What is Digg?110 Comments
- Taquoshi, on 10/10/2007, -4/+61The boy was removed from the home on suspicion of child abuse and the parent's protested, to the cost of over $500,000 and all they get is $2.00? What a mockery!!! The State should pay the legal costs. They might learn something from it next time.
- Larzz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+35I believe this article is spinning in favor of the state. Are they trying to infer that the parents are greedy because they declined offers of $100,000 and $200,000 plus payed legal fees? The point here is that the parents took the case to court to set a precedence. Remember, the beginning of the article says, "Without this case, social workers would still be violating the rights of parents.'' In the magic world, this is called time misdirection because most of those who read the article will remember the last statements more vividly and thus make stronger emotional connections about the article.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29This looks like the court was making a personal statement, perhaps to discourage others from questioning the child services dept.. Either way, it's a slap in the face and doesn't appear to be very well thought out. The negative publicity this produces will far outweigh whatever the Prosecutor thinks they got away with.
- rapidblue, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22They are not greedy, they just wanted their voices heard. Had they taken the settlement, social services could have continued their wrong doings. The state should be responsible for all cost when they are in the wrong.
- arekkusu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Well they did call their son Rusty ...
- four2five, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14I disagree that they got greedy. Most settlements do not include an admission of wrong doing. The way I read this article is that the government offered them a settlement early on and that settlement represented a decision: take the money now or else possible forgo the money and fight for what you believe to be right. If they take the money the government doesn't have to admit they were wrong.
I don't think this should be an "or" decision. The statute that says they forgo getting paid for their "costs" if a settlement is rejected seems ridiculous because it would appear to give the government carte blanc to do whatever they want and just pay settlements. The system never changes, the government is just out some cash if/when they get called out on their misdeeds. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16Are you a parent? Do you know what it's like dealing with the state in regards to your children?
- reflex768, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Hate to disagree with sicc, but your headline's fine, IMO. I don't need the whole story in the headline, I need a reason to be curious enough to read it. It's pretty clear that there's a story there in a $2 award. It's just enough to make you think "eh?" and that's all you need.
- Titan486, on 10/10/2007, -20/+29"Court papers filed by Russell state the Roskas were offered settlements of $100,000 and $200,000 in 2006 and by law could recoup any earlier legal fees. "
Sounds like they got greedy... - burnstyle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10never say never
- kcpwnsgman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9throw it at them?
- LeeSoong, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10The settlement money was hush money - trying to shut up parents from invoking the 4th Amendment rights of themselves and of their children.
The parents stuck to their principles, because they KNEW the social workers were wrong, the government KNEW it was in the wrong too, or else they wouldn't have tried to buy off the parents with $200,000.
I congratulate the parents for protecting their rights, standing by principle, and for rescuing their child from bureaucrats.
Now the Parents have set Federal president - many more children will be protected from getting whisked away in the dark of night.
They should go for the movie deal - Hollywood story material. And write a book.
Does this know mean parents or young people now have the right to resist the Draft? - Run4yourlives, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10>'The idea behind it is, if we make an offer and you go to trial and get less than the offer, you didn't actually prevail,'' said Assistant Attorney General Matthew Bates. ''You're actually worse off, so we shouldn't have to pay fees [after] the date of the offer.''
You'd have to be in government to think logic like that makes any sense. Last time I checked, it was the right of anyone to have their day in court.
The court decided in favor of them and yet slapped them in the face with a $2 award. This will get adjusted eventually, and that judge should be "adjusted" as well. What an abuse of power. - PatrickHenry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Are you inferring the Roskas abused their children? Just because you don't abuse your kids, doesn't mean the state will not charge you with abuse. It would seem the Roskas were on some body's hit list to harass. Any neighbor can complain to CPS and WHAM your kid is taken. This country really is in sickening shape when a court awards $2 dollars for the pain the parents suffered at the hands of the state of utah. In my opinion, the case worker and her supervisor should both be made to pay the attorney's fees as they were the people that were responsible for the incident. Also, they should be removed from their positions with the state and not allowed any other positions of any authority over the people.
PH - EasY_TargeT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6sounds like the parents wanted to set a precident, like Larzz said. if they settled there would be no court case thereofre no precident.
- four2five, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I make no comment on if the parents deserved to take the kid away or not. In the article it states that the child was returned after 7 days and makes no mention of the kid getting taken away again so my assumption is that the parents weren't hurting the kid. If they were, a court case would have occurred.
In the end, this isn't about if the kid should be with them or not but instead it revolves around if the government has the right to take kids away without a court hearing. Can an agent of the state make a legally binding decision and not offer your the recourse of a hearing to defend yourself and argue your point. In more generic terms, are parents still innocent until proven guilty or can a social worker just declare you guilty?
Going back to the point of "whats to say they didn't do it?", the actual incident occurred in 1999. I'm guessing that if something bad was going to happen, it'd have happened by now. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6The settlements did not include the State being found in the wrong -- which was the _point_ of the exercise.
You'll note this isn't about the award, just the payment of legal fees. - yndy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Actually, it sounds like they were trying to get an actual judgment in order to set case precedence to keep CPS from being able to violate the 14th Amendment repeatedly - because if you settle out of court, it sets NO legal precedent.
- compgeek, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9this is just sad. so what if they rejected settlement offers if someone took my child (don't have any but if I did) away from me for 7 days for alleged child abuse and there was no court hearing I'd sue too and they bloody well know $100K is a slap in the face for what they did if the parents are suing for 500G's like 1/5 of that is gonna seem reasonable to them. but this $2 award for 7 days of not knowing whether they would get their kid back. I think they should go to a higher court to have that ruling set aside and the case retried first of all and second of all that judge needs to get his head out of his power trip ass and see that $2 is a huge SIZE OF THE EARTH slap in the face for 7 days of unknowing about your child's wereabouts or if they are being well cared for. dugg in support of the parents
- acdcfanbill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I would reject settlements too, on pure principal, not to mention this sets a nice precedent for future cases, whereas a settlement wouldn't.
- 3adkied, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I agree the statute sounds shady. I have to question the validity of it, though. They claim it exists because a jury award less than the settlement would constitute 'losing', and they shouldn't have to pay for your legal fees when you 'lost ground' during that period. While that seems to make some sense, it really isn't fair to compare a 'no fault' dollar amount to a jury award for a settled case where fault was found. I feel guilty that they had to foot the bill for improving the legal system for all of us even when they weren't at fault. It's hard to say if they 'got greedy' or just wanted the right thing done regardless of cost. Keep in mind, they're not asking for a larger reward, only coverage of actual legal costs.
- quazywabbit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No its not. its just as bad. In one you have them being taken away from an abusive family and in the other you are having them being taken away from a loving family.
- XBunnyRacer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Half a million in attorney fees...
I need to go to law school. - drmangrum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3From the article
"The Roskas' legal fees total $536,000."
The state didnt even offer half of the legal fees. They weren't being greedy, the state is being cheap and using intimidation to get their way. I hope this makes it to a federal court if possible. - sicc, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6You should have made it clear they spent $500,000 only to be awared $2. Happy digging!
=P - JeremyCouch, on 12/22/2008, -0/+3These people deserve to get paid. They are heroes! Of course the government wanted to settle before the case was decided because now that it has been decided they actually have to obey the constitution and not violate the 4th amendment. Without the parents sacrificing parents and children all around the country would be in danger of facing similar action from these bureaucrats.
- AllYourBase3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3They also rejected settlements in the hundreds of thousands of dollars before. Did you even read the article?
- drmangrum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's not the courts place to make a statement. They are supposed to decide what is legal and illegal. That's all. That's their purpose. If social services overstepped their authority, and that decision lead to those kinds of legal fees, the state should pay legal fees and a ***** more than $2 in damages. Lost wages and pain/suffering alone should rank up in the millions. Nothing like being ripped away from your parents in your core developmental years and being told your being abused without firm evidence.
- Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5This sort of thing just sickens me. Anyone who tries to take either of my kids from me should expect to get a bullet in the head. It's really that simple. Then again, I don't abuse my kids, so no one should have a reason to try it in the first place.
- ricree, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"You're goddamned right it is of questionable legality to take a kid from the parents without PROVING guilt"
The problem is that there's pretty much no way to win here for child services. Proving guilt takes a long time, and in cases where there is serious abuse, a lot of damage can be done to the children. Of course, on the flip side you can wind up taking kids away from their families when it is unnecessary. There's really no good way to do this, but if the consequences of leaving a child in an abusive situation can be a lot worse than taking them away when there is no abuse. - joemofo214, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3thats the utah court system for ya.
- akula696969, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The government will learn a lesson when the good people of SLC come out en-mass to protest this injustice. These people did the right thing for the right reasons and got a big f-u from the court system.
- simplynix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The state? Learn something? I'm sure they'll just raise taxes on addicts, hire new state troopers to pass out more traffic violations, continue to raise tuition rates at state schools at nearly the inflation of a postage stamp, shall I go on?
- miriclaire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The kid was brought back speedily--7 days-- so obviously they found no wrongdoing. Except they called him Rusty.
- fino35, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2well, at least they can buy rusty a happy meal.
- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Shoot the kid?
There's nothing in the article saying they DIDNT abuse the kid...only that in the state of Utah it's now of questionable legality to take the kid without doing a court date first.....
which means the kid COULD end up dead, now.
And people are unanimously siding with the parents, WHY? There has to be some reason the judge awarded $2 in this case. - Hillsfar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1...
- raema, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Of course it sets a precedent. The judge conceded that the parents are in the right. or perhaps he thought he couldn't get away with denying them. If the case went to a higher court he probably would have got reprimanded. Judges with god complexes are everywhere. He's trying to get away with whatever he thinks he can.
- greeneyes137, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The problem with this in the US, and I'd be curious if Australia is the same, is the Social WOrkers and goverment do NOT give a *****. You hear about countless local and national stories of kids getting taken to foster care for child abuse just to get abused under the foster care AND be found out to have never been in foster care to begin with.
All I have to do to really ***** your world up? Call CPS and anonomyously suggest from a payphone that I saw you beating your kids and I got your liscense plate number from your car.
These people get paid about as much as a Mc Donalds worker. THey hate their life, they hate their job, and worse, they Think they're doing some good. - shadowspawn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@Taquoshi
It's UTAH. What do you expect? - VAPerson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Titan, you are just ignorant. You have no basis to state whether they are greedy. A lot of times a settlement includes a statement that the plaintiff concedes there was no wrong doing on the part of the state (defendant). This means the state can keep pulling the same crap with other parents. These parents sound like they had principals and wanted a ruling finding there was wrongdoing on the part of the state so that in the future no one else would be put through the same crap they went through. To some people it isn't just about the money, it is about what is right. I don't think these parents should be penalized if this is what happened in this case. You'll notice the prosecutor is trying ton concentrate simply on the monetary aspects and not the findings of wrongdoing.
- dantoro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I thought everyone knew Utah isn't part of the united states? the judge is making a joke of his own court room.
- drmangrum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nope, happy meals cost $4.
- ChildeRoland420, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But that never happened here. There was no proof of abuse, or they would've had a trial, which they didn't.
- DVL53, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's not limited to Utah. This "government of the people" has become the "government of the government, by the government, for the government" for too long. Decisions like this reinforce the perception that you can't assert your rights unless you have the loot to pay huge legal fees. The burden should be the other way around where the government must prove their case when assailing the rights of the populace.
- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The kid was taken away for 7 days for suspected abuse.... That's a very short period of time and a very reasonable expectation..
I don't see how the parents were seeking massive amounts of money for that. Nine times out of ten, the abuse is really happening and will happen worse if charges have to be pressed before the kid can be taken to safety - Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In most cases of this I've seen (admittedly I've occasionally known the parents)... the kid is returned due to lack of evidence, not lack of abuse.
It's very easy for a social worker to know the abuse is happening. It's very difficult to make it stick.
You can take a computer without warrent if you have reasonable suspicion.
At least around here, you can temporarily take a kid if you have reasonable suspicion. - Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, as I said, removal of the kid isn't the same as criminal conviction. While the concept scares me a little that my kid can be removed temporarily by someone's whim, it seems to me that putting a kid back with the parent until after trial seems like you're asking for more abuse.
Imagine this scenario.
1) Kid goes to hospital with injuries almost certainly caused by abuse...parents tell obvious lie about cause
2) Social Services steps in and......tells parent they're going to fight to take away custody...
3) Parents go home with kid and await trial...
4) Kid ends up in hospital again?
WHAT THE ***** - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I bet it's along the lines of: "Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb"
Oh I hope someone remembers that episode. - Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Temporary removal for the kid is NOT a criminal conviction. It's an act for the safety of the kid.
Maybe MA just has extreme laws on that, but they can take your kid away here on a bruised knee if they plan to take it to court on you. -
Show 51 - 100 of 105 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is