Megan Blockowicz, Mary Blockowicz, David J. Blockowicz, Brendon Blockowicz, Lisa Blockowicz (((REDACTED))) Winnetka Illinois. *UPDATE: Ripoff Reports Official Statement - Blockowicz v. Williams

 Some people are blessed with kind families whom are interested in the general over all well being of one another. While others, like myself, are forced to endure the humiliating, vindictive, unbelievably naive arrogance of their parents. The kind of parents who hide behind a computer screen, pretending to be someone else, in this case, many different people, in order to formulate bulls*** stories that are so disgustingly written, even their daughter wants to throw up in her mouth. Congratulations, scum bag ;) you have succeeded in being a fake, piece of s***. Feel proud.

Hello everyone. My name is David and I am general counsel for www.RipoffReport.com. I am the person who handled the Blockowicz v. Williams case on behalf of the Ripoff Report.

I normally prefer not to comment on the outcome of specific cases. However, the reporting on this case has been horribly inaccurate and incomplete, to the point that it is seriously misleading people about the facts of this case and the reasons for the result. While people can and should debate these important issues, doing so based on inaccurate and incomplete facts is helpful to no one. With that in mind, here are some additional facts which may help you to reach an informed decision about the outcome of this case.

BACKGROUND HISTORY

First of all, this case involved three separate postings on the Ripoff Report site. The first two posts were made in October 2003. Links to these posts are here:

Post #1: October 15, 2003
http://www.ripoffreport.com/dead-beat-moms/megan-blockowicz-aka/megan-blockowicz-aka-megan-s-wfbbc.htm

Post #2: October 31, 2003
http://www.ripoffreport.com/Prostitutes/Megan-Blockowicz-Mar/megan-blockowicz-mary-blockow-47e98.htm

Post #3: April 22, 2009
http://www.ripoffreport.com/liars/lisa-blockowicz/lisa-blockowicz-julie-bevans-7y56d.htm

The first two posts are the source of many of the statements which are allegedly defamatory. If you review them, you will note that both of the posts focus primarily on Megan Blockowicz. Thats important because Megan Blockowicz was NOT a plaintiff in the Blockowicz v. Williams lawsuit. Rather, the only parties to that case were Megans adoptive parents, David and Mary Blockowicz, and their other daughter, Lisa Blockowicz. Why is that important? Because as a general rule, in order to sue someone for defamation, the statements at issue have to be about you, not about a family member.

A second comment about these first two posts both were made in 2003, and the lawsuit was not filed until six years later in 2009. Why is that important? Because most states (including Illinois, where this action was filed) have very short statutes of limitation for defamation claims. The reason for this is because protecting free speech is extremely important, and if someone is really the target of false statements, the law expects them to act immediately before memories fade and evidence is lost. If a plaintiff fails to act promptly and they bring their lawsuit even one day after the statute of limitations expires, the law will forever bar them from suing on those claims.

In this instance, Illinois law provides that defamation claims are subject to a one-year limitations period which begins to run on the date the offending statements are posted, not the date when the plaintiffs discover them. Thus, any claims based on the first two posts would have expired as a matter of law in October 2004 nearly half a decade prior to this lawsuit being filed.

So why didnt the judge see this initially? After all, people reporting on this story have stated that a federal court found the statements to be false and ordered them to be removed. How could the judge make those findings if the statements were really so old? Why wouldnt the judge simply throw out the case, at least as to those older statements?

The answer to that question is that this case did not involve a trial. Instead, the case ended with a default judgment which means that the defendants did not appear (this is treated like a forfeit in sports). For the reasons explained later below, the fact that the defendants did not appear here is not necessarily surprising, nor does it mean they would have lost if they had appeared.

However, when a defendant defaults, the judge basically takes the plaintiff at their word and assumes the plaintiffs claims are true even if they arent true. So what did the plaintiffs tell the judge about the posting date of these reports?

In Paragraph 11 of their Complaint (which you can read here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24464314/Letter-From-Plaintiffs-Counsel-Complaint , the plaintiffs listed some of the offending statements but they failed to inform the judge that the first two posts were made in 2003. In fact, the actual posting date is conspicuously missing and is not found anywhere in the Complaint. Rather, in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the Defendants update the false posts and reports from time to time, including as recently as March and April 2009, by revising the original reports.

In other words, the plaintiffs Complaint never informed the judge that the first two reports were from 2003. Instead, they alleged that the statements were updated/revised in 2009. If that was true, the statute of limitations probably would not have barred claims based on the older two postings. However, because this case ended in a default judgment, there was no trial and no defense lawyer or anyone else to point out these problems, so the judge simply assumed that the plaintiffs were being truthful.

The plaintiffs later admitted that, in fact, they were aware that the first posts were actually made in 2003, not 2009. In addition, they stated many of the allegations about Megans legal history were true. Heres a direct quote from the declaration of David Blockowicz filed with the court:

In or around 2003, I became aware that Mr. Williams and/or his associate, Michelle Ramey, were posting inflammatory statements regarding Megan and her family on the internet, including at sites such as . While there appeared to be some elements of truth in these statements to the extent they related to Megan, the statements were exaggerated and intended to paint Megan in as negative a light as possible while painting Mr. Williams in as positive a light as possible.

Obviously, those who have written about this case have assumed that all of the statements at issue were false. If they had reviewed the court record first, they would have seen that wasnt the case. No matter how rude or unkind a statement may be, the First Amendment absolutely protects the right of people to express their views truthfully.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF LAWSUIT

In order to understand the outcome here, it is also important to understand the procedural events which occurred previously in the case. The lawsuit was filed on June 30, 2009 against two defendants David Williams and Michelle Ramey. Apparently Mr. Williams was the ex-husband of Megan Blockowicz. We have no idea who Ms. Ramey is or why the plaintiffs believe she had anything to do with these statements.

On the same day the Complaint was filed, the Plaintiffs also filed a motion asking the court for a preliminary injunction which would require all of the offending statements to be removed.

Under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, copies the summons and Complaint are normally required to be personally served on each defendant. Obviously, the goal of personal service is to make sure each defendant is aware of the case so they can appear and explain their side of the story, raise any defenses which may apply, and so forth. By the same token, judgments which are entered without personal service are subject to later attack on the basis that they are void.

According to the court docket, neither the Complaint nor any of the related pleadings were ever personally served on Mr. Williams or Ms. Ramey. Instead, six weeks after the case began, on August 17, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court for permission to serve the defendants using alternative means; i.e., means not authorized by the Rules of Civil Procedure. Courts can and do routinely grant these types of requests, but even when they do, it does not prevent the defendant from seeking to vacate the judgment at any point in the future if they can show that they did not receive actual notice of the case. Assuming the defendant can show that they did not receive actual notice and that they have a colorable defense, the judgment would be considered void and the court would be required to vacate it.

According to their motion and supporting declaration, the plaintiffs were not able to personally serve Mr. Williams or Ms. Ramey because they did not have an address for them. According to the plaintiffs lawyer, he conducted an Internet public record search and found an address in Oregon for David Williams (not an uncommon name; a Google search for David Williams in quotes produces nearly 2 million hits). This address turned out to be a rented mailbox. Copies of the pleadings were mailed to that address, but there was no evidence they were actually received by Mr. Williams or that the person renting the box was even the right David Williams. In addition, the plaintiffs lawyer stated that he had sent copies of the legal pleadings to an email address which he believed belonged to Mr. Williams. However, plaintiffs never attempted to contact Ripoff Report asking if we had contact information for the authors of the three posts (we do).

The record does not reflect that any efforts were ever made to serve Ms. Ramey other than by sending mail to the PO box for Mr. Williams.

Three days after their motion was filed, on August 20, 2009, the judge issued an order stating that plaintiffs efforts were sufficient and that no further attempts at service were required. There is no evidence in the record that this order was ever sent to or received by Mr. Williams or Ms. Ramey. Not surprisingly, since none of the papers were ever personally served, no one appeared or filed an Answer on behalf of the defendants.

A little more than a month later, on October 1, 2009 the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to enter a judgment by default. Five days later, the court entered a default judgment and a permanent injunction which required the defendants (Mr. Williams and Ms. Ramey) to remove the statements identified in the plaintiffs Complaint.

RIPOFF REPORTS INVOLVEMENT

One week after the default judgment was entered, on October 13, 2009 Ripoff Report was approached via email by the lawyer for the plaintiffs. The email included an attached cover letter and copies of the Complaint and default judgment; available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24464314/Letter-From-Plaintiffs-Counsel-Complaint . Prior to receiving this letter, Ripoff Report had never been contacted by any of the plaintiffs regarding these postings.

As a general rule, due to the millions of posts on our site and the huge volume of takedown demands we receive, we normally cannot and do not spend a great deal of time investigating each specific demand. However, upon reviewing the material sent by plaintiffs counsel, several red flags were immediately present that caused serious concerns.

First, according to paragraph 10 of the Complaint, the plaintiffs stated that RipoffReport.com often attempts to charge individuals and companies money if they wish to respond to reports . This offensive allegation was and is completely false and is similar to other false claims which have been proven groundless in other cases. The fact that such a bogus claim was presented caused us to question the legitimacy of the other allegations in the case, so we decided to give this one a closer look.

During that process, we immediately noted that two of the three postings were made in 2003. Since the statute of limitations for defamation claims in Illinois is only one year, we were baffled at how anyone could obtain a court order requiring the removal of such old material when claims based on these posts would have expired half a decade ago.

Next, we noticed that the first two posts were not primarily about the plaintiffs; they were about Megan Blockowicz who was never a party to the case. In addition, many of the statements (such as those referring to Megan Blockowicz as a scumbag) were clearly the opinions of the author. As a basic matter of defamation law, opinions generally cannot be proven to be either true or false, so it is normally impossible for an opinion to support a defamation claim. By extension, courts generally cannot issue injunctions prohibiting people from expressing their opinions. Such an injunction would be unconstitutional on its face.

We also reviewed the docket and determined that the judgment was not entered after a full trial on the merits as should normally occur. Instead, it was obtained by default (meaning there was no trial) and the docket reflected that the defendants Mr. Williams and Ms. Ramey were never personally served they were served via email (albeit with the courts consent).

The final red flag was found in our own records we pulled our server logs to determine whether the people who had been named as defendants (David Williams and Michelle Ramey) were actually the authors of the three reports at issue. What we found was that our logs showed there were three different authors with different names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and, yes, three different IP addresses. Although the authors may have provided fake names, none of the information such as the email addresses (which Ripoff Report automatically confirms before allowing any posts) was consistent with the information obtained by the plaintiffs. This raised the possibility that Mr. Williams and/or Ms. Ramey did not create the posts and that the plaintiffs had therefore sued the wrong defendants.

Based on these substantial concerns and our general policy against removing reports, we advised the lawyer for the Blockowicz family that Ripoff Report could not agree to remove the posts.

THE COURTS DECISION

Because we would not agree to remove the posts, on Thursday, October 29, 2009, we received an email containing a motion filed by the plaintiffs asking the court to enforce the injunction entered against Mr. Williams and Ms. Ramey by requiring Ripoff Report to remove the three reports about Megan Blockowicz and her family. Normally, parties are allowed at least three weeks to prepare a brief responding to such motions, but in this case, the plaintiffs attorney set a hearing in Chicago the following week, meaning we had only a few days to respond.

In their motion, the plaintiffs lawyer accused us of actively aiding and abetting the defendants violation of the injunction based on our simple greed. The brief also argued that, in effect, Ripoff Report did not even deserve to have a day in court.

In response, we explained that although the plaintiffs had presented a story which looked very sympathetic, the true facts were significantly different. We noted that the first two posts were made in 2003, not 2009, and that the plaintiffs had produced no evidence that Mr. Williams and Ms. Ramey were actually responsible for creating these posts (these were simply unproven allegations). We also pointed out that the plaintiffs admitted many of the statements about Megan Blockowicz were true. Finally, we noted that we were not aiding and abetting Mr. Williams or Ms. Ramey and that the plaintiffs had never bothered to send the injunction to them (NOTE: injunctions are not enforceable against anyone, even those named as parties, unless and until the defendants receive actual notice that they have been enjoined. This did not occur here because there is nothing in the record showing the plaintiffs ever sent the injunction to Mr. Williams or Ms. Ramey).

After reviewing our initial brief, the court asked for additional briefing, which we provided. In the end the judge found that the law simply does not permit an injunction against one person to be transferred to someone else without giving that person an opportunity to respond.

If that doesnt make sense, consider this example say a person files a lawsuit against someone else claiming that they improperly took control of bank account # 123-456. The defendant is never served with the lawsuit and they fail to appear, so the court issues an order saying that bank account #123-456 must be immediately transferred to the plaintiff. What happens if that account actually belongs to YOU? Would you expect the bank to just comply with the order and give all your money to the plaintiff without allowing you to be heard? Is that fair?

While I admit the facts arent exactly the same, legally this is exactly what the plaintiffs attempted to do here. Regardless of the offensive nature of the statements, the Ripoff Report believed that the free speech implications of this tactic were too important to ignore. In other words, while we dont necessarily defend the actual speech involved here, we felt that the process used by the plaintiffs was inconsistent with the First Amendment.

Many people have also commented that this decision was based on the immunity conferred by the Communications Decency Act, and then have implied that the ruling means that the CDA bars all injunctive relief against websites.

That conclusion is incorrect. Although many cases have held that the CDA bars injunctive relief against websites, nothing in the courts ruling was based on the CDA. Rather, the decision was primarily based on the notion that in the United States, courts will not suppress or censor speech without first giving the affected party the right to be heard. In this case, all that means is that if the plaintiffs want to remove speech from Ripoff Report (or any other site), they are obligated to make the site a party to the case so it can decide whether to defend the statements or not.

FINAL COMMENTS

Okay, so now that youve heard our legal position, many people may still ask why wont Ripoff Report just do the right thing and remove these statements? Why would you have a policy that says you dont investigate reports and yet you also wont remove reports?

First of all, as explained above, no one has proven these statements are false. In fact, the plaintiffs admitted that many of the statements about Megan were true. No matter how much we may dislike what is said, in this country the First Amendment does not allow the censorship of true speech.

Second, statements which call someone a scumbag are certainly unkind, but we do not suppress speech simply because it may offend someone. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that the opposite is true:

[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.

FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 745-46, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 3038, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1978) (emphasis added). In short, the antidote for unpopular or cruel speech is not censorship; it is more speech.

Truth be told, on occasion we may remove reports when its clearly appropriate to do so. But this was not such a case. Here, because the plaintiffs never bothered to contact us prior to filing their lawsuit, we were never given any opportunity to decide whether to work with them to delete or redact parts of these reports. In addition, by making false statements against us in court which cost tens of thousands of dollars to defend, the plaintiffs lawyer made it extremely difficult for us to consider voluntarily agreeing to remove these reports.

In closing, while I do not expect everyone to agree with our decisions and policies, I think its important to understand that there are two sides to this story. Now that you have heard ours, I welcome any comments/opinions that anyone may wish to share with me david@ripoffreport.com ..

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/justice-elusive-for-chicago-family-defamed-online.ars

There should be a way for anyone to remove these claims on the internet right or wrong, this is a family matter not the public's or the world to know I have no idea if these claims are true or not but it is none of our business its between them and the courts.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/justice-elusive-for-chicago-family-defamed-online.ars

This 'report' is completely bogus, designed to harass innocent people, and SHOULD be removed.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/justice-elusive-for-chicago-family-defamed-online.ars

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/justice-elusive-for-chicago-family-defamed-online.ars

What if the first Google hit for your last name called you a prostitute, an incestuous creep, a danger to children, or a diseased l*****n? And what if, despite a federal court injunction, you couldn't get the postings removed?

Welcome to one Chicago family's Internet nightmare. Is it "safe harbor" run amok, or just an unfortunate and rare side effect of an otherwise well-crafted statute?

A family matter

David and Mary Blockowicz have been married for 42 years, own a local accounting business, and have raised four adopted kids. One of those children, Megan, married a man named Joseph Williams back in 1992, then divorced him in 2000 after he was "physically and emotional [sic] abusive" to his wife. Williams' wrath then allegedly turned on the family, thanks to the magic of the Internet.

According to a federal complaint filed by the Blockowicz family back in June, Williams moved to Oregon after the divorce and began harassing the family from afar. He posted statements to various websites like Facebook, MySpace, and Ripoffreport.com, an online complaint site.

The statements, detailed in the court documents, are extreme.

• Defendants refer to David, Mary and [older sister] Lisa Blockowicz as Megans scumbag family"
• Defendants falsely state that Megan's father was an incestuous creep who forced all of his children to satisfy him sexually
• Defendants spin a false tale about Mary and Lisa Blockowicz interacting with Nevada Child Protection Services
• Defendants falsely state that the Blockowicz family is a danger to Megans children
• Defendants falsely suggest that Lisa Blockowicz uses a number of aliases
• Defendants call Lisa Blockowicz a Scumbag Con-Artist, Diseased Alcoholic, Compulsive Liar, Thief
• Defendants state that Lisa Blockowicz is a l*****n, and is diseased

Hardly the behavior of a scholar and a gentleman, but was it defamatory? On October 6, after Williams failed to show up in court, federal judge James Holderman issued a default judgment against him, along with an injunction ordering him to take down the posts in question.

He did not.

Third party liability

A piece of one Ripoff Report post

So the Blockowicz family went to the various websites, injunction in hand, and asked them to remove the posts. (Note that the websites could not be sued directly, as they have "safe harbor" immunity under the Communications Decency Act for most material posted by users; the Blockowicz family did the right thing here and sued the speaker instead.) All the sites compliedexcept for Ripoffreport, which prides itself on never removing content.

So what to do? The postings are still up and, even with a federal court order in hand, the family could not get them taken down. The next step was to ask the judge to enforce the injunction, not against Williams but against Ripoff Report.

On Monday, the judge refused to do so. It's a basic premise of the law that judges cannot enforce orders and injunctions against parties which have not been "adjudged according to law," as the opinion puts it, and Ripoffreport was not a "party" to Williams' action. In fact, the Ripofferport terms of service disallow defamatory posts and the judge saw no evidence of the site "working in concert" with Williams to post the material. That meant he could not in good conscience enforce the injunction against the site.

It's a perverse conclusion to the case, even though all the decisions appear to follow the law. Even the judge was bothered by his ruling. "The court is sympathetic to the Blockowicz's plight," he wrote. "They find themselves the subject of defamatory attacks on the Internet yet seemingly have no recourse to have those statements enjoined from public view."

Reaction

To Ben Sheffner, a copyright attorney who covered the Joel Tenenbaum P2P case for us, this just highlights the fact that Communications Decency Act immunity is written too broadly.

"So the bottom line is that the court was utterly powerless to grant the plaintiffs an effective remedy against harmful speech that has no First Amendment value," he writes on his blog. "That's probably the correct result under the statute and the case law explicating it. But I can't imagine Congress would have enacted Section 230 back in 1996 if it knew this would be the result. Or did they disagree with Chief Justice Marshall when he wrote, 'The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right'?"

Law professor Eric Goldman, last seen in these pages predicting the gradual death of Wikipedia, also finds himself troubled. Normally, there's no problem here, since most websites will remove content with a court injunction like the one the Blockowicz's obtained. But Ripoff Report won't.

"Although this is the right doctrinal result," he says, "the normative issues are still gnawing at me. I'm troubled that online content could be categorically off-limits from compelled takedown based on a service provider's choices. In some circumstances, continued publication may not be the right result."

To all those ready to scream about the "Streisand effect" (publicizing the very thing you want hidden by filing a lawsuit against it), it's worth putting yourself in the Blockowicz family shoes for a moment; a Google search on the family's last name turns up as its very first link one of the Ripoff Report posts claiming that daughter Megan is a prostitute and that her father is an "incestuous creep."

And that's before the news coverage of this ruling has even had a chance to get going; a Google News search on the family's last name turns up no hits at all at the moment.

Megan Marshal and the Bloc family have been burried in regret to losing their daughter to drugs and alcohol at a young age. Th is was encouraged by David Williams and "Michelle" the so-called caseworker that only has credit to write something on an internet webpage that is not that popular. encouraged by David because he has lost soo much money with the loss of his wife not available to work his scheme to cover the cost of his drug habit.

we should stop the harrassment of the bloc family and Megan out of Michelles spite for having to support the habit of David from a Winnemucca Brothel. She too i hope someday gets a chance to clean up her life and rid herself of what shes been through.  But drugs can ruin lives. It nearly took the life of Megan Marshall and others by dealing with what she had been through. She has a long road of recovery. AS for the Dui's and everything in the paper, yes Megan has problems and for the confidentiality, Megan changed her name to hide her identity from David and now that Michelle is writing things in here. He will be using this sight to find her again even though she has legal restraining orders to keep him at bay....So for those of you wishing to continue to clip articles from the paper and update David with Info.. Lets not and give her the peace to hide again. so maybe the drinking and drug problem is gone so she can rebuild her life.

Could you turn to Alcohol if someone is stalking you, to help ease your stress..?   Lets let the confidentiality remain in Megans favor and drop the subject.       Best regards   

Michelle, as we call her now is no public servant, but a prostitute living with the ex-husband and former pimp David Williams. WHo to this day has tried and attempted to take Megans life, Threw her into prostitution, drugged her, kept her addicted to meth and speed, lived out of motel 6, she finally got away from him when he did time in jail. Megan then cleaned her life of drugs and has been living a terrified life that was covered in alcohol to keep her comfortable before it lead her to spend time in prison from dui. Has now spent over a year clean and sober. David, of course, fled court again on child custody issues which he know he will lose. He lost the rights to his oldest daughter in the state of nevada to megan because he could not face authorities for being wanted in many states. thank god even the police know he is such a deadbeat, they dont even want him. Megan again will be healthy and strong to come and get her oldest son who david has dragged across 14 states to avoid losing the right to her son which should have a good home someday. he keeps megs oldest son just to terrorize her thoughts of sleeping at night knowing hes going to not see his mother. thank god we got her oldest daughter away from him so he didnt molest her, and put her to work and drug her like he does michelle and numerous other girls. we need to find David and hold him accountable for the numerous child custody court hearings he has run out on and fled the state like the last one in Oregon....Someone will help us eventually. the posting by michelle is horrible but there is alot of junkies out there because of David Williams....

http://www.recordcourier.com/article/20090225/NEWS/902249954

Dayton resident jailed on suspicion of multiple DUI's

A 36-year-old Dayton woman with multiple arrests for driving under the influence was jailed on $28,000 cash bail following her arrest Sunday for DUI after a deputy observed her failure to keep her vehicle on the road.

Katie Kelley, who told East Fork Justice Jim EnEarl she legally changed her name from Megan Sue Marshall, refused to submit to preliminary breath tests.

Authorities were awaiting the results of a blood draw.

A deputy was alerted by a motorist at 1:40 a.m. Sunday about a driver who couldn't keep their vehicle on the road. The deputy followed Kelley's vehicle to the Minden AM-PM Mini Mart where she was arrested.

She has prior driving under the influence convictions in Douglas County in May 2006 and Carson City in January 2007.

Kelley said she was arrested on a charge of driving under the influence in Lyon County on Dec. 25 and is awaiting adjudication on a DUI charge in Carson City from Aug. 2, 2008.

She is on a no-bail hold from Carson City.

EnEarl appointed attorney Kris Brown to represent Kelley and set her next hearing for Wednesday.

Marshall was arrested in Genoa in 2006 after a rollover accident that involved her children who were 4 months old and 3 at the time.

The children were wearing traffic restraints and were uninjured.

Marshall was convicted of drunk driving and sentenced to 180 days probation.

In January, 2007, she rear-ended a vehicle that had yielded on Edmonds Drive to traffic on Fairview Drive in Carson City. Her blood-alcohol content was .188, more than twice the legal limit for driving in Nevada.

Her children also were in the vehicle, but were not wearing traffic restraints. They were not injured.

Marshall's Douglas County probation was revoked and she was returned to jail and admitted to the New Frontiers in-patient treatment program in February 2007.

Her counselors submitted glowing reports to EnEarl about Marshall's success in the program. One letter referred to her as a role model.

IT WOULD BE TOO UNETHICAL AND WOULD PUT THEIR JOB AT RISK.

Here are a few links to newspaper articles about this scumbag. She has since been convicted of multiple DUI's (2 of which involved children and accidents), as well as child abuse. Nice lady...


http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20070117/NEWS/101170075

" A 34-year-old Mound House woman who was convicted last year of drunken driving after a rollover accident that involved her two young children was back in Douglas County Jail following a fender bender in Carson City last week.

Megan Marshall admitted Tuesday in East Fork Justice Court to drinking alcohol in violation of her probation and was ordered jailed on $10,000 cash bail after she requested placement in a substance-abuse treatment program.

Marshall was arrested in Carson City on Jan. 9 after an accident with her two young children in the car.

According to Carson City Sheriff's Deputy Glenn Fair, Marshall rear-ended a vehicle that had yielded on Edmonds Drive to traffic on Fairview Drive.

"I could smell odor of alcoholic beverage from 15 feet away. It was that strong," Fair said.

Marshall allegedly failed a field sobriety test and a preliminary breath test revealed a blood alcohol level of .188, more than twice the legal limit, Fair said.

Marshall was booked into the Carson City Jail on suspicion of second-offense drunken driving, two counts of gross misdemeanor child endangerment, failure to restrain a child, driving on a license revoked for drunken driving and following too closely. Her two sons, in the car at the time, were uninjured.

It was the second time Marshall was suspected of an accident involving alcohol in which her children were passengers. She was arrested in March after a rollover accident on Foothill Road near Genoa in which the boys were also uninjured. Her blood-alcohol content in that accident was .185.

At her sentencing after the Genoa accident, East Fork Justice Jim EnEarl suspended a six-month jail term and fined her $692. He forbade Marshall from consuming alcohol or drugs.

On Tuesday, EnEarl imposed the sentence but told Marshall she would be placed in a substance-abuse program which would count toward her jail term if she is successful.

"You've got some horrendous problems in your life right now," EnEarl told Marshall. "I think you are on the right track to fix that. If you don't, you are going to kill yourself, kill someone else or kill your children."

"She had a very good, offense-free record until one year ago," said her lawyer, Walter Fey. "In one year, she's hit two DUI's back-to-back with children in the vehicle."

"That's what concerns me," EnEarl said. "She's placed these children's lives in danger and the citizenry in danger. She's shown no regard for driving on a license suspended for DUI, if these charges are proved."

A trial date of Jan. 24 is set for Marshall in Lyon County on a charge of domestic battery. According to Dayton Justice Court records, Marshall was arrested on Sept. 5 on suspicion of child abuse without substantial bodily harm. That charge appears to have been reduced to domestic battery. "

Here are a few links to newspaper articles about this scumbag. She has since been convicted of multiple DUI's (2 of which involved children and accidents), as well as child abuse. Nice lady...


http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20070117/NEWS/101170075

" A 34-year-old Mound House woman who was convicted last year of drunken driving after a rollover accident that involved her two young children was back in Douglas County Jail following a fender bender in Carson City last week.

Megan Marshall admitted Tuesday in East Fork Justice Court to drinking alcohol in violation of her probation and was ordered jailed on $10,000 cash bail after she requested placement in a substance-abuse treatment program.

Marshall was arrested in Carson City on Jan. 9 after an accident with her two young children in the car.

According to Carson City Sheriff's Deputy Glenn Fair, Marshall rear-ended a vehicle that had yielded on Edmonds Drive to traffic on Fairview Drive.

"I could smell odor of alcoholic beverage from 15 feet away. It was that strong," Fair said.

Marshall allegedly failed a field sobriety test and a preliminary breath test revealed a blood alcohol level of .188, more than twice the legal limit, Fair said.

Marshall was booked into the Carson City Jail on suspicion of second-offense drunken driving, two counts of gross misdemeanor child endangerment, failure to restrain a child, driving on a license revoked for drunken driving and following too closely. Her two sons, in the car at the time, were uninjured.

It was the second time Marshall was suspected of an accident involving alcohol in which her children were passengers. She was arrested in March after a rollover accident on Foothill Road near Genoa in which the boys were also uninjured. Her blood-alcohol content in that accident was .185.

At her sentencing after the Genoa accident, East Fork Justice Jim EnEarl suspended a six-month jail term and fined her $692. He forbade Marshall from consuming alcohol or drugs.

On Tuesday, EnEarl imposed the sentence but told Marshall she would be placed in a substance-abuse program which would count toward her jail term if she is successful.

"You've got some horrendous problems in your life right now," EnEarl told Marshall. "I think you are on the right track to fix that. If you don't, you are going to kill yourself, kill someone else or kill your children."

"She had a very good, offense-free record until one year ago," said her lawyer, Walter Fey. "In one year, she's hit two DUI's back-to-back with children in the vehicle."

"That's what concerns me," EnEarl said. "She's placed these children's lives in danger and the citizenry in danger. She's shown no regard for driving on a license suspended for DUI, if these charges are proved."

A trial date of Jan. 24 is set for Marshall in Lyon County on a charge of domestic battery. According to Dayton Justice Court records, Marshall was arrested on Sept. 5 on suspicion of child abuse without substantial bodily harm. That charge appears to have been reduced to domestic battery. "

Here are a few links to newspaper articles about this scumbag. She has since been convicted of multiple DUI's (2 of which involved children and accidents), as well as child abuse. Nice lady...


http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20070117/NEWS/101170075

" A 34-year-old Mound House woman who was convicted last year of drunken driving after a rollover accident that involved her two young children was back in Douglas County Jail following a fender bender in Carson City last week.

Megan Marshall admitted Tuesday in East Fork Justice Court to drinking alcohol in violation of her probation and was ordered jailed on $10,000 cash bail after she requested placement in a substance-abuse treatment program.

Marshall was arrested in Carson City on Jan. 9 after an accident with her two young children in the car.

According to Carson City Sheriff's Deputy Glenn Fair, Marshall rear-ended a vehicle that had yielded on Edmonds Drive to traffic on Fairview Drive.

"I could smell odor of alcoholic beverage from 15 feet away. It was that strong," Fair said.

Marshall allegedly failed a field sobriety test and a preliminary breath test revealed a blood alcohol level of .188, more than twice the legal limit, Fair said.

Marshall was booked into the Carson City Jail on suspicion of second-offense drunken driving, two counts of gross misdemeanor child endangerment, failure to restrain a child, driving on a license revoked for drunken driving and following too closely. Her two sons, in the car at the time, were uninjured.

It was the second time Marshall was suspected of an accident involving alcohol in which her children were passengers. She was arrested in March after a rollover accident on Foothill Road near Genoa in which the boys were also uninjured. Her blood-alcohol content in that accident was .185.

At her sentencing after the Genoa accident, East Fork Justice Jim EnEarl suspended a six-month jail term and fined her $692. He forbade Marshall from consuming alcohol or drugs.

On Tuesday, EnEarl imposed the sentence but told Marshall she would be placed in a substance-abuse program which would count toward her jail term if she is successful.

"You've got some horrendous problems in your life right now," EnEarl told Marshall. "I think you are on the right track to fix that. If you don't, you are going to kill yourself, kill someone else or kill your children."

"She had a very good, offense-free record until one year ago," said her lawyer, Walter Fey. "In one year, she's hit two DUI's back-to-back with children in the vehicle."

"That's what concerns me," EnEarl said. "She's placed these children's lives in danger and the citizenry in danger. She's shown no regard for driving on a license suspended for DUI, if these charges are proved."

A trial date of Jan. 24 is set for Marshall in Lyon County on a charge of domestic battery. According to Dayton Justice Court records, Marshall was arrested on Sept. 5 on suspicion of child abuse without substantial bodily harm. That charge appears to have been reduced to domestic battery. "

Here are a few links to newspaper articles about this scumbag. She has since been convicted of multiple DUI's (2 of which involved children and accidents), as well as child abuse. Nice lady...


http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20070117/NEWS/101170075

" A 34-year-old Mound House woman who was convicted last year of drunken driving after a rollover accident that involved her two young children was back in Douglas County Jail following a fender bender in Carson City last week.

Megan Marshall admitted Tuesday in East Fork Justice Court to drinking alcohol in violation of her probation and was ordered jailed on $10,000 cash bail after she requested placement in a substance-abuse treatment program.

Marshall was arrested in Carson City on Jan. 9 after an accident with her two young children in the car.

According to Carson City Sheriff's Deputy Glenn Fair, Marshall rear-ended a vehicle that had yielded on Edmonds Drive to traffic on Fairview Drive.

"I could smell odor of alcoholic beverage from 15 feet away. It was that strong," Fair said.

Marshall allegedly failed a field sobriety test and a preliminary breath test revealed a blood alcohol level of .188, more than twice the legal limit, Fair said.

Marshall was booked into the Carson City Jail on suspicion of second-offense drunken driving, two counts of gross misdemeanor child endangerment, failure to restrain a child, driving on a license revoked for drunken driving and following too closely. Her two sons, in the car at the time, were uninjured.

It was the second time Marshall was suspected of an accident involving alcohol in which her children were passengers. She was arrested in March after a rollover accident on Foothill Road near Genoa in which the boys were also uninjured. Her blood-alcohol content in that accident was .185.

At her sentencing after the Genoa accident, East Fork Justice Jim EnEarl suspended a six-month jail term and fined her $692. He forbade Marshall from consuming alcohol or drugs.

On Tuesday, EnEarl imposed the sentence but told Marshall she would be placed in a substance-abuse program which would count toward her jail term if she is successful.

"You've got some horrendous problems in your life right now," EnEarl told Marshall. "I think you are on the right track to fix that. If you don't, you are going to kill yourself, kill someone else or kill your children."

"She had a very good, offense-free record until one year ago," said her lawyer, Walter Fey. "In one year, she's hit two DUI's back-to-back with children in the vehicle."

"That's what concerns me," EnEarl said. "She's placed these children's lives in danger and the citizenry in danger. She's shown no regard for driving on a license suspended for DUI, if these charges are proved."

A trial date of Jan. 24 is set for Marshall in Lyon County on a charge of domestic battery. According to Dayton Justice Court records, Marshall was arrested on Sept. 5 on suspicion of child abuse without substantial bodily harm. That charge appears to have been reduced to domestic battery. "

Confidentiality is required from professionals such as healcare workers, lawyers, etc... But there are a few situations that most don't realize that the confidentiality WILL be breached.

1. The person is a danger to others.
2 The person is being abused.
3. The person is a danger to themselves.

Healthcare workers, such as counselors, teachers, doctors, and others, depending on state laws, have a duty to report abuse. In some states these people can be FINED and/or JAILED for failure to do so. But, reporting the abuse on a forum like this does NOT fall into that category. From my understanding of the post, the worker (if she was a real worker) visited the father (my understanding he had custody and the mother wasn't living w/them) and he was taking good care of the child, thus the reports were labeled unfounded.

But, if all this reporting IS going on, I would strongly urge the parents to try mediation or something, because they don't want the CPS worker to get a "deaf ear" towards them because they think it's just a "custody issue". I have heard of many parents trying to use CPS to gain custody only to have CPS fail them when it was actually needed. Just a single parents opinion.

Wow, I am glad that Reid and Scott are not CPS caseworkers! Obviously, neither one of you know anything about the law or protection of children. Do you realize how many people would refuse to report child abuse if they knew that their identity would be disclosed?

As previously stated, the identity of Convicted criminals is available to the public. Just because someone claims that a person is a pervert or an abusive person does not mean that it is true or that the allegations need to be put on the internet!

The United States is a country with laws and anyone who lives here needs to follow those laws- especially if they are working in Child Protection.

Wow, I am glad that Reid and Scott are not CPS caseworkers! Obviously, neither one of you know anything about the law or protection of children. Do you realize how many people would refuse to report child abuse if they knew that their identity would be disclosed?

As previously stated, the identity of Convicted criminals is available to the public. Just because someone claims that a person is a pervert or an abusive person does not mean that it is true or that the allegations need to be put on the internet!

The United States is a country with laws and anyone who lives here needs to follow those laws- especially if they are working in Child Protection.

I think everyone here (beginning with Reid's account, but not limited too...) is forgetting one of the primary functions of Confidentiality: Protecting the Innocent! Convicted(!) offenders lose their confidentiality for the reasons stated by Reid...better they lose this privelege then another child is harmed. However, slandering those who have not been convicted (read: Innocent) should not have their names dragged through the mud. And regardless of everyone's opinion here (my own included), this is a LAW, not an option.

Thanks for reading my comments...

Joe from Dallas.
Very good question. In the complaint, it does say that the child is receiving excellent care, from the father. But it is the mother who is abusing the child and the extended family. By getting this kind of stuff out, other people who may have been purposely sent to this site, who know of the situation, can help to stop the child from staying in an abusive atmosphere. Yes the father may be providing great care. No argument there, but, by keeping the child in the environment, it does not stop the abuse of the mother or other family members. If this was all under the lock and key of confidentiality, we would, as well as, any other members of that family who care, not know the extent of the abuse. And thus they would not be able to intervene. I know that we can not do much, sorry to say, but maybe by reading this, other members of that family who are non-abusive can get to the father and convince him to either get away from there or fight for his daughter. The only real question I have in all of this is Michelle claims that when she went to see the family it became immediately apparent that the only person caring for the baby was her husband....and he was doing an excellent job of taking care of the baby. How is keeping a child in such an environment referred to as excellent care?

I have kids of my own, and I love the hell out of them, but, if they were in an abusive environment, and I did not remove them from it, am I not guilty of aiding to the abuse?
Sorry Joe, i skipped your first question... You said that there has been no proof of abuse. In the original story, not from Michelle, but rather from JD, to be found at

http://www.badbusinessbureau.com/reports/ripoff69190.htm, Jd says, Megan is wanted in the State of Ohio for violation of probation in regard to Domestic Violence against her then 8 month old son (throwing the child on the floor), and her estranged husband(attempting to stab him with scissors). I would, if this is true, say that qualifies as abuse.

I am not saying that we should decloak all confidentiality, but when it come to the safety of any child, then yes we all should know! If this Megan turns up somewhere else, some other child could go through this as well.

On a more personal note: I really enjoy this debate, it is not heated, and everyone of you has great things to say. I wish more peole would jump in and oppinion on this topic. Thank you Joe, it is people like you that keep the world talking!

Hey Joe,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirit and health.

Say, no one is asking, that you stop preaching. A person is entitled to preach all he or she wants. This is an open debate. Once again you have missed the entire point to my rebuttal. Without even having answered my question, you are attempting to counter my rebuttal, with yet another question.

I don't seem to understand why one or two people would be so caught up in this one story in particular in the first place, especially being social workers themselves. Forget this story. Put it aside for the sake of example and answer my question, before going ahead and asking one of your own.

Let us assume, that this child is safe and this report never took place at all. Better yet, for your sake and content, let us also assume that this story was totally fabricated. What's done is done.

Once again,,, do you honesetly and whole heartedly believe, that the confidentiality or even reputation of a person should take precedense over the safty and well being of a child?

As I have stated before, I agree that confidentiality is important to a certain extent, however, there are many things, that should be considered priority over anyones confidentiality and one of them happens to be the safety and well being of an innocent child.

It's great that a few occupations require a pledge for confidentiality. Hopefully one day in the near future though, these occupations will also require a pledge for general prioritization skills, the public's safety and a little common sense.

I'd do everything I possibly could to protect the safety of an innocent child, even if it meant breeching confidentiality. A breech of confidentiality seems a lot less important to me. I'm sure many people would feel the same.

Until next time, take care Joe and everyone else, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

P.S. To answer your question, so that we don't keep going back and fourth playing rebuttal tag. Yes, you are correct, the child does seem to be in good hands for the time being, however, this doesn't even come close to proving the report false or fabricated in anyway. Quite frankly, I don't see the relevance or significance your question has.

OK, Scott & Reid, I'll stop preaching and ask you one two-part question here. Not as a generality but as an almost-cross-examination-like question. If you can answer it with specific facts that make sense, I'll admit to being wrong.

Remember, there has been absolutely no confirmation of abuse in three reviews. Both "Michelle" and her supervisor have stated that "the child is receiving excellent care" and "the only danger facing the child was their contact with the Blockowitz family".

In this ONE PARTICULAR case, how is this one particular child in danger because of confidentiality? How doe "Michelle's" release of information protect that one child?

You all have alot of things to say about this... Who would have known that an innocent rebuttal on my part would have sparked such a war. Great debate guys! I feel that all points here have been valid. Having said that, I do have still one minor issue. The whole principle of confidentiality is used in this country to protect the wrong doers. Here, just as well as a preacher. If you just told him that you committed a crime, he is not allowed to tell anyone. Where does all this leave the victims? And there are always victims. Maybe this caseworker was and is false. She could just be a pissed off neighbor of the family, attempting to get revenge on the Megan.

The fact of the matter is this and the truth cannot be denied, confidentiality always herts someone. And that someone never seems to be the victim. It is a cloak of denial that criminals and the people who defend them use to lessen the crime. If we stand behind a word, no one needs to know exactly what you did. Yet if this is all real, the child in this is a victim for the rest of her life.

One day any of you may fall victim to some crime where the criminal gets an extra sheild of confidentiality, and then everything will change. I hope thaat day never comes, but if it does, before you go raising unfair, i'm the victim hell, please remember to come back and read your thoughts here!

Hey Everyone,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirit and health.

Both Joe and Trish have raised some very valid and interesting facts, however, I think the two of you are taking my statement "Forget confidentiality" a bit out of context and far too literally.

Trish, your whole "Hi, I'm from child protective services" scenario is just a little far fetched, wouldn't you say? I would like to believe that in order for one to become a social worker, he or she would have to be a tad more intelligent than that.

Even your examples regarding doctors, lawyers, CPAs are a little silly, don't you think? C'mon now be honest.

I consider myself to be a reletively intelligent person and I fully understand the need and importance of confidentiality, however there are three words that no one, and I do mean no one should ever forget. These words are common sense, public safety, and priority.

Do you honestly and whole heartedly believe, that someone's confidentialty, even reputation, is more important than the safety and welfare of a child? A yes answer will be met with silence, for I believe there is nothing that I could say, or any one else for that matter, that would sway your beliefs.

Until next time, take care you two and everyone else, cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

Aw, come on. Read the initial report again. Taking the fake caseworker at her word, the child is in the custody of the father. Child Welfare investigated and found the child was receiving good care. If the kid was in the custody of the father it is probably because a court of law had granted him custody.

The bogus "caseworker" said the child was safe...it was HER report that supported the father and said that the only danger was from the mother. The case has been reviewed at least three times, by the court which granted the custody, by "Michelle" who investigated the case, and by her supervisor, who supported the findings that the child was safe.

So how in the world do you say that this inexcusable, irresponsible, and illegal breaching of confidentiality was done to protect the safety of the child?

It's obvious that since the child is already safe, there is no valid child protection reason for the caseworker to take this action in a public forum. This is sheer venegance and payback on "Michelle's" part.

And you misunderstood my comment on a target-rich environment. The targets are those like Michelle who are libeling and comitting character assassination here in this forum.

To everyone who thinks that confidentiality is not necessary

No one seems to understand how important this is. First off, confidentiality is not a choice. It is a LAW Many professionals are held to this LAW. That includes all of our doctors, lawyers, CPA's, therapists/counselors and many more. Now with that in mind, lets imagine a world where confidentiality is a matter of choice. How would you like it for your doctor to tell what he's treated you for, or what your lawyer thinks of you and your case, or how about your CPA tell what you do with your taxes and business, and even better yet, your counselors and therapists discussing and reveling your most intimate secrets just because THEY think your not worthy of this luxury you call confidentiality.
I guarantee that anyone here that has stated confidentiality is a bad idea would sue so fast for breech of confidentiality if they found out that they're therapist, doctor, lawyer or CPA has told the world their personal secrets.
And let me be the first to remind you all that this supposed social worker is tell her OPINION of this individual Neither you nor I have the facts about this case As far as we know this could be a personal vendetta set in motion when these individuals were in high school. If that thought doesn't send chills down your spin, I don't know what will.

I'll say this once again; this social worker is hurting herself and the entire profession by breaking confidentiality. Do you think Child welfare centers rely on the abusive parent to tell that they're abusing their child? No they don't, they rely on phone calls from neighbors or strangers to report the abuse, and lets pretend that you call on your neighbor because they are abusing their child and the social worker shows up to the abusers door and says Hi, I'm from Child Protective Services and I'm here because I got a call from Mrs. Smith your neighbor saying that you abuse your kid. If we all knew that was the way it worked would you be calling?

Because of the LAWS pertaining to confidentiality no one has to fear calling child protection services to report abuse that they may have seen. Neither do we have to fear our doctors calling our wives/husbands and telling them that they have just treated you for a case of gonorrhea just because he feels a moral imperative to do so Oops, did your doctor just call the wrong number or mix up your file with someone else's?

How about our attorneys telling everyone that your husband/wife is divorcing you because he/she CLAIMS that you beat them and how about the CPA telling the world how much those widgets actually cost you compared to what you sell them for? Confidentiality is looking pretty good I bet when you consider how many scarlet A's might be burned into your chest. I don't care who you are, everyone has skeletons in the closet, and I guarantee everyone has told something to someone in confidentiality how would you feel if that person did this to you?

You cannot say one is worthy of confidentiality and one is not. Who is the person that determines worthiness?

Hey Everyone,

I hope that this rebuttal finds you in good spirit and health.

Yeah, once again I must agree with someone in that "this is a target rich environement for attornies".

We need more attornies to frequent this site, so they could see just how many lawsuits they could rack up against bad businesses and corrupt families. Man, they are missing out big time.

Also, anyone who would even think of putting confidentiality before the safety and well being of a child is mentally defective and should be sent to live with the family in question.

Confidentiality is important as it directly pertains to trust, however, confidentiality must always take a back seat when it comes to the public's safety.

The public's safety should always take precedence over a confidentiality agreement or pledge.

Just think how you'd want to know, if your next door neighbor was a convicted sex offender. If this family felt they were wrongly portrayed, it's their prerogative and responsibility to come foward and prove the statements made against them to the contrary.

Until they're willing and able to do so, they must live with the stigma of being a corrupt family.

It's sad to say that in a court of law, one is innocent until proven guilty, but in the real world and in many cases, it seems to be the exact opposite, especially when there are children involved.

Until next time, take care cause I care, Aloha from Hawaii and God Bless.

Something doesn't quite add up with this story. I live in the Reno/Sparks area and the facts just don't seem to mesh. First of all, the Mustang Ranch went defunct a LONG time ago. Second, I was the director of a daycare in Washoe county and NEVER heard of any person named Michelle working for child social services in the area. I had MANY dealings with the unfortunately small and underfunded agency. The laws that Michelle would be breaking by announcing all of this on the board would not only mean the end of her career permanently, but also the possibility of criminal charges. Taking something like this to a public forum would serve no purpose to a child social worker. There would be other routes to take if she thought there was a real problem.

Even if this report was true, it would do more harm than good. Any casework that she had done would be automatically uncredible and would have the possibility of sending the child back to an abusive parent. List of sexual offenders ARE made public, but are only effective if done through legal channels. Not through posting some report on a website. Her breech of confidnetiality would pretty much protect a sexual offender for a longer period of time from exposure to the public at large. This report is a personal vendetta against someone or a hoax.

I agree 100% with Trish. I worked for Child Welfare for many years as a caseworker, and if the original poster were REALLY a child protection officer, she has just committed the cardinal sin of casework, breaching confidentiality.

Michelle cannot be a real caseworker. Real caseworkers have the importance of confidentiality drilled into their heads from the first day on the job. If a real caseworker had posted this, at least she would have tried to hide her identity and would have given some pious explanation for her breach of confidentiality. Or at least shown some level of discomfort in her actions.

Another indication of Michelle's gameplaying can be found in her statement that "unlike some other child protective officers I am ... thorough". That just doesn't ring true. Caseworkers are a tight, somewhat closed society united by some of the things that they have to see. They uniformly develop a "black humor" that allows them to insulate themselves from the job. What they don't do is start of by "dissing" other caseworkers.

As an aside, this site represents what libel attorneys would call a "target-rich environment".

Trish:
You seem to be more interested in protecting those that have done wrong, than exposing the wrong doers! It is a custom in this country to hide the truth. Too many kids are being hurt by confidentiality! Protect the kids, expose the truth!

Forget confidentiality!! What Michelle did by posting this report is highly commendable. She put her job on the line to protect others from what sounds like a potentially dangerous situation. I can't understand why anyone would post a rebuttal in attempt to salvage this families reputation.

We need more people like Michelle in this world. People who put the lives of others before their very own livelihood. Wouldn't you want to know if your neighbors were ever accused of physically and sexually assaulting children? I definitely would. If the couple is innocent of the accusations, I'm sure they'd be willing and able to clear it up themselves, which they don't seem to be doing.

If you are innocent of any accusations and have nothing to hide, you need not worry about what's posted on the internet, for the chances of an innocent person having his or her name wind up on this website or any other public message boards are slim to nada. If someone honestly felt he or she has been reported unjustly, they would definitely be willing to defend their position.

Hat's off to Michelle!! For placing the Public's safety in her best interest and over and above something that can easily be replaced. Michelle needs a raise not reprimand. Take Care Michelle and God Bless.

Michelle
If you are in fact a child protection officer, you should know that what you have just stated in this letter is illegal! You are breaking confidentiality and if I were your supervisor would fire you on the spot!

In this line of work you should be aware that confidentiality is the most important quality that a human services provider can have. Not only should it be a quality, but it is required by law!

You should in no way be involved with this type of work if you cannot keep your mouth shut about your cases!

I know that this is a very frustrating and under-valued job, but you have no right to expose any information, not to mention full names, to anyone one much less on the internet for public viewing!

By breaking confidentiality, you are hurting everyone. How many people have read this and thought that there is no way now that they would report any child maltreatment do to fear that they might show up on this web site or anywhere else for that matter.

And Shame on you rip-off.com for posting this letter! Who should really be reported is the agent and agency were this woman works for breaking the core rules of social work!