That's interesting that you say that - is it state specific? I did CASA training, so clearly I don't have nearly the knowledge and experience you did, but in the training they specifically told us that each child is evaluated independently in abuse and neglect cases and that while it's rare, it is possible for some children to be removed and others to stay in the home. An example they gave was a neglect case where a mother had a younger child removed because she left the child home alone while mom went to work, but the older child was old enough to stay home alone and wasn't removed from the house. (Obviously they worked with mom and she eventually got resources and support so the younger child went home too, but she was in foster care for a while.)

 

[cabanafrau]

That's interesting that you say that - is it state specific? I did CASA training, so clearly I don't have nearly the knowledge and experience you did, but in the training they specifically told us that each child is evaluated independently in abuse and neglect cases and that while it's rare, it is possible for some children to be removed and others to stay in the home. An example they gave was a neglect case where a mother had a younger child removed because she left the child home alone while mom went to work, but the older child was old enough to stay home alone and wasn't removed from the house. (Obviously they worked with mom and she eventually got resources and support so the younger child went home too, but she was in foster care for a while.)

I was referring to the circumstances of this case, which will never have reunification as the goal. These parents will never have custody of any of their children again.

Yes, I am aware of the guidelines regarding the needs of each child being evaluated independently. I have yet to see a single case where some siblings are left in the home in an abuse and neglect case and others removed in the nearly twelve years and over 500 cases I have worked on.

 

[AndreaDM]

I am positive that, financially, these kids (and adult kids) will be taken care of. I am sure there are news organizations that will pay $$$$ to get interviews. That kind of money would set up them for a long time. Plus services provided the state, etc. The psychological aspect of it is going to be the mountain to climb.

And in time, there will be a book deal for sure. There will definitely be wolves circling trying to take advantage of the situation as well. With so many of them, it will be harder for those in charge to keep them protected from "predators".

 

[cabanafrau]

I wish some of the crazy wealthy celebrities, athletes and executives would be touched by a situation like this and step forward with funding to make sure the adult children have resources available to them -- with protective measures put in place that don't make them prey for financial vultures.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

Having authority to make decisions about where children live, how they are educated, their medical care, their religious instruction, etc. are all components of parental rights. The legal removal of the children from the care and custody of their parents has opened up an abuse and neglect case, which is the path to determining whether the parental rights will be terminated. The parents will have their own attorneys for the abuse and neglect action, who can raise matters pertaining to the care and custody of the children to the court on their behalf, however the court decides who has the right to make those decisions. The parents can be kept abreast of medical appointments/needs, educational matters, but once the court has taken jurisdiction the court holds the reins and determines who will be empowered to make decisions for the children. The children will have an attorney of their own who is also kept abreast of all matters regarding the children and will give input to the court regarding what the children need -- including informing the court what the children have to say about different matters.

As abuse and neglect cases open and move through the process goals are set. Generally the goal of abuse and neglect cases is family reunification and a treatment plan will be established in an effort to achieve that goal. Some cases are set for termination outcome at the start. For obvious reasons this case would be the latter type. Depending upon the legal machinations for either the abuse and neglect action or the criminal action the adjudication in the abuse and neglect action may be rather swift, or it may drag on for quite some time because of the ties to the criminal case. The next hearing is the first regular hearing and will be the one where DHS makes a request to the court to order the parents to cooperate with a treatment plan or requests the permission of the court to file a petition for termination of parental rights.

Parents can choose to sign away parental rights. The process for the court to terminate parental rights against a parent's will is an involved process, as it should be. Removal of children from their home and the care and custody of their parents is a very serious matter. That is why there is an almost immediate hearing before the court to determine if child welfare and law enforcement were justified in removing children from their parent's custody. As I explained above, many things have to be decided at that emergency hearing, but that is merely a starting point where they decide if the children should go home immediately or if further action is needed.

Thank you.

Regarding the bolded, I actually find that disheartening. I know these are complex issues, but I don't feel the goal should ever be to return a child into the care of someone who actively abused them. Having been a victim of child abuse myself, it was fear of this exact situation that stopped me from seeking help. As a kid, the closest I ever came to telling someone the truth about what was happening in my house was when I was in the hospital being interviewed by police on suspicions of abuse. Ultimately, the fear of being sent back to continue living with my parents after opening that can of worms was too terrifying, so I chickened out and told them everything was fine. Children need to feel empowered to come forward and know that if they find the courage to do so, action will be taken and they'll be kept safe. Step 1 of keeping them safe is to keep them away from their abuser.

 

[NYCgrrl]

I am positive that, financially, these kids (and adult kids) will be taken care of. I am sure there are news organizations that will pay $$$$ to get interviews. That kind of money would set up them for a long time. Plus services provided the state, etc. The psychological aspect of it is going to be the mountain to climb.

Most credible news organisations in the US do not pay for new stories.
Still there are several go fund me type set ups already in progress and invariably someone will want to write a book and the siblings can be paid that way.
As well I suspect their social workers have already placed paperwork for whatever social funds are available.

 

[DopeyDame]

I was referring to the circumstances of this case, which will never have reunification as the goal. These parents will never have custody of any of their children again.

Yes, I am aware of the guidelines regarding the needs of each child being evaluated independently. I have yet to see a single case where some siblings are left in the home in an abuse and neglect case and others removed in the nearly twelve years and over 500 cases I have worked on.

OK that makes sense - clearly in this case no kid should ever go back to their parents again. If I remember correctly the trainer could think of 2 cases that she'd seen - one was the one I mentioned above and I don't remember the details of the other case.

 

[Imzadi]

Help me understand the legal aspect of this... You're talking about physical custody of the children which is different than parental rights, correct? What is the process for terminating parental rights and, until that happens, what kind of say and decision making power do the Turpins continue to hold over their children? Can they make decisions about their diets, medical care, religious teachings, anything at all?

I'm only vaguely familiar with parental rights in the sense that it's something a parent can choose to sign away or sign over to someone else, but what happens if a parent doesn't want to sign away their rights? A court can force that, correct, legally severing those ties if it's in the best interest of the child(ren)?

At the end of the ABC news interview I linked to, the legal analyst said one of the reasons for the protective restraining order in this case, and why it is 3 years, is that they children are not only the victims, but will be witnesses for the case. They've been under emotional control of the parents for so long that the parents could potentially coerce, change and damage any of their testimony, if they have contact with them before & during trial. The parents ARE allowed to contact the kids, but ONLY through their attorneys. Supposedly, they'd monitor the exchange, so as not to damage their side of the case.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

At the end of the ABC news interview I linked to, the legal analyst said one of the reasons for the protective restraining order in this case, and why it is 3 years, is that they children are not only the victims, but will be witnesses for the case. They've been under emotional control of the parents for so long that the parents could potentially coerce, change and damage any of their testimony, if they have contact with them before & during trial. The parents ARE allowed to contact the kids, but ONLY through their attorneys. Supposedly, they'd monitor the exchange, so as not to damage their side of the case.

Easily, and I'm confident just the idea that they might ever end up in their parents' custody or control again would be enough to make them clam up. It's crucial that the people working with the children impress upon them that they will never have to have contact with their parents again if they don't want to. That's a promise that's easy enough to make in this case, unfortunately not as easy to make in other cases of abuse, especially when the court's goal is to reunite the child with the parents.

I know the courts can't go around terminating parental rights willy-nilly but, in cases of child abuse, it really seems like the odds are stacked against the victim. Imagine if other situations were handled this way: A woman is assaulted. If she has the courage she can report this to the authorities, but if they doubt her story, or if she doesn't have enough proof, or if it goes to court and she loses her case she'll be sent to live with her attacker. And her attacker is bigger and stronger and holds all the power over her. And because she dared to report him to authorities, he's especially angry with her. And it's the court's goal to keep them together.

I doubt many adults would come forward in those circumstances; it's an awful lot to ask of an abused child. I don't have the answers, I just think it's sad.

 

[Wishing on a star]

I am hearing about the classmate of the older girl, who, years ago, in elementary school, said she came to school filthy and smelling foul.
It is so sad that she was bullied mercilessly!!!!

But, what makes me angry...
Aren't the schools mandated reporters.... They are supposed to protect the basic welfare of the children.
This girl came to school without basic hygiene, and malnourished.
WHERE WAS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT!!!!

PS: I also see a picture of the mother SMILING (at the father') when they were there today.

 

[DonaldnDaisy5]

I am hearing about the classmate of the older girl, who, years ago, in elementary school, said she came to school filthy and smelling foul.
It is so sad that she was bullied mercilessly!!!!

But, what makes me angry...
Aren't the schools mandated reporters.... They are supposed to protect the basic welfare of the children.
This girl came to school without basic hygiene, and malnourished.
WHERE WAS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT!!!!

PS: I also see a picture of the mother SMILING (at the father') when they were there today.

Not sure about TX but in my state cps is grossly understaffed. I know of a student who has had cps called multiple times every year since kindergarten - with concerns specifically regarding the hygiene of the student. Someone comes out talks to student. Presumably talks to parent. Parent comes in screaming at the office staff. Case is closed. Next complaint, same cycle.

Its not fair to assume no one called and reported or talked with and gave consequences to the students for picking on her. I remember the stinky kid in my school. I remember kids teasing him. I don't remember adults doing anything but I have to believe they did. Clearly this case is extreme and anyone with contact with the children is beating themselves up over missing signs, the villains are the wack job parents.