IL- Guns not an edangerment to Children....

[Autolycus]

Link To Article

Guns in home not considered endangerment
DCFS isn't investigating Johnson case

December 25, 2006
BY KENDRICK MARSHALL Staff Writer
Unless asked to by authorities, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services says it will not be investigating whether Chicago Bears defensive lineman Terry "Tank" Johnson endangered his two children after a Gurnee SWAT team stormed his home morning and seized six guns along with marijuana.

The children, ages 3 and 20 months, along with Johnson's girlfriend, were escorted from the scene by police officers following the raid and taken to the Gurnee Police Department.

Gurnee Police Cmdr. Jay Patrick confirmed the children were held in an interview room for two hours and later released after Johnson posted bail. During that time Johnson's girlfriend was not questioned about her involvement in the raid, Patrick said.

DCFS spokesperson Kendall Marlowe said the agency had never investigated a case involving Johnson's children, but said it is a possibility that could change if police urge the agency to do so in the coming days.

Lake County Chief of Felony Review Dan Shanes said authorities could contact the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services during their investigation if it was determined there had been any child endangerment issues at the residence.

However, Marlowe says each situation is judged on a case-by-case basis depending on the severity and perception of the alleged neglect.

"If someone has a gun in their home around children, it is not necessarily a case of endangerment," Marlowe said. "It all involves weighing risk factors that a child might be injured. So it is speculation on the part of the person doing the reporting."

Marlowe said members of the general public may report suspected child abuse and neglect if they are concerned.

Illinois law also allows so-called mandated reporters -- physicians, teachers, law enforcement officials and social workers -- to make reports if they have reasonable cause to suspect a risk of potential abuse or neglect.

According to DCFS policy, a person's failure to report suspected instances of child abuse or neglect constitutes a misdemeanor.

The report goes on to say that simply reporting suspicions to a superior does not satisfy legal requirements.

In the meantime, Shanes said authorities will continue investigations before any further litigation takes place.

"The charges that we have filed (against Johnson and William Posey) were based on information we have as of now," Shanes said. "As our investigation progresses, we'll be reviewing all the information that's available and determining where to go from there."

I am still interested to see how this case plays out. Next time an anti from the Cook County area says it endangers the children perhaps we could point out that in the next county over the children are not endangered.

 

[iamkris]

Frankly, it's disgusting that the subject even has to be mentioned. The article assumes that the guns are an endangerment and apparently it takes some DCFS stiff to tell us peons that they aren't.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Illinois law also allows so-called mandated reporters -- physicians, teachers, law enforcement officials and social workers -- to make reports if they have reasonable cause to suspect a risk of potential abuse or neglect.

Hmmm..."(M)andated reporters"... I guess that is the same as mandating that FFLs do the job of law enforcement without the pay, without taking the oath to the Constitution, without the backing of government to pay their legal bills, without the immunity from criminal charges if they misque... Yes, unconstitutional duties(powers) forced upon someone not elected or appointed and confirmed as part of the government.

Does anyone else not see the wrong in all of this?

Woody

How many times must people get bit in the (insert appropriate anatomical region) before they figure out that infringing upon rights sets the stage for the detrimental acts those rights are there to deter? B.E.Wood

 

[mbt2001]

The SWAT team raided his house because he had some weed and some guns??? ***?????

Was he running around with a joint and pointing guns at people??

 

[highlander 5]

I have little sympathy for Mr. Johnson if previous reports are true but this last one sounds like a fishing expedition to me

 

[jnojr]

The title of this thread is extremely misleading.

They've determined that guns owned by one of "the elite" aren't a "threat to children". If this wasn't a famous, wealthy football player (or cop or politician or campaign contributor), they'd toss every book they had at him.

And the next time someone else is arrested for "child endangerment" for having guns around, if they point at this case, these officials will be coughing up all sorts of doublespeak about how the situation isn't the same, they've examined every facet of both cases and they aren't comparable, etc. Nearly any judge will buy off on that and go ahead and convict the average citizen while heartily approving of a small fine and meaningless "community service" for the transgressions of the elite.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Being a mandated reporter does not obligate me to do the job of law enforcement. As a mandated reporter, I have to call DCFS' abuse hotline if I have reason to believe a child is being abused--by anyone. Basically, it takes away my liability--I HAD to report that Johnny had cigarette burns on his arms, so I can't be held liable when it turns out that the parent has an innocent explanation ("He had got into them cigarettes even though I done TOLD him that he could not have no cigarettes because they bad for him but I guess he knew better and then he burned himself.")

All I do is make a phone call. And frankly, it's a reasonable obligation given the nature of my job.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Being a mandated reporter does not obligate me to do the job of law enforcement. As a mandated reporter, I have to call DCFS' abuse hotline if I have reason to believe a child is being abused--by anyone. Basically, it takes away my liability--I HAD to report that Johnny had cigarette burns on his arms, so I can't be held liable when it turns out that the parent has an innocent explanation ("He had got into them cigarettes even though I done TOLD him that he could not have no cigarettes because they bad for him but I guess he knew better and then he burned himself.")

Which is it, Don? First, you say you are not obligated, then you say you have to call DCFS's hot line. Sounds like being required by law to report something is an obligation by law. Am I correct that you can be punished if you don't?

I would feel personally obligated to report such activity myself, mind you, but I object to being required to do so by the law. When you are required to report the suspect activity of someone else, that is law enforcement activity.

Woody

As the Court said in Boyd v. United States:

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

We should not wait solely upon the Court to protect our rights for us, but should take an active part in protecting our own sovereignty as well.

 

[jnojr]

Which is it, Don? First, you say you are not obligated, then you say you have to call DCFS's hot line.

He's obligated to report, not investigate.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

He's obligated to report, not investigate.

Doesn't matter. He is still required by law to report suspected cases of abuse and can be charged with a crime if he doesn't. He is charged with reporting cases of suspected abuse by other people. Those other people break the law with their abuse. He is charged with checking out each child who comes in with an injury and must determine if the apparent injury would come under suspicion of abuse. That IS investigation. There is no difference between this investigation by a non sworn and non compensated officer than the investigation into the background of a firearms purchaser by an FFL - who also is being required to enforce law as a non sworn and non compensated officer. They are both performing the duties of a law enforcement officer. One investigating child abuse, the other investigating the background of an individual and charged with enforcing the law prohibiting the possession of a firearm by a felon. These are undeniably law enforcement duties.

Woody

God gave us guns for a reason. It wasn't so we could lament the lack of them when we need them. B.E. Wood

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The SWAT team raided his house because he had some weed and some guns??? ***?????

Was he running around with a joint and pointing guns at people??

No, it is now standard operating procedure to bust down your door with a SWAT team if you've ever been known to own a firearm, regardless of the offense you are being arrested for. Could be aggravated Jay Walking, SWAT must respond. Gee, you don't keep up with the times, do you?

 

[Librarian]

These are undeniably law enforcement duties.

I'll deny it. Coming also from a health care background, the reporting is much the same as dialing 911. There is some likelihood that the health care worker's report might be better supported than John Q. Public's report, but not necessarily.

Law enforcement functions would be to review the evidence, to decide if further investigation is required, to investigate, to evaluate the results and determine if a charge should be filed.

One might classify reporting problems/crimes as our part in the social contract, but it seems to be distinct from law enforcement duties. For health care workers, legislatures seem to be imposing a duty beyond the 'social contract'. (California has reporting requirements for children and elders and spouses.)

That being said, I see a lot of reports on the web and other places indicating that charges of abuse are sometimes extremely poorly handled by 'the authorities', primarily the aspect of 'there was a report, the person must be guilty of something'. I won't speculate on the cause of that treatment.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Wow, Woody, you caught me.
I'm actually a state-level law enforcement officer posing as a school teacher. Our operation is known as "21 Bump Street."

No, seriously, all this is simply part of my job description. I act in loco parentis, so I have most of the same obligations as a parent. I'm responsible for the kids in my charge, so I'm responsible for reporting it when I see evidence that someone is abusing one of them. I don't consider a phone call to DCFS an investigation. YMMV.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

You're Saying It Yourself!

One might classify reporting problems/crimes as our part in the social contract, but it seems to be distinct from law enforcement duties. For health care workers, legislatures seem to be imposing a duty beyond the 'social contract'.

And just how would you classify that imposed "duty"? If it isn't to review the evidence, to investigate, to evaluate the results, and then decide whether to report on a suspected violation of laws against child abuse, what is it then? Doesn't matter how you label it, you're enforcing law. You're forced - bound by law - to report on suspected violations of child abuse laws, same as any sworn officer of the law would be. You may not be charged with the duty to restrain such criminals, but don't count your blessings yet.

This crap isn't too far off from requiring your neighbors - maybe even your own kids - to report on any "undesirable" or maybe "subversive" activities you might be engaged in, like do you go to the gun range too often? Does the local Wal-Mart manager think you're buying too much ammo? Why do you have a Gillie suit? Many a despotic tyrannical government got its start this way....

Open your eyes and see how your representatives have passed the buck, dodged the responsibility, and made YOU responsible for the bad behavior of the criminals in our midst. "What, you didn't turn that bad guy in? Shame on you! You're in deep doo-doo, pal! For violating Title "Whatever", Chapter "Such and Such", Article "Gotcha", you're going to stand trial!" Meanwhile, the perp gets a slap on the wrist and a secret pat on the back for bagging an otherwise law abiding citizen "Trouble Maker".

Sound convoluted? Read a little history.

Woody

"Freedom is good for the individual, good for the human condition, and good for society as well. It is the only way individual accountability can be valid, for a person who is not free to do as he sees fit cannot be blamed... or genuinely rewarded." K.L.Dimond

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

No, seriously, all this is simply part of my job description. I act in loco parentis, so I have most of the same obligations as a parent. I'm responsible for the kids in my charge, so I'm responsible for reporting it when I see evidence that someone is abusing one of them. I don't consider a phone call to DCFS an investigation.

Are you in the employ of the state?(City, Town, County, Feds...) If you are, that's a different situation all together. As for the investigation aspects of this, if you look at a kid and see a bruise that shouldn't be there, you've already begun an investigation. Calling DCFS is reporting on what you have observed - the results of your "investigation".

Woody

How many times must people get bit in the (insert appropriate anatomical region) before they figure out that infringing upon rights sets the stage for the detrimental acts those rights are there to deter? B.E.Wood

 

[Librarian]

And just how would you classify that imposed "duty"? If it isn't to review the evidence, to investigate, to evaluate the results, and then decide whether to report on a suspected violation of laws against child abuse, what is it then?

As I said, 'social contract', what a Good Citizen does when he witnesses a crime or probable crime - he gets the Proper Authorities involved. They do the Law Enforcement thing.

Clearly we disagree on what law enforcement does.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

As I said, 'social contract', what a Good Citizen does when he witnesses a crime or probable crime - he gets the Proper Authorities involved. They do the Law Enforcement thing.

I'm talking about when such a 'Social Contract' is not up to good conscience, but is instead mandated by law to be "exercised" by a select few. That is when it becomes law enforcement. You wrote: " For health care workers, legislatures seem to be imposing a duty beyond the 'social contract'." It is that legislatively imposed duty I'm talking about.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[Librarian]

If you'll pardon the diversion, and sticking to just child abuse here ...

California no doubt has gone overboard with this, but our 'select few' is defined in law as

Penal Code 11165.7. (a) As used in this article, "mandated reporter" is defined as any of the following:
(1) A teacher.
(2) An instructional aide.
(3) A teacher's aide or teacher's assistant employed by any public or private school.
(4) A classified employee of any public school.
(5) An administrative officer or supervisor of child welfare and attendance, or a certificated pupil personnel employee of any public or private school.
(6) An administrator of a public or private day camp.
(7) An administrator or employee of a public or private youth center, youth recreation program, or youth organization.
(8) An administrator or employee of a public or private organization whose duties require direct contact and supervision of children.
(9) Any employee of a county office of education or the California Department of Education, whose duties bring the employee into contact with children on a regular basis.
(10) A licensee, an administrator, or an employee of a licensed community care or child day care facility.
(11) A Head Start program teacher.
(12) A licensing worker or licensing evaluator employed by a licensing agency as defined in Section 11165.11.
(13) A public assistance worker.
(14) An employee of a child care institution, including, but not limited to, foster parents, group home personnel, and personnel of residential care facilities.
(15) A social worker, probation officer, or parole officer.
(16) An employee of a school district police or security department.
(17) Any person who is an administrator or presenter of, or a counselor in, a child abuse prevention program in any public or private school.
(18) A district attorney investigator, inspector, or local child support agency caseworker unless the investigator, inspector, or caseworker is working with an attorney appointed pursuant to Section 317 of the Welfare and Institutions Code to represent a minor.
(19) A peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, who is not otherwise described in this section.
(20) A firefighter, except for volunteer firefighters.
(21) A physician, surgeon, psychiatrist, psychologist, dentist, resident, intern, podiatrist, chiropractor, licensed nurse, dental hygienist, optometrist, marriage, family and child counselor, clinical social worker, or any other person who is currently licensed under Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) of the Business and Professions Code.
(22) Any emergency medical technician I or II, paramedic, or other person certified pursuant to Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code.
(23) A psychological assistant registered pursuant to Section 2913 of the Business and Professions Code.
(24) A marriage, family, and child therapist trainee, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 4980.03 of the Business and Professions Code.
(25) An unlicensed marriage, family, and child therapist intern registered under Section 4980.44 of the Business and Professions Code.
(26) A state or county public health employee who treats a minor for venereal disease or any other condition.
(27) A coroner.
(28) A medical examiner, or any other person who performs autopsies.
(29) A commercial film and photographic print processor, as specified in subdivision (d) of Section 11166. As used in this article, "commercial film and photographic print processor" means any person who develops exposed photographic film into negatives,
slides, or prints, or who makes prints from negatives or slides, for compensation. The term includes any employee of such a person; it does not include a person who develops film or makes prints for a public agency.
(30) A child visitation monitor. As used in this article, "child visitation monitor" means any person who, for financial compensation, acts as monitor of a visit between a child and any other person when the monitoring of that visit has been ordered by a court of law.
(31) An animal control officer or humane society officer. For the purposes of this article, the following terms have the following meanings:
(A) "Animal control officer" means any person employed by a city, county, or city and county for the purpose of enforcing animal control laws or regulations.
(B) "Humane society officer" means any person appointed or employed by a public or private entity as a humane officer who is qualified pursuant to Section 14502 or 14503 of the Corporations Code.
(32) A clergy member, as specified in subdivision (c) of Section 11166. As used in this article, "clergy member" means a priest, minister, rabbi, religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church, temple, or recognized denomination or organization.
(33) Any custodian of records of a clergy member, as specified in this section and subdivision (c) of Section 11166.
(34) Any employee of any police department, county sheriff's department, county probation department, or county welfare department.
(35) An employee or volunteer of a Court Appointed Special Advocate program, as defined in Rule 1424 of the California Rules of Court.
(36) A custodial officer as defined in Section 831.5.
(37) Any person providing services to a minor child under Section 12300 or 12300.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

It's not everybody, so it is 'select'.

So. to whom does the report go?

11165.9. Reports of suspected child abuse or neglect shall be made by mandated reporters to any police department or sheriff's department, not including a school district police or security department, county probation department, if designated by the county to receive mandated reports, or the county welfare department. Any of those agencies shall accept a report of suspected child abuse or neglect whether offered by a mandated reporter or another person, or referred by another agency, even if the agency to whom the report is being made lacks subject matter or geographical jurisdiction to investigate the reported case, unless the agency can immediately electronically transfer the call to an agency with proper jurisdiction.

The agencies - police or sheriff's departments - are 'law enforcement'; most mandated reporters are not.

And if the report is not made?

(c) Any mandated reporter who fails to report an incident of known or reasonably suspected child abuse or neglect as required by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months confinement in a county jail or by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by both that imprisonment and fine.

I don't agree that the state imposing a condition like this on the categories of 'mandated reporters' makes them/us/me part of law enforcement, or that examining in the normal course of duties and reporting suspected abuse is law enforcement activity. YMMV.

 

[romma]

I am a foster parent. Also mandated to report abuse.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I don't agree that the state imposing a condition like this on the categories of 'mandated reporters' makes them/us/me part of law enforcement, or that examining in the normal course of duties and reporting suspected abuse is law enforcement activity.

You are indeed enforcing anit-child-abuse laws, my friend. I'm quite sure it is illegal to abuse or neglect a child in California and if you are one of the 'mandated reporters', you have a hand in enforcing those anti-abuse laws. When employees of photo developing/printing companies (11165.7.(a)-29) are lumped in with law enforcement personnell(11166.7.(a)- 19, and -34) and given the same duties, I'd say that pertty much cements the deal.

'Course, you do have your own opinion about this, and I can most certainly accept your right to believe that if you are a mandated reporter, you don't consider yourself to have a hand in enforcing the law. I can, therefore, agree to disagree.

Woody

We the People retain our weapons to the end of securing our rights and freedom for when governments fail or ignore or endeavor to usurp or delete those rights and freedoms. B.E.Wood

 

[Don Gwinn]

I'm a school teacher. I'm employed by a co-op of school districts for special education. It's called the Sangamon Area Special Education District.

Your outrage on my behalf is touching, but misplaced.

You are indeed enforcing anit-child-abuse laws, my friend. I'm quite sure it is illegal to abuse or neglect a child in California and if you are one of the 'mandated reporters', you have a hand in enforcing those anti-abuse laws. When employees of photo developing/printing companies (11165.7.(a)-29) are lumped in with law enforcement personnell(11166.7.(a)- 19, and -34) and given the same duties, I'd say that pertty much cements the deal.

When that happens, I might agree. Making a phone call to law-enforcement authorities is not one of the duties of law enforcement personnel any more than anybody else. Your point is built on a false premise.

'Course, you do have your own opinion about this, and I can most certainly accept your right to believe that if you are a mandated reporter, you don't consider yourself to have a hand in enforcing the law. I can, therefore, agree to disagree.

I'm not saying I don't have a hand in enforcing laws against child abuse. I think those laws are good laws and enforcing them is a good thing. I simply don't believe your assertion, for which you have shown no evidence, that making a phone call to DCFS makes me a criminal investigator. I doubt that you classify people who call 911 when they see burglars going into the neighbors' house as "acting as law enforcement personnel."

 

[Jeff White]

A few words to back Don up. All Don is required to do under Illinois law is call DCFS if he suspects child abuse. He is not required to ask the child, the parents, the neighbors, or anyone else any questions. He is not required to conduct any type of investigation. The DCFS investigator will do that.

Anyone in Illinois can call the DCFS hotline.

As a peace officer, I too am a mandatory reporter. When in the course of my job I run across a case of suspected child abuse or neglect, I call the DCFS hotline. If there is an immediate need I can and have taken a child into protective custody. If Don ever comes up with that kind of a situation, he'll most likely be instructed to call the local police to do that unless his school has an alternate plan.

What normally happens after a call to the hotline is that you get a nice form letter a couple of weeks later thanking you for reporting the situation and assuring you that after a thorough investigation no systematic neglect or abuse was found. If DCFS does open a case, then they always want my report. Around here, abuse and neglect cases are a cooperative effort between DCFS, the local police and the states attorney.

But Don is only mandated to report his suspicions. He is not required to conduct any kind of investigation. The same as any other citizen.

If he was mandated to tell the caseworker who answers the hotline what statements the child or parents made or what evidence he collected, he would be mandated to conduct an investigation, but he's not. Technically a kid could come to school with a bruise on his face and Don doesn't have to ask where he got the bruise. He just has to call DCFS and tell them.. Their investigator will ask those questions.

Jeff

 

[Don Gwinn]

As a peace officer, I too am a mandatory reporter.

Something tells me we'll be seeing that sentence again momentarily.


Hey, if I admit that Mandated Reporters have the duties of LEO's, can I argue that I should be allowed to carry a sidearm?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Don And Jeff

If you will go back to my original comment on this, you'll see I pointed out the similarities between this and the mandated duty an FFL has in selling a gun.

Hmmm..."(M)andated reporters"... I guess that is the same as mandating that FFLs do the job of law enforcement without the pay, without taking the oath to the Constitution, without the backing of government to pay their legal bills, without the immunity from criminal charges if they misque... Yes, unconstitutional duties(powers) forced upon someone not elected or appointed and confirmed as part of the government.

Don, you even admit you have a hand in enforcing the anti-child-abuse laws.

I'm not saying I don't have a hand in enforcing laws against child abuse.

To begin with, let us not get tangled up with California law and Illinois law. I haven't researched Illinois law on this yet, so I'll simply assume since the original poster mentioned "mandated reporter" in Illinois law, that the laws are similar in intent. The original quote from the article says Illinois law also "allows" so-called mandated reporters to report suspected cases of child abuse, then goes on to say such mandated reporters can be charged with a misdemeanor if they don't report suspected abuse. One of those statements has to be wrong. I'll assume it's the "allow" thing that is wrong, because laws don't allow things, they prohibit things.


Regardless of how you see or suspect the presence of child abuse, you are required by law to report it as part of the enforcement of the anti-child-abuse laws. Joe Citizen is not.

Something tells me we'll be seeing that sentence again momentarily.

Very perceptive of you, my friend! (Sorry it took so long...)

As a peace officer, I too am a mandatory reporter.

Ah, but you, as a peace officer, have taken an oath to uphold the law. You have the "state" behind you. Don does not. He is not a sworn officer of the law.

FFL's are not officers of the law, either.

Hey, if I admit that Mandated Reporters have the duties of LEO's, can I argue that I should be allowed to carry a sidearm?

You should be able to carry a sidearm anyway. You have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

When that happens, I might agree. Making a phone call to law-enforcement authorities is not one of the duties of law enforcement personnel any more than anybody else. Your point is built on a false premise.

There is nothing false about my premise. It is right there in California law. I guess it is there in Illinois law as well. I'm not talking personal responsibility that anyone with a conscience would act upon, but the law mandating non-law enforcement personnel to act - with penalties if they don't! (I wonder who the arbiter is of whether the act has been faithfully executed or not...) Personally, I think it is nothing more than "feel good" legislation or worse... Namely, the lower aspect of politics of passing the buck and having a scapegoat if too many cases of child abuse go unresolved.

As to whether those laws are a good thing or not is immaterial to the discussion at hand. In spite of you saying I've presented no evidence that you are enforcing the law by making a mandated call, it is undeniable you are complying with a law that requires you to report suspected child abuse. Again, as I stated earlier, you have a right to your opinion, but that does not diminish the mandated intent of your actions to help enforce anti-child-abuse laws. If you wish to accept that, that is fine. Just be aware of what the legislature has saddled you with without compensation or the backing of the state.

Woody

Though we may still exercise our Right to Keep and Bear Arms after filling out a bunch of paperwork, the real issue is the unconstitutional infringement the paperwork represents. B.E.Wood