Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron
And while I wouldn't want "ANY" child to be abused-"EVER" I would love to see there be a basis in proof for the authorities to step in.
I guess I am basing it on my experience in Canada where because of past cases it is shoot first-question later & more often then not it has caused problems & created a nightmare before the parents can be reunited!
I am sorry to offend anyone but I believe the burden of proof rests with the state & not with the burden of defense resting with families!
|
I would imagine that CPS would try to make sure that they are following all their P's and Q's to the letter. From everything that I've heard so far, I think they've been extremely careful to make sure everything they do is done correctly. They can't risk making a mistake and have everything thrown out.
Yesterday they announced that one of the sheriffs, or CPS officers, (I'm not positive which) who went to check out the allegations of the 911 call from 'Sarah' had taken the stand to testify as to what 'proof' she had witnessed. She was able to question a schoolroom full of children if they knew a 16-year old, pregnant girl named Sarah, and several told her, 'yes, they knew of her'. Yet the adults have denied knowing any Sarah that fits that profile.
Quote:
|
The girl has yet to be identified, though Voss said a girl matching her description was seen by other girls in the ranch garden four days before the raid began.
|
I'm sure that was all they needed to be able to go in and find Sarah.
Instead of finding Sarah, they find several pregnant minors. They did the right thing. And have the proof to back it up.