| E-MAIL THREAD WITH ANNETTE MONSON, CASEWORKER Dear Annette I don't blame you for not wanting to "go into it" with me on these issues. If you don't reply to this e-mail it will not offend me. ...no this is not personal...this is just having some people exercising control over our lives – claiming that we are incompetent and so they need to make sure that we are running our lives correctly – claiming that it is all for Daniel – when it has become clear that it is not about Daniel – that there are overriding personal agendas at stake – which have nothing to do with Daniel. Upon your personal, one-on-one visit and discussion with us last Friday, I got the distinct impression then, that you know as well as we do that ratcheting things up to the "next level of services" is not at all necessary, as far as Daniel's well being is concerned. Since I got that impression, can you blame me for wanting to appeal to your conscience – to your sense of good and right? You have had free access (except for the initial visit) to see Daniel and check with Dr Armstrong about his state of being – before there was an order of the court – and those channels will continue to be open should you decide to influence action resulting in a motion for dismissal of the case. I have said all along (except for the initial visit) that I don't have a problem with you dropping by to see Daniel anytime – or to check in with Dr Armstrong – and that really is all that is necessary to ensure Daniel's state of well being. As you know, Dr Armstrong continues to be happy with the way in which we are caring for Daniel – and is happy with the strong rate of progress he is making. When you made your personal visit with us last Friday, you asked me what I was thinking...what I was feeling about all of this...well the words that I have shared with you in these e-mails lay those thoughts and feelings out forthrightly – if you really wanted to know – when you asked me what my thoughts and feelings were (which by the way, was kind of a personal question). You have expressed that you have grown weary of these e-mail exchanges. I totally understand and will not be offended if you do not feel the need to reply to this one. ...see you at the meeting – unless we get word that the meeting has been canceled; the case dismissed, etc. Sincerely Dave _________________________________________________ Re: Question/re: our last discussion From: Annette Monson (annettemonson@utah.gov) Sent: Wed 4/30/08 7:27 AM To: Dave Conrad (dconrad000@hotmail.com) Dave, I am not going to go into this with you. This case is a professional matter that needs to be addressed by the professional and family team. I will not go into a discussion that is trying to make this personal between you and I. There is nothing personal about this case. It is a matter of ensuring Daniel's health and well being. The very fact that you continue to fight against something as simple as having a meeting only enforces the reason we wanted this case to be court monitored. If the court were not enforcing this case, you would no doubt simply refuse to work with us for the very reasons you keep sending me in you emails. If you will work with us then we can resolve this matter and hopefully move forward with closing the case in an expeditious manner. If you put this much time and energy into fighting us every step of the way then this case will no doubt drag on for a very long time. Annette _______________________________________________ From: dconrad000@hotmail.com To: annettemonson@utah.govSubject: Re: Question/re: our last discussion Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:05:35 -0600 Annette, if you choose to go forward with the meeting we will be there – but you just gave me response #1 and response #2 to my initial question. You could change things if you decided to speak up for what is right. ...see below from my first e-mail: ______________________________________________ Response #1 Because the Judge has ordered that it take place. ______________________________________________ ...my reply to that response: The judge, who has a continual working relationship with you (DCFS), was operating upon your recommendations. Given the fact that the judge expressed confidence in Dr Armstrong's professional opinion, you could have your counsel, Julie Lund prepare a motion to dismiss the case on the basis that Dr Armstrong is happy with the care Daniel is receiving and with his state of health; and given the absence of risk to Daniel at this time. ______________________________________________ Response #2 I'm not responsible for making that decision in this office. ______________________________________________ ...my reply to that response: But Annette, you are the caseworker. You are the one that has the one-on-one interaction with us; with Daniel; and with Dr Armstrong. It is your job to make determinations on what you see and feel. You can make recommendations on all the information you have processed according to what you feel is right and just...and you seem like a competent, valuable employee...I am sure that your judgment is trusted and valued. Think of what your father, former Manti Temple President would do; be true to the stated mission of only desiring to help Daniel and his family – or...exercise unrighteous dominion and compulsion (D&C 121:37) – just because you can – letting selfish job/career/financial considerations override. Would you do to Jesus, what you do to us?...well whatever you end up doing to us, it is the same as if you have done it unto Him (Matthew 25:34-46). I trust, Annette that you have a conscience and it is my hope that you will listen to your conscience on this matter. Sincerely Dave Conrad 248 West 500 South Manti, UT 84642 ____________________________________________________ RE: Question/re: our last discussion From: Annette Monson (annettemonson@utah.gov) Sent: Tue 4/29/08 7:44 AM To: Dave Conrad (dconrad000@hotmail.com) Dave, This is now a court ordered case and we have an obligation to move forward. We will address your concerns in the Child and Family Team Meeting but you need to understand that this case is now one that involves more than just you and I. It is a team with other DCFS staff, the Guardian ad litem, the Assistant Attorney General and, because he has been added by the Judge, Dr. Armstrong. We will be having this meeting at the scheduled time. Are you planning to attend or will we need to move forward with the meeting without you? Annette ____________________________________________________ What good is it to express opinions and concerns to a team of people (DCFS, their counsel, and the Guardian ad litem); who all have a vested interest – job/career/financial – in keeping these proceedings alive? Annette, you know that Daniel does not need this. There are benefits for you; for DCFS; for your counsel; and for the Guardian ad litem – but this is not beneficial to our family, to Daniel; nor is it a good use of the public's hard-earned tax dollars. You could put a stop to this Annette...and if you do not; one day a higher court…on high…will ask you why you did not – when you knew in your heart, it was not really for Daniel. I trust that you have a conscience. I hope that you will listen to it. Dave _________________________________________________________ Question/re: our last discussion From: Annette Monson (annettemonson@utah.gov) Sent: Mon 4/28/08 10:42 AM To: Dave Conrad (dconrad000@hotmail.com) Dave, One of the main purposes of the Child and Family Team Meeting is to be able to express opinions and concerns and address them as a team. This would be the forum to bring up your concerns. I have contacted Dr. Armstrong and coordinated his schedule with times our GAL is available. We have set up the Child and Family Team Meeting for Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. We will be able to sit down as a team and work on what needs to be done to ensure Daniel's safety and complete the requirements for the case. Thanks, Annette From: dconrad000@hotmail.com
To: annettemonson@utah.gov Subject: Question/re: our last discussion Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:37:38 -0600 4-27-08 Annette Monson DCFS 50 South Main Street #25 Manti, UT 84642 Dear Annette I have a question for you regarding your last visit and discussion with us (on 4-25-08). During our discussion with you, I got the distinct impression that you know as well as we do that the next step being proposed is really not necessary as far as Daniel's well being is concerned – but rather just a formality. Since it is not necessary for Daniel's well being, can you please explain to me why you think it is necessary that you set up the service plan meeting? ______________________________________________ ...in contemplating upon that question, there are two available responses: Response #1 Because the Judge has ordered that it take place. ______________________________________________ ...my reply to that response: The judge, who has a continual working relationship with you (DCFS), was operating upon your recommendations. Given the fact that the judge expressed confidence in Dr Armstrong's professional opinion, you could have your counsel, Julie Lund prepare a motion to dismiss the case on the basis that Dr Armstrong is happy with the care Daniel is receiving and with his state of health; and given the absence of risk to Daniel at this time. ______________________________________________ Response #2 I'm not responsible for making that decision in this office. ______________________________________________ ...my reply to that response: But Annette, you are the caseworker. You are the one that has the one-on-one interaction with us; with Daniel; and with Dr Armstrong. It is your job to make determinations on what you see and feel. You can make recommendations on all the information you have processed according to what you feel is right and just...and you seem like a competent, valuable employee...I am sure that your judgment is trusted and valued. Think of what your father, former Manti Temple President would do; be true to the stated mission of only desiring to help Daniel and his family – or...exercise unrighteous dominion and compulsion (D&C 121:37) – just because you can – letting selfish job/career/financial considerations override. Would you do to Jesus, what you do to us?...well whatever you end up doing to us, it is the same as if you have done it unto Him (Matthew 25:34-46). I trust, Annette that you have a conscience and it is my hope that you will listen to your conscience on this matter. Sincerely Dave Conrad 248 West 500 South Manti, UT 84642 (Communication with Case Worker - original in MSWord)
|
|
Back to Daniel in the Lions Den .us (home page)
|