Rumor Confirmed, CPS Custody Cases spawn first "Grand Child."

In a sense, this is "Son of CPS Custody" or "CPS Custody Cases, the Sequel."

Paul Anthony reports in the San Angelo Standard-Times;

"(Teresa Steed's) nonsuit, filed Thursday, removes from the case a girl who has vexed state and court officials with her refusals to produce her 8-month-old baby, which CPS had sought for genetic testing. The Salt Lake Tribune reported CPS opened a new case in San Antonio, where the girl lives, seeking access to the baby to monitor the girl's parenting skills."

What I don't understand is by what mechanism CPS feels it has the right to access to the child? Is this now a country, or is Texas now a state where a child they have never seen is subject to their warrantless inspection?

To put it another way, I assure you there has been no report of abuse, and previously there was a supposed concern for Teresa Steed herself. Now, the state of Texas, not even being sure (perhaps) that the child was even born in this country, or in fact has ever lived in the state of Texas, wants access to the child. Do they even have jurisdiction over the child, or have they ever, at any time in the past established that they do?

Remember, Teresa Steed was not in state care at the time of her giving birth, but was under CPS suit. If DFPS took her wrongly (she was returned) and has now acknowledged no ongoing concern by it's nonsuit, at what point did it then ever have a legitimate interest in the child?

I think that the child was born in the United States, and probably within the jurisdiction of Texas, and they may have proof of this in some way. Judging though from the apparent lack of knowledge Texas seems to have about the child's gender, there may be no basis to believe that this is a CPS custody issue.

We're deeply into the surreal now, so there's no telling what happens next, other than the track record of the Texas CPS, is that it has lost 438 of 439 cases, give or take.

Sphere: Related Content