Loudoun CPS – Does the accused have any rights?

image_pdfimage_print

When a parent is accused and Loudoun CPS enters the case, the accused has no rights. It is that simple, a CPS case which is manipulated by Sandra Glenney is a travesty. The CPS investigator, I use the term investigator very loosely, has already decided the accused guilty; they are trained this way. In the case of the now unemployed  and discredited Benjamin Smith, threats were made during the initial interview and he expressed his absolute belief that the accused was guilty.

Take for example, this section of CWS2021 (required training for a CPS investigator) , it exposes the attitude that CPS immediately  takes toward the accused. The investigators are trained to believe the accused is guilty. It will benefit the accused immensely if the attorney for the accused confronts the investigator with the section of the required training. I will highlight some of the more outrageous aspects of this portion of their training.

“Investigators report that unless caught in the act or confronted with overwhelming evidence , a child abuse suspect can be expected to deny the allegation”

Does above statement from their training guide leave any room for the possibility that the accused may be innocent. It is contradictory in nature , the suspect is assumed to be guilty. The document encourages the investigator not to give up until a confession is obtained.

Please take note of the header on the pages “Interviewing the child molester:Ten tips for eliciting incriminating statements”.  The title alone removes any possibility that the accused may be innocent. As you read the document it becomes clear that a denial only reinforces the investigator to conclude the accused is guilty. In the case of Benjamin Smith and the hapless Sandra Glenney this belief system spawns more bad behavior such as withholding evidence (DNA results and interview tapes).

An excellent recent article written by Radley Balko of the Washington Post describes the tragic case of Bernard Baran, please take the time to review the article. The following is a very accurate statement from the article. Accusations typically originate with the social worker or under the guidance of a CPS selected psychologist. Please keep in mind that Sandra Glenney will immediately attempt to place the child in therapy with a CPS hand-picked psychologist. I cam assure you their psychologist will find abuse, that is what they are paid to do; it is what Glenney expects of them.

“Tellingly, Baran’s charges solidified only after law enforcement officers and social workers “interviewed” (or coached) the children. Video recordings of these sessions show the children initially denied wrongdoing on Baran’s part. However, the children eventually capitulated to the suggestive questioning that used anatomically correct dolls and other now-discredited techniques.”

The lack of evidence that naturally associates itself with fraudulent allegations is typically resolved by the testimony of a psychologist who has a longstanding relationship with CPS. Dr. Mary Lindahl and Dr. William Ling both testify often for Loudoun County CPS quite often; keep that in mind. It would be wise for an attorney to question Glenney’s chosen psychologist concerning how often he oerr she testifies for Loudoun CPS. An excellent follow-up question would be to inquire if they have ever testified that abuse did not occur.

I will be posting more material related to required training for CPS workers. A CPS  investigator is a result of their training and the culture that surrounds them.  In Loudoun, Sandra Glenney is the head and her actions and beliefs infects the agency. You have to know how they are trained and confront them with their own material.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>