JDR Court question

TFred · Mar 25, 2013

Friend of mine is having issues with adopted children, and the JDR courts are involved. Because of the specific circumstances, if it became known that she had a gun in the home, she fears this may negatively influence her position.

Friend's specific question, if she decides to get a CHP, will the JDR court be informed of this? I assume they would be able to "look" to see if she has one, but absent such specific action, would they be automatically informed should she be granted a permit?

I've mentioned that she may wish to consider an out-of-state permit from another state instead.

Any thoughts appreciated.

Thanks,

TFred

ProShooter · Mar 25, 2013

I have worked in 2 different JDR courts, and I have never known them to be notified of anyone having a gun or a CHP

peter nap · Mar 25, 2013

ProShooter said:
I have worked in 2 different JDR courts, and I have never known them to be notified of anyone having a gun or a CHP

I agree, there isn't any automatic notification. JDR is just a specialized General District Court.....but depending on the circumstances se may be asked in which she'll have to answer.

I have a family member in such a situation and advised him not to own any guns until it was over. I purchased them from him and maybe this year or next, I'll get over there to pick them up.

skidmark · Mar 25, 2013

It's not the J&DR Court they need to be concerned about. Depending on the jurisdiction the judge may send CPS or the quasi-official CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) to investigate the home and other factors concerning the fitness of one parent over the other. Some of those organizations seem to have institutionalized the belief that the presence of a firearm in the home, regardless of how stored, represents both a physical and psychological danger to any minor child.

There is pretty much nothing you can dop in the face of a court order for them to come in and look/ask questions of both the parent and the minor. Some, when met with hostility from the parent, may "extend" their investigation to "interviewing" the minor at school without the parent being notified and allowed to be present.

Countering their assessment with "but it's legal" and "it's my right" usually do not go over well when the mandate is to do what is "in the best interest of the child" when that includes protecting them from icky firearms. Also, arguing against them is often seen as not having the interest of the child foremost.

If the court does order a home investigatiuon, videotape it. Have your attorney there if you can arrange it. And remember that just because they show up on your doorstem with a court order in hand does not mean they can/will/must come in right then - it's not a search warrant. If they come back with a cop to intimidate you, ask for the warrant.

Posted by someone who used to do home investigations professionally and as a volunteer.

stay safe.

TFred · Mar 25, 2013

Thanks for the input. Very much appreciated, and I will share with my friends. This is a unique case in that at the present time, the child is not in the home, but is under care. Adoptive parents are pressing for continued care, which is certainly needed, but may be discontinued. It's a convoluted situation.

TFred

scouser · Mar 25, 2013

skidmark said:
It's not the J&DR Court they need to be concerned about. Depending on the jurisdiction the judge may send CPS or the quasi-official CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) to investigate the home and other factors concerning the fitness of one parent over the other. Some of those organizations seem to have institutionalized the belief that the presence of a firearm in the home, regardless of how stored, represents both a physical and psychological danger to any minor child.

There is pretty much nothing you can dop in the face of a court order for them to come in and look/ask questions of both the parent and the minor. Some, when met with hostility from the parent, may "extend" their investigation to "interviewing" the minor at school without the parent being notified and allowed to be present.

Countering their assessment with "but it's legal" and "it's my right" usually do not go over well when the mandate is to do what is "in the best interest of the child" when that includes protecting them from icky firearms. Also, arguing against them is often seen as not having the interest of the child foremost.

If the court does order a home investigatiuon, videotape it. Have your attorney there if you can arrange it. And remember that just because they show up on your doorstem with a court order in hand does not mean they can/will/must come in right then - it's not a search warrant. If they come back with a cop to intimidate you, ask for the warrant.

Posted by someone who used to do home investigations professionally and as a volunteer.

stay safe.

so, tell them to make an appointment with your attorney to come back another time?

TFred · Mar 25, 2013

scouser said:
so, tell them to make an appointment with your attorney to come back another time?

Although I'm not personally involved in this or any other similar type situation, I have read and heard enough to know how it works.

ANY thing you do that disputes, hinders, impairs, or any other way "goes against the flow" of these people can be used against you in the cases at hand, and in many situations, these are cases involving the custody of children. They won't hesitate to threaten you with this big hammer as a bullying tactic to get their way. I'm sure I don't have to say how incredibly manipulative this allows these social workers to be. I believe that some of these social services are among the most corrupt government organizations in existence today.

TFred

scouser · Mar 25, 2013

scouser said:
so, tell them to make an appointment with your attorney to come back another time?

TFred said:
Although I'm not personally involved in this or any other similar type situation, I have read and heard enough to know how it works.

ANY thing you do that disputes, hinders, impairs, or any other way "goes against the flow" of these people can be used against you in the cases at hand, and in many situations, these are cases involving the custody of children. They won't hesitate to threaten you with this big hammer as a bullying tactic to get their way. I'm sure I don't have to say how incredibly manipulative this allows these social workers to be. I believe that some of these social services are among the most corrupt government organizations in existence today.

TFred

my question wasn't aimed so much at this case, but was more a query as to what skid had mentioned in his post. Sorry if I caused any confusion

TFred · Mar 25, 2013

scouser said:
my question wasn't aimed so much at this case, but was more a query as to what skid had mentioned in his post. Sorry if I caused any confusion

No biggie.

When you're talking about JDR and CPS, I think they're all in cahoots anyway.

TFred

paramedic70002 · Mar 26, 2013

The children are adopted, that's a done deal, right? The state can't "un-adopt" them from you, right? So why should their adopted status be an issue?

skidmark · Mar 26, 2013

scouser said:
so, tell them to make an appointment with your attorney to come back another time?

In a word, yes.

And as TFred said, they will attempt to use any action/behavior they consider "uncooperative" as a hammer. Which is why you have an attorney, or preferably two - one that specializes in family law and one that specializes in criminal law.

Now trhat Tfred has provided more information, my suggestion to video the visit with the attorney present is even stronger. Why? Because if the parents (adoptive stops being an isue 6 months after the final decree is signed) are advocating for the child to remain "in care" (usually an euphemism for some sort of in-patient mental health treatment, but I could be wrong) then the home situation should (repeat: should) be meaningless. If the home is considered "unsafe" because of the presence of an appropriately stored firearm, that ought to be ammunition for continuing whatever out-of-the-home care the child is currently receiving, as the nominal position is that children and their welfare are not threatened by the presence of a safely stored firearm in the home.

The Sandy Hook shooter (not going to extend his 15 minutes of fame by repeating his name) was not the first child that was too dangerous to remain in the home - as opposed to parents that are too dangerous for kids to remain with them.

"Guns are icky" is not a valid argument for declaring a home environment "unsafe". But, based on what TFred has said, guns in the home should not even be on the table since the issue appears to be keeping the kid somewhere out of the home. If the kid's behavior is such that he threatens himself/other family members in spite of the gun being safely stored, then any argument to return him to the home ought to collapse on itself. But it won't, "because guns are icky."

stay safe.

peter nap · Mar 26, 2013

skidmark said:
In a word, yes.

And as TFred said, they will attempt to use any action/behavior they consider "uncooperative" as a hammer. Which is why you have an attorney, or preferably two - one that specializes in family law and one that specializes in criminal law.

Now trhat Tfred has provided more information, my suggestion to video the visit with the attorney present is even stronger. Why? Because if the parents (adoptive stops being an isue 6 months after the final decree is signed) are advocating for the child to remain "in care" (usually an euphemism for some sort of in-patient mental health treatment, but I could be wrong) then the home situation should (repeat: should) be meaningless. If the home is considered "unsafe" because of the presence of an appropriately stored firearm, that ought to be ammunition for continuing whatever out-of-the-home care the child is currently receiving, as the nominal position is that children and their welfare are not threatened by the presence of a safely stored firearm in the home.

The Sandy Hook shooter (not going to extend his 15 minutes of fame by repeating his name) was not the first child that was too dangerous to remain in the home - as opposed to parents that are too dangerous for kids to remain with them.

"Guns are icky" is not a valid argument for declaring a home environment "unsafe". But, based on what TFred has said, guns in the home should not even be on the table since the issue appears to be keeping the kid somewhere out of the home. If the kid's behavior is such that he threatens himself/other family members in spite of the gun being safely stored, then any argument to return him to the home ought to collapse on itself. But it won't, "because guns are icky."

stay safe.

I think there are two parts to TFred's question Skid.

Is a gun bad is part 1 but his friend wants to get a CHP which normally I'd advise against it....but in this particular case, since some of our pro gun people who have been possessed by the Devil and promoted CHP's as the symbol of goodness and purity,:cuss: He/She may better off getting a CHP and playing the, "I'm Special" game.

love4guns · Mar 26, 2013

skidmark said:
It's not the J&DR Court they need to be concerned about. Depending on the jurisdiction the judge may send CPS or the quasi-official CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) to investigate the home and other factors concerning the fitness of one parent over the other. Some of those organizations seem to have institutionalized the belief that the presence of a firearm in the home, regardless of how stored, represents both a physical and psychological danger to any minor child.

There is pretty much nothing you can dop in the face of a court order for them to come in and look/ask questions of both the parent and the minor. Some, when met with hostility from the parent, may "extend" their investigation to "interviewing" the minor at school without the parent being notified and allowed to be present.

Countering their assessment with "but it's legal" and "it's my right" usually do not go over well when the mandate is to do what is "in the best interest of the child" when that includes protecting them from icky firearms. Also, arguing against them is often seen as not having the interest of the child foremost.

If the court does order a home investigatiuon, videotape it. Have your attorney there if you can arrange it. And remember that just because they show up on your doorstem with a court order in hand does not mean they can/will/must come in right then - it's not a search warrant. If they come back with a cop to intimidate you, ask for the warrant.

Posted by someone who used to do home investigations professionally and as a volunteer.

stay safe.

This is correct.

user · Mar 28, 2013

Don't ask, don't tell. It's irrelevant and therefore not admissible evidence.

The one thing that could change that analysis is if the child is thirteen or less ("under fourteen") and the loaded firearm is left in a way that the child could gain access to it. A violation of Va. Code section 18.2-56.2 requires proof that the firearm was both loaded and unsecured. That would probably blow one's chances for gaining custody.

skidmark · Mar 28, 2013

user said:
Don't ask, don't tell. It's irrelevant and therefore not admissible evidence.

The one thing that could change that analysis is if the child is thirteen or less ("under fourteen") and the loaded firearm is left in a way that the child could gain access to it. A violation of Va. Code section 18.2-56.2 requires proof that the firearm was both loaded and unsecured. That would probably blow one's chances for gaining custody.

Objection! Irrelevant, immaterial, and has nothing to do with the situation. (Adoptive) parents are fighting to keep chiuld "in care" while The Powers That Be apparently are trying to get out of having to pay to keep the child "in care".

If anything, the presence of a firearm would be an incentive to keep the child "in care" under the notion that being "in care" is safer than returning the child to a home where a firearm is present. I'll advance that line even further by pointing out that until the "care" being provided has sufficiently ameliorated the reason for the child being "in care" in the first place, the state has a duty to keep the child "in care" since there is nothing inherently illegal, immoral, fattening, abusive or neglectful about the otherwise presence of a safely stored firearm in the home, and since RKBA is a fundamental right within the four walls of the home the state cannot force the parent(s) to divest themself of a lawful firearm safely stored in the home.

Go to your local police station and request one of those trigger locks they received via a Byrne Public Safety grant that they are required to have and make available to the public at no cost. Put the trigger lock on the firearm. Tell the state to go pound sand about anything else being necessary for "safe storage" - if the federal government has determined that those things will be sufficient the state cannot require more. Supremacy clause and all that, donchano.

stay safe.

roscoe13 · Mar 28, 2013

skidmark said:
if the federal government has determined that those things will be sufficient the state cannot require more. Supremacy clause and all that, donchano.

stay safe.

The federal government has determined that all one needs to be safe carrying a firearm in a k-12 school is a CHP, but the commonwealth says you have to be a LEO or other 'elite' class. I don't think your argument will hold water...

Roscoe

Thundar · Mar 29, 2013

paramedic70002 said:
The children are adopted, that's a done deal, right? The state can't "un-adopt" them from you, right? So why should their adopted status be an issue?

Sometimes children that are adopted from a state come with medical benefits for the child. The rationale being the parent should not be bankrupted providing medical support to his adopted child. Many insurance companies have pre=existing conditions clauses, and conditions that a child has prior to adoption often are not covered. The problem comes when the state decides that their duty to provide medical care is complete. The parents know that additional care is needed. THis is usually a psychological, not physical, issue. Been there, done that.

Not saying that is the situation here, but just trying to give paramedic a possible answer.

skidmark · Mar 29, 2013

roscoe13 said:
The federal government has determined that all one needs to be safe carrying a firearm in a k-12 school is a CHP, but the commonwealth says you have to be a LEO or other 'elite' class. I don't think your argument will hold water...

Roscoe

Might want to check your facts. CHP lets you carry within 1K feet of a school. Does not allow you inside.

roscoe13 · Apr 2, 2013

skidmark said:
Might want to check your facts. CHP lets you carry within 1K feet of a school. Does not allow you inside.

Might want to check yours as well... The federal GFSZ act doesn't actually prohibit carry w/in a school, merely w/in 1000' of one. Of course, one can't carry in a school w/o being w/in 100' of one. So, at least the federal GFSZ act would not prohibit carry inside of a school if you have a CHP. Absent some other federal law prohibiting carry in a school, carry in a school with a CHP would indeed appear not to violate fedearl law.

They did, however, give the states an out on this one, specifically allowing states to implement their own GFSZ acts.

Roscoe

skidmark · Apr 3, 2013

roscoe13 said:
The federal government has determined that all one needs to be safe carrying a firearm in a k-12 school is a CHP, but the commonwealth says you have to be a LEO or other 'elite' class. I don't think your argument will hold water...

Roscoe

roscoe13 said:
Might want to check yours as well... The federal GFSZ act doesn't actually prohibit carry w/in a school, merely w/in 1000' of one. Of course, one can't carry in a school w/o being w/in 100' of one. So, at least the federal GFSZ act would not prohibit carry inside of a school if you have a CHP. Absent some other federal law prohibiting carry in a school, carry in a school with a CHP would indeed appear not to violate fedearl law.

They did, however, give the states an out on this one, specifically allowing states to implement their own GFSZ acts.

Roscoe

Picking nits, but your first post states that the feds in fact allow carry inside a school with a CHP. There is a difference between 1) permitting an act by statute, 2) prohibitting an act by statute, and 3) remaining silent on an act by lack of statute. Your first post fits #1 moreso than #3. #3 is closer to a description of the federal laws on carry within a school (notwithstanding how you got through the 1000-foot exclusion zone).

stay safe.

JDR Court question

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran