Too_many_busybodies wrote on November 15, 2009 02:26 PM: The marriage of convenience between the social workers and the cops is something to behold. Left and Right join nefarious forces for BIG government.

Billy Soloe wrote on November 15, 2009 12:06 PM: I agree that these child case workers are way out of control and have no regard for American civil liberties or the Bill of Rights that protect us from such arrogant folks who come in and deprive citizens of even their children.
There was no cause or even reasonable cause to do what they done. There was no child in danger and to remove a child with the assumption that something may happen could apply to every child in this state and country. Bull Crap. Fire them! Protect our children from this government strongarm agency, and to give an individual a judgement call over anothers individual rights is insanity. Where in the hell is the United States Constitution?

YOUR RIGHT! wrote on November 15, 2009 12:04 PM: The Ninth Circuit has already ruled on Attorney General Masto's argument regarding the perception of harm's way.

Perception is not an argument against immunity. Because Landry "perceived" the children in harm's way, does not give Landry immunity.

What's going on in Ely is a repeat of rulings already made in Clark and Washoe Counties.

Jerry wrote on November 15, 2009 10:16 AM: The state should be liable if they did not have cause.

I know this is a fine line - but CPS can destroy families just as much as they can help and protect.

I know of 3 cases were CPS were in the wrong, 2 divorce situtation were an ex-wife was making making statements, and a pissed off neighbor accusing a father, all were proven wrong after a long and expensive legal battle that broke up families for over a year in each case.

I want to protect children - but there must be more than he said she said.

Ken wrote on November 15, 2009 10:15 AM: Chris,
So you are telling me that CPS should have immunity to act in any way they "feel" is right? Who are they? This is insane! That means you support someone to be able to act with impunity without legal proof. A parent saying they think there is abuse is not proof!

If there was proof, take the PERSON who abused. If it is rampant and the entire school is involved, shut it down. But this whole, "Tar and Feather Everyone" mentality is rediculous.

We have pedophile teachers in our public school system that cannot be fired because unions fight every time you try to get rid of a cruddy teacher...let alone a child predator! Give me some proof! This article provided no proof...the thing close was: "What if something happened to these children if we had not removed them?" and, "Nichols told the court that the school had not even secured a business license to operate." That has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with abuse, that has to do with the state getting tax money plain and simple. Then there is this one, "Six social workers, Nichols added, signed affidavits that they thought the children were in danger and should be moved."

I fianlly leave you with this: "They interviewed students in connection with charges of abuse and neglect made by a parent."
Maade by A parent!!!!! A means one, not a bunch, not a whole lotta, not few or even couple, a is singular and singular means single which equals one. Again, if there is proof, which is NOT mentioned here,then act. Leave the WOW factor out though. Journalism has definately been moved away from proof and grabbed ahold of impressions and oo's and ah's versus the truth.

chris wrote on November 15, 2009 09:25 AM: Hey people did you not read the part that said that cps had visited the school on four different occasions and with more than one agents signature stating that the children were most likely in immediate danger. I for one am glad that there are people out there willing to do whatever it takes to keep our children out of harms way.

FED UP wrote on November 15, 2009 09:07 AM: This is not just limited to CPS. Nevada is to intrusive at many levels. When they lose they will put these added expenses back on the taxpayer in the form of assesments and fees. Wake up Nevada replace the legislature in 2010.

Too_many_busybodies wrote on November 15, 2009 06:57 AM: "What if something happened to these children if we had not removed them?" Deputy Attorney General Andrea Nichols asked the state Supreme Court

That's a blank check to take away *anyone's* children, at *any* time. That busybody social worker doesn't deserve immunity. She deserves personal bankruptcy.

Leave it to our political-hack AG (Cortez-Masto) to come down on the side of BIG government. In the previous legislative session, her office testified in FAVOR of RealID and sending Nevadans mental health records to the Feds (so as to deny them gun rights). Please remember this clown during her re-election.

YOUR RIGHT! wrote on November 15, 2009 06:32 AM: Thank you, RJ, for reporting on no immunity for government workers who conduct malpractice.

Immunity has also been defeated in Clark County CPS cases.

We hope the RJ will report on all the cases statewide of no immunity for government malpractices. Many cases sit in the federal courts and are receiving favorable rulings.