I can't say too much without spilling details that could be identified back to the case.

Needless to say, no one is sure if the child was abused at all. You're 100% right about not taking things at face value. Sometimes the problem isn't that the person is lying, they just don't have the critical thinking skills to be able to recognize their own bias and know how it impacted what they think or observe in a situation.

In OKC they have supervised visitation services offered by the bailiff's department downtown and it is very affordable. They get used frequently because they have no vested interest in the cases and they typically do their visitations on weekends.

If the child expressed a desire to see the parent on a weekend, a bailiff would do the visit and write a report. That would ruin the case worker's plan to paint the father in a bad light. The reason the prior relationship with the child would be mostly irrelevant is because the child went over 1000 days without seeing his/her father, mainly because the courts here are so slow and bogged down it took that long to get a hearing.

The only reason I point that out, is so it doesn't seem odd why the caseworker would want to manipulate the child into changing his/her mind when the child stated a desire to see the parent on a weekend. The child did not like weekday visits because the child always had to miss school because of it.

You are right that DHS, which has a incredibly low burden of proof is franticly trying to figure out a way to avoid the child to be alone with the father. They don't have to prove that abuse occurred(nor does a juvenile judge have the authority to determine if abuse occurred, only a jury can do that) they just have to be able to say that the allegation is supported by evidence and the standard there is preponderance of evidence. Basically, if they can get the child to say that abuse occurred they get an enormous amount of power. The power is not to PUNISH the parents, but to try to keep the family together and try to solve any problems they may be going through. If the case can not be resolved after awhile, the courts move to terminate the parents rights and to do so they have to show that the problem that caused the state to get involved has not been corrected and that there is no bond between the parent and child. For the caseworker to use her power to alienate the child for purpose of successful termination later is a huge abuse of process. We can not prove that is her intention, but all signs point to that direction.

I really don't want to discuss the entire case because I am afraid I might upset someone if they figured out who I was writing here about this. Both the parents are very concerned about the child's privacy and for the most part do not discuss the case with anyone.

My question is simple, what line can case workers cross before they can become sued? I know there has to be one. I'm sure if a case worker went out and slashed a parent's car, the parent could get some compensation out of it. I know they have certain levels of protection which allows them to do their job, but I know there has to be something a caseworker can do that would cause them to face a consequence.