Social ‘services’ let down a little boy
Words cannot express my horror and disgust at reading of the abuse, neglect and death of 7-year-old Chandler Grafner (“School officials, grandmother reported concerns about boy,” May 10). We can only imagine Chandler’s tears and terrors as he huddled in that locked closet, starving. It’s not a pretty picture.
Now, how do we deal with a social “services” department that allowed this to happen? If Chandler’s grandmother told a caseworker of her fears — and his — why was he not removed from this home? The man was not related to Chandler. Did no professional social worker investigate that home and family before the placement? Does the law not state a preference for
placement with family? Was the child not interviewed by a professionally qualified social worker?
Teachers contacted social “services” but their concerns were ignored. Why?
Where was the supervision?
What needs to see the light of day is the pattern of inept behavior that likely exists by people paid to safeguard children. How many other families and children are now suffering or have suffered from this unprofessional, inhumane treatment? How many more must suffer? These are not minor questions and I think we all deserve the answers.
Robert Gunnett, Morrison
Robert Gunnet you are so right. I
read this horrific story and my stomach felt sick. I tried to imagine the horror of that little child in that closet because of demonic people that should never have a child. This is the sickest of the sickest. Worse are the authorities. What is wrong with the social services? It is their responsibility to protect these little children being murdered. They should be held accountable. Held in jail for murder. They may as well have done it themselves. We deserve the answers you are right and the public that pays Social Services has a right to know why. We have a right to know and investigate. Thank God for teachers. They tried and once again the system let them down. That is flat out inept and :" Lazy"
It seems like the child's low body weight alone should have provided justification to remove him from the home. This type of injury could only have happened due to intentional neglect. There's no chance that Chandler's death could have been an accident.
Posted by karen on May 11, 2007 02:31 AMOne of the arguements social services gave to the grandmother about not granting her custody when the mother was deemed unfit is that she doesn't have a car . (Does that mean only folks with cars are fit to raise children - and if so, does that mean at the birth of a child, the parents should be asked if they have a car - and if not, the child should immediately be taken away?)
So the court system gave the boy into the care of a couple not related to him who ultimately killed him - but apparently they did have at least one car! Let's hear it for the judge who granted custody to the child killers (since we are assigning blame). How about to the states and counties that underfund social services - since I have read that each case worker has 20-22 cases, which barely allows time for a monthly check on the children involved with what I suspect to be mountains of bureaucratic paperwork to be completed (failure to complete that would probably result in loss of the job - yes - I know that there were multiple reports sent to DHS, and it seems they were ignored - but were they?).
How about the rest of us, who whine about taxation - then scream for heads to roll when something like this occurs when a department is underfunded? Sorry folks, like her or not, Hillary Clinton was right when she said that it 'takes a village to raise a child' - and this village failed that little boy.
Posted by Mary on May 11, 2007 05:06 AMYou are all so right. The people who did this should never see the light of day again. We'll see if the justice system actually holds them fully accountable for this horror. And what about the Boulder couple? What crack-brained judge let them out on bond with an ankle bracelet? I'm never going to visit Boulder if letting murderers out on the street with only an ankle bracelet is standard. These two should be behind bars FOREVER.
We as a society need to demand more from social services. In what universe, if an adult felt threatened by another person, or had signs of having been abused, would a judge or other authority send that adult back to live with her/his abuser? There is no magic cure - no "anger management", or "parenting" classes that should be sufficient to send a child back to someone who had previously abused the child.
It should be ONE STRIKE, YOU'RE OUT.
Posted by on May 11, 2007 07:16 AMMary, I think you hit the nail squarely.
We chronically underfund these agencies, scream "nanny state" whenever they actually do step in, and then scream blue murder if they don't.
This case is exactly what we should expect from the corner we paint social services into.
We got what we paid for.
07:16 AM
There is still a basic principle in this country: Innocent until proven guilty. The determination of guilt is not made by Social Services. Rather, it is made by due process of Law, in the Court.
The right of bail for the accused, pending Trial, supercedes the "judgment by newspaper, TV, or media"; and is one of the basic guarantees of freedoms and rights that is there for all citizens.
That bail may be denied in certain cases - mostly those considered to be "capital", or potentially leading to either the death penalty, or life in prison without parole - is a Statutory provision, the exact application of which varies from State to State. Apparently, this case did not - or does not - come under the heading of "capital"; and the Judge set bail accordingly.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 11, 2007 09:07 AM07:16 AM
There is still a basic principle in this country: Innocent until proven guilty. The determination of guilt is not made by Social Services. Rather, it is made by due process of Law, in the Court.
The right of bail for the accused, pending Trial, supercedes the "judgment by newspaper, TV, or media"; and is one of the basic guarantees of freedoms and rights that is there for all citizens.
That bail may be denied in certain cases - mostly those considered to be "capital", or potentially leading to either the death penalty, or life in prison without parole - is a Statutory provision, the exact application of which varies from State to State. Apparently, this case did not - or does not - come under the heading of "capital"; and the Judge set bail accordingly.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 11, 2007 09:09 AMSorry. Sticking mouse key again. Didn't intend the double posting.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 11, 2007 09:11 AMPlease read todays RMN regarding the grandmothers actions and how social services took sides in this. If any of us had had the information they had, who would we have picked?
I`m a firm believer in capital punishment and these two deserve it.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 11, 2007 09:18 AMOld Grouch, when they, the 2 guardians, are found guilty in court, maybe they could be stripped naked and thrown into cages at Civic Center park and left to starve to death just like Chandler. Obviously Social Services people are totally worthless in doing their jobs. It might not be all their fault, but they did a totally worthless effort of protecting that boy, but there should be some folks lose their jobs for this tragedy. However, it didn't begin with Social Services dropping the ball. It all began with people making a terrible choice and having sex out of wedlock. Anybody ever think about that? If the parents cared enough to get married maybe Chandler would still be alive. Mary, it doesn't take a village to raise a child. It takes 2 parents who will shower the child with love and protection, not abuse and murder.
Posted by Jay on May 11, 2007 09:32 AMOkay, old grouch, I guess we should just tell the kids in a potentially lethal situation "Hang in there dude - the trial comes up in a couple months - we'll rescue you then, IF they're found guilty. But if not, we'll give them a second chance (at you)."
Posted by on May 11, 2007 09:51 AMLooking at what Jay and Sharon have to say, I am impressed at just how thin the veneer of civilization is.
Eagerness to return to barbarity and cruelty and to trash the accumulated wisdom of millennia to have rights, to enjoy a fair trial, and to be judged by facts rather than rumor.
Nice going guys, great to see how much you value civilization.
Hey B.s. I said after they are found guilt. And I know so many here either love or hate what the Bible says, but it did mention something about an eye for an eye. These 2, if found guilty, deserve to be starved to death.
Posted by Jay on May 11, 2007 11:07 AMJay, your shot that it doesn`t take a village to raise a child is just your opinion. actually the village tried very hard to help this boy, but Social Services did drop the ball. Out of wedlock sex is not why this child died. Biological parents kill their kids too.
Platitudes are warm and fuzzy for the individual who live by them, but we need to find out why SS couldn`t see the truth here.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 11, 2007 11:21 AMYep Jay, I know what you said.
Civilization has moved on considerably since the bronze-age ideas that went into the bible.
These people may well "deserve to be starved to death", but that isn't exactly the approach of a civilized nation.
Just because they did something barbaric doesn't mean we should return our system of criminal justice to the bronze age and starve them.
Posted by Bango Skank on May 11, 2007 11:24 AMBS, IS A GOOD NAME FOR YOU...I THINKING KEEPING A CHILD IN A CLOSET AND STARVING HIM IS BABARIC AND NOT CIVILIZED AT ALL.
Posted by SHARON on May 11, 2007 11:29 AMThere is obviously more to this case than what any of us... or the press know. Don't you find it odd that, the children, long before living with either of these two, had a reported history of looking malnurished? Or that, the two arrested are the ones who called 911... or how the grandmother is eagerly whoring out her story to anone who will listen...even though social services found her to be guilty of neglect?
Obviously the DA has a good deal of information to press first degree murder charges, but at the same time, it's obvious that there is A LOT more to this story.
Posted by JB on May 11, 2007 11:54 AMThere is obviously more to this case than what any of us... or the press know. Don't you find it odd that, the children, long before living with either of these two, had a reported history of looking malnurished? Or that, the two arrested are the ones who called 911... or how the grandmother is eagerly whoring out her story to anone who will listen...even though social services found her to be guilty of neglect?
Obviously the DA has a good deal of information to press first degree murder charges, but at the same time, it's obvious that there is A LOT more to this story.
Posted by JB on May 11, 2007 11:55 AMThere is obviously more to this case than what any of us... or the press know. Don't you find it odd that, the children, long before living with either of these two, had a reported history of looking malnurished? Or that, the two arrested are the ones who called 911... or how the grandmother is eagerly whoring out her story to anone who will listen...even though social services found her to be guilty of neglect?
Obviously the DA has a good deal of information to press first degree murder charges, but at the same time, it's obvious that there is A LOT more to this story.
Posted by JB on May 11, 2007 11:56 AMNot Sharon B. but right on. Bango, I believe, think, support ets, capiltal punishment for these two if found guilty.
I have never claimed to be completely cilvilized. I could have killed Ted Bundy with a pair of nail clippers if no one else wanted to execute him.
I, as a Humanist, call that "taking out the human garbage" No bibllical authority needed for me to have one or two barbaric notions.
Remember the Mikado"? that line, let the punishment fit the crime, is perfect.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 11, 2007 11:57 AMSharon, did I say that it was?
Of course it was uncivilized and barbaric.
Why does that mean that our reaction should be the same?
Do you really value civilization so little that you would toss it aside this quickly?
Ok, when they are found guilty, we will not use starvation, as they recently did in Florida on an innocent woman who was guilty of being the victim of bad medicine. We will not use firing squad either. Hanging and the electric chair are also quite barbaric to most. I guess that leaves lethal injection, or just let then snort meth until they die.
Posted by Jay on May 11, 2007 01:02 PMIf they are found guilty, they should be forced to debate online with Sharon B. , Truth, Old Grouch, Mytwosense, and anderson for the rest of their lives.
Would that be too harsh?
Posted by John II on May 11, 2007 03:59 PMJohn II, Dear Goddess, even I would not subject anyone to debating us as punishment. Only the people into S&M go up against us.
Bango, All I said was I am in favor of capital punishment. I didn`t say how that should be done.
BANGO there is an imposter in here named SHARON. Beware of cheap imatations, always insist on the real thing.
This is a serious and deeply depressing subject, please don`t mix what Isay with others.
Posted by on May 11, 2007 04:18 PMCriminal: Black
Sharon B.: White
Truth: Apparently, Criminal thinks all colors should be black.
Criminal: Sharon, why do you say white?
Sharon: I didn't say white. I said white and black.
Criminal: No, you said white.
Sharon: Criminal, there's more than just two colors in this world.
Truth: Apparently, Criminal believes he is the only who gets to choose a color.
Criminal: Truth, I never said that. Sharon, of course there's more than two colors in the world. I never said otherwise.
anderson: We should protect illegal immigrants right to enjoy all colors.
Mytwosense: Good point, anderson. Criminal thinks no one else should have a crayon but himself. Why do you hate this country Criminal???
Criminal: I don't hate this country.
Old Grouch: Remember when Bic pens were a nickel? Then corrupt religious Catholics came along and stole all the pens. All that was left was pencils and...................................................................................
...................................................................................
......................bread was free.................and I never did find my wallet............................................................
.............So, then I say, keep the high heels on...........
...........................................................but the whip was too big........................... So, don't let Criminal get to you, Truth because Coke bottles don't grow on trees, they grow underground like carrots.
Criminal: Old Grouch, I don't get it.
Mytwosense: That was rude Criminal!!
Truth: Criminal believes all crayons should be black. But his belief is anti-American since 35% like blue, 22% like red, 10% like purple and only 2% like black.
Criminal: So what?
Mytwosense: You're so mean Criminal. Truth was just telling you what Americans believe and you attack him. So rude...
John II, the high heels and the whip eh?
Funny stuff. I could be mean, and say,
But no, not today.
For your affliction I will pray,
Save venom for another fray.
"If they are found guilty, they should be forced to debate online with Sharon B. , Truth, Old Grouch, Mytwosense, and anderson for the rest of their lives.
Would that be too harsh?"
"Funny stuff. I could be mean, and say,
But no, not today.
For your affliction I will pray,
Save venom for another fray."
If they had to read poetry like this, I think it would be too harsh.
Posted by Bob L. on May 11, 2007 06:08 PMSharon, Sharon. you, who advocate sticking scissors in the back of a baby's head and sucking the brains out so the mother does not have to have pregnancy she doesnt want, are talking about how awful the system is in this case? You think nothing wrong of killing a baby this way, but you are outraged at what the guardians did to this child? Outrage should go for ALL children who die at the hands of those who are supposed to love and care for them.
Posted by kj on May 11, 2007 09:24 PMkj, now why would you concentrate on me, when so many others have expressed the same views?
"So the mother does not have to have a pregnancy she doesn`t want"
You had numerous chances last month to read first peson stories from mothers who desperately wanted their babies, but had to have this done for reasons you don`t give a damn about.
kj, kj, next time you are on fire call me, otherwise stuff it!
Posted by Sharon B. on May 11, 2007 11:11 PMI see where, as usual, the Great Obfuscator and Pompous Pundit of the Non Sequitur has . . . . . . . . . .?
Well, anyway, whatever it be that he usually does with anyone else's presentation; since he never attempts to limit himself to the point.
I made a specific reply to someone protesting the granting of bail - with conditions - in the case.
But, I'm glad he got to exercise his typing skills anyway.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 12, 2007 09:48 AM
hey Sharon, you are right. i apologize. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and choices. I am not so much against abortion in the first trimester, but later on seems so...cruel....and I can say I wouldnt have one myself, but I shouldnt say what others can and cant do. Thank you.
Posted by kj on May 13, 2007 04:40 PMKJ, I pobably never would have had one either, but I know some who did and I never met anyone, personally, who had a late term abortion. A lot of my friends over the years have had miscarages, even late term ones, and I wouldn`t wish that on a dog.
Later, sb
Posted by Sharon B. on May 13, 2007 05:30 PMkj,
"...but I shouldnt say what others can and cant do. "
Sounds like anarchy to me...
Posted by John II on May 13, 2007 05:36 PMwhy is that John? I am not saying I agree with it, but I am not proud of myself for slamming someone who thinks differently than i do. I dont think that is anarchy. I can have my beliefs without shoving them down others throats, which is what a lot of people on here do, its not going to change someone else's mind, just makes a fool out of the one who thinks he/she is right.
Posted by kj on May 13, 2007 06:03 PMkj,
You should have stuck to your guns on this comment:
"Sharon, Sharon. you, who advocate sticking scissors in the back of a baby's head and sucking the brains out so the mother does not have to have pregnancy she doesnt want, are talking about how awful the system is in this case? You think nothing wrong of killing a baby this way, but you are outraged at what the guardians did to this child? Outrage should go for ALL children who die at the hands of those who are supposed to love and care for them."
This forum is mainly used for debating relevant issues. Sticking scissors into the skull of a baby and sucking the brains is out is an issue worthy of contempt. There's no reason to back down or play nice on an issue like that.
Posted by John II on May 13, 2007 06:38 PMJohn, I didnt back down one bit, I still hold my original belief, but did I win anything by that? No, I abhor late term abortion, even mid term, and I dont like first trimester, but I can debate without being a bitch. I could have asked her why she felt the way she did about the 7 year old, but chose to defend the barbaric late term abortion, that could have promted a discussion as opposed to what happened.
Posted by kj on May 13, 2007 06:59 PM