Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

The problem with that avenue is that this sort of agency is very vengeful and they have the power to make your life very miserable. So if after you've won your injunction they find half an excuse to 'intervene' again they'll definitely do so.

It's rare that I would advocate to just let it be but in this case that would seem to me to be the safest option. Pick your battles.

View on HN

Bingo, I live in mortal fear of DCF and our next encounter (that how crazy the paranoia is). I pray every day, even now, that I am off their radar. I don't want anything to do with them. I don't want their money (I have exited 3 start-ups, I have enough, I am not FU rich but enough that I don't want to bring their heat). I just want to give them a wide birth and stay away from them.

I've seen these people operate up close (fortunately not regarding my kids, but kids of close friends) and they do more damage than good for all the 'best intentions' (assuming they have those).

What bugs me most is that these institutions seems to be staffed mostly with people that have no children, go figure...

I understand your predicament, I myself don't have kids but I understand what it would feel like to take your children away. But I also understand that you have time and a lawyer who already knew about the case. I'd ask him if there's a statute of limitations on this sort of thing. You may have a chance to fight back, and at least help sort out this unjust system.

I was born and raised in Florida, all of my family is in Florida we have been here for 13 generations. My grandmother's uncle was the first US citizen born in Florida after it became part of the US. I am the caretaker of my grandparents (the only reason I never moved to the Valley). Other than the Valley, Florida is the only place that I would want to live. The only way I would have ever considered taking action against them would have been to leave Florida and be out of their reach. It was really not an option given my history and my grandparents needs. They are an organization known for their retribution against individuals who try to oppose them. They are extreme powerful and not really an organization to be trifled with unless you are willing to endure some extreme hardships in the name of principals.

If I had taken action, it would have been less for money and more to force their hand at bringing the wife that made the allegations up on felony criminal charges. That is a personal vendetta of mine and would served no good for my family, so now I just let sleeping dogs lie. As I said, I give them a wide birth and try to avoid any contact with that organization.

Gee, seems like Scientology's got some competition, there.

How is accusing them of negligence going to generate more evidence against you? If no-one stands up to this organization this sort of thing is going to continue to happen.

Absolutely, it's just that since they're not going to change their ways because of specific individuals taking action it is probably more effective (and less costly) to take this on by people that have no direct stake in the results. That means a platform that is widely carried instead of individual cases against individual persons or the entity as a whole.

So it doesn't mean that you shouldn't stand up, pick your battles literally means that you decide on the battleground and make sure they can't get back at you in some sneaky way that will upset your life in ways that you probably really wouldn't care about. See some of the other stories in this thread about how those things go.

It is different when you have kids. I don't know your situation (if you have kids), but the threat of taking my kids, trumps the need for social justice (just telling the truth). If I have to stand so be it, but I will turn tail and run when it comes to my kids and their well-being. Principals only go so far when it involves my kids. Because my principals tell me that it is my kids above all else. Fighting them risks my kids and that is not something I am willing to do.

It's really not difficult for them to find some violation that could be some kind of "dangerous" situation. Is every outlet in your house child-proof? Is every bookshelf, dresser, etc. secured to the wall so it cannot tip over onto a child? Are your toilet lids locked closed to a child cannot fall into them? There really is no limit to the things they can find.

Even worse, they can bring your children to psychologists and ask them leading questions that could lead to concerns about anything they like. DCFS can make your life a living hell if they like. And the more you piss them off the more they are likely to do just that.

"Even worse, they can bring your children to psychologists and ask them leading questions that could lead to concerns about anything they like."

I'm curious about this. In the original article, the writer mentions insisting that the interviews be recorded (and even then, they weren't).

Would you get in trouble via wiretap laws if you bugged your child during these interviews to hold a recording as evidence in the event leading questions are asked?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com