CPS and Custody

thisiskortny5 · Nov 6, 2017

If a mother loses custody of her child, the child can be placed with a relative, correct? (This happened to my cousin because of drugs, and the child was placed with the grandmother, so I'm assuming this happens a lot) But what if the dad, who was away for a short time, comes back and wants the child from the relative. Do they have automatic custody, or does the father have to prove himself fit to take the child?

Background:
child is 18 months
mother and father weren't married
father had been around the child since birth, had only been away for work and couldn't be contacted
mother is coerced by cps and police into signing over temporary custody to her sister (not sure if this is something that happens, i'm coming up short on my research)

Fruitbat · Nov 6, 2017

CPS looks for a family placement first. It's better for the child to go with people he/she knows, and of course the state doesn't want to pay for foster care if they don't have to.

A family member would get a criminal background check and quick look at their home, at least. For example, the relative a child is placed with can't have a serious criminal record or very substandard living conditions. CPS wants to be sure they're not leaving a child somewhere as bad as the environment they just removed him from. But the standards aren't as high for a family placement as they are for a foster parent, who must take classes and go through more thorough investigation of their home and background to get certified.

A father who was in continual contact with his child would most likely get (temporary) custody of the child when he came back. A child's parents usually have the most rights, not the grandparents. However, once CPS is involved, they're in charge, so transferring the child to him would go through them. He'd at least get that preliminary screening and I'm sure they'd want to know why he was incommunicado.

Also, the mother would get a chance to get the child back. They come up with a plan that includes what she would need to do (usually it's counseling, parenting classes and fixing whatever problem led to the removal) and a time frame (usually 6 months, to possibly be extended to a year if she is making good progress). It also includes a back-up plan of what will happen if the mother doesn't meet the goals. If the father is deemed fit for parenting, that would probably mean he'd be the one to get the child if mom doesn't get it together within the time frame. Also, the placement decisions go before a family court judge for finalization; it's not solely up to CPS.

And then, of course, the father could go to family court to try to get permanent custody anyway, and it would be up to the judge. If it was granted, CPS would be out of the picture.

Oh, as far as the mother being coerced to sign over custody, no, if there's cause they take the child, on an emergency basis. Frequently, the police are first on the scene and call CPS (for example, if they take the mother to jail). Her consent or signature aren't required. The CPS worker gets approval for whatever he/she does from her CPS supervisor. It then has to go before the family court judge within 3 days for final say on the temporary removal and placement.

Sorry for all the edits. I'm not awake yet.

thisiskortny5 · Nov 6, 2017

Fruitbat said:
CPS looks for a family placement first. It's better for the child to go with people he/she knows, and of course the state doesn't want to pay for foster care if they don't have to.

A family member would get a criminal background check and quick look at their home, at least. For example, the relative a child is placed with can't have a serious criminal record or very substandard living conditions. CPS wants to be sure they're not leaving a child somewhere as bad as the environment they just removed him from. But the standards aren't as high for a family placement as they are for a foster parent, who must take classes and go through more thorough investigation of their home and background to get certified.

A father who was in continual contact with his child would most likely get (temporary) custody of the child when he came back. A child's parents usually have the most rights, not the grandparents. However, once CPS is involved, they're in charge, so transferring the child to him would go through them. He'd at least get that preliminary screening and I'm sure they'd want to know why he was incommunicado.

Also, the mother would get a chance to get the child back. They come up with a plan that includes what she would need to do (usually it's counseling, parenting classes and fixing whatever problem led to the removal) and a time frame (usually 6 months, to possibly be extended to a year if she is making good progress). It also includes a back-up plan of what will happen if the mother doesn't meet the goals. If the father is deemed fit for parenting, that would probably mean he'd be the one to get the child if mom doesn't get it together within the time frame. Also, the placement decisions go before a family court judge for finalization; it's not solely up to CPS.

And then, of course, the father could go to family court to try to get permanent custody anyway, and it would be up to the judge. If it was granted, CPS would be out of the picture.

Oh, as far as the mother being coerced to sign over custody, no, if there's cause they take the child, on an emergency basis. Frequently, the police are first on the scene and call CPS (for example, if they take the mother to jail). Her consent or signature aren't required. The CPS worker gets approval for whatever he/she does from her CPS supervisor. It then has to go before the family court judge within 3 days for final say on the temporary removal and placement.

Sorry for all the edits. I'm not awake yet.

Thanks so much, this is very helpful!!!

cornflake · Nov 6, 2017

thisiskortny5 said:
If a mother loses custody of her child, the child can be placed with a relative, correct? (This happened to my cousin because of drugs, and the child was placed with the grandmother, so I'm assuming this happens a lot) But what if the dad, who was away for a short time, comes back and wants the child from the relative. Do they have automatic custody, or does the father have to prove himself fit to take the child?

Background:
child is 18 months
mother and father weren't married
father had been around the child since birth, had only been away for work and couldn't be contacted
mother is coerced by cps and police into signing over temporary custody to her sister (not sure if this is something that happens, i'm coming up short on my research)

You've created a mess and a half here.

I don't know how he couldn't be contacted -- not only in this day and age but even decades ago. However, if he shows up and says he's the father, and you've already got CPS involved, and they're not married and never have been, he likely has to prove he's the father first, which requires DNA testing and etc., so he's not getting the kid anytime soon. If he does prove he is, then he'd likely get the kid, yeah, but he may have to retain a lawyer and go petition.

GregFH · Nov 9, 2017

Be careful, what happens and how it happens can vary quite a bit from state to state.

Jan74 · Nov 9, 2017

If the couple are separated then the child would go to the father, cps wouldn't permanently place a child until they reached the father. Obviously if they are trying to reach the father then they already know he's the father so they wouldn't be doing dna etc especially if the child is in continual contact with the father(join custody etc). The family would know he's the father so why would they stop him from taking the child? Is he paying child support, is there already a custody agreement? CPS varies from place to place so you might need to do a search of that states laws pertaining to this. Where I am they would seek out the father and fathers have as many rights as mothers, and I've never heard of a father being required to do paternity testing unless that is being disputed. So unless the family the child is in care of stated he wasn't the father then maybe they might do testing. CPS is murky grey world full of subjective opinions and blurred lines. Good luck with your story.

cornflake · Nov 9, 2017

Jan74 said:
If the couple are separated then the child would go to the father, cps wouldn't permanently place a child until they reached the father. Obviously if they are trying to reach the father then they already know he's the father so they wouldn't be doing dna etc especially if the child is in continual contact with the father(join custody etc). The family would know he's the father so why would they stop him from taking the child? Is he paying child support, is there already a custody agreement? CPS varies from place to place so you might need to do a search of that states laws pertaining to this. Where I am they would seek out the father and fathers have as many rights as mothers, and I've never heard of a father being required to do paternity testing unless that is being disputed. So unless the family the child is in care of stated he wasn't the father then maybe they might do testing. CPS is murky grey world full of subjective opinions and blurred lines. Good luck with your story.

There's usually a question made to the person being taken into custody or who is having the kids removed temporarily about who to call to place them, or where the other parent is. So if she says, 'this is their father's number,' people would try that. They'd also check. If they were never married, in many if not most states in the U.S., he's not the father without a finding of that fact, legally. Once you've involved a legal authority, there's paperwork.

They're going to want a finding of fact; they're not just handing a kid to someone because they got a phone number and he says he's the father.

bombergirl69 · Nov 9, 2017

Murky indeed.
At least in MT, if CPS feels they need to remove a child from a parent, they will! There will be an order for Emergency protective services. The child may be placed with a family member, including the non custodial parent, if they pass a background check. CPS will apply for a TIA (temporary investiative authority) which I think takes 90 days. you will have a plan to get your child back (the first goal of CPS) ad if you complete in 90 days, yay. If not, CPS applies for TLC (temporary legal custody). the child may still be living with the non custodial parent, but will be in the custody of CPS (or which ever agency, in MT it's DFS). Meanwhile, the first parent is working on their treatment plan That will entail drug and alcohol counseling, if relevant (it usually is), domestic violence counseling, getting a job, getting a stable place to live, keeping out of unhealthy relationships (if mom has a boyfriend, he will also get a background check and get a treatment plan!) and so on. There are time lines to all these things (90 days, a year, whatever) but those get extended fairly regularly.

Very frequently, children remain in the home while supportive services are offered. They are removed when it is determined there is significant risk. CPS generally prefers to keep kids togheter, in the home, if possible. If not, they will also work on a backup plan if case kids are not returned.

Jan74 · Nov 9, 2017

cornflake said:
There's usually a question made to the person being taken into custody or who is having the kids removed temporarily about who to call to place them, or where the other parent is. So if she says, 'this is their father's number,' people would try that. They'd also check. If they were never married, in many if not most states in the U.S., he's not the father without a finding of that fact, legally. Once you've involved a legal authority, there's paperwork.

They're going to want a finding of fact; they're not just handing a kid to someone because they got a phone number and he says he's the father.

You don't need to be a biological father to be a father. What if they child was adopted, or she was pregnant when they got married and he's raised the child from birth. I have a friend who's father died when she was a baby and her dad isn't her biological father, he never legally adopted her, but at 43 he's the only father she's ever known and from our laws legally he is considered her father.

Jan74 · Nov 9, 2017

So after re-reading your OP she was coerced into signing a document she didn't want to sign. I smell a lawsuit and of course the father should be looked for. With todays modern technology it wouldn't be hard for the police to locate the father. Even if he was out of town on business they would dispatch an officer to the hotel etc. So lets say I'm in Toronto (2day drive away) police here would speak with police there and they would find me. Just like if a child was in the hospital and they needed to locate/notify the parents the police would do everything in their power to locate and track down parents.

Police would not coerce a parent into signing a custody document, its completely outside their realm of authority. If the woman was in police custody she would be encouraged to call a lawyer.

Jan74 · Nov 9, 2017

Here's a link which may be helpful for you in terms of police involvement and their role.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/law/

cornflake · Nov 9, 2017

Jan74 said:
You don't need to be a biological father to be a father. What if they child was adopted, or she was pregnant when they got married and he's raised the child from birth. I have a friend who's father died when she was a baby and her dad isn't her biological father, he never legally adopted her, but at 43 he's the only father she's ever known and from our laws legally he is considered her father.

Of course you don't need to be biologically related to anyone to be their parent. See the many threads in which I've railed about that. We're talking about being legally related, not biologically. One has zip to do with the other, in the eyes of the state or otherwise.

Most states in the U.S. consider a man married to a woman who gives birth to be the legal father of that child.

If a heterosexual couple is married, and the woman gives birth, the man is the legal father. So even if he disappears for a year, and then she does, the court will consider him the kid's father and not ask for DNA. He might have no biological relation to the kid -- which he might be well aware of. Doesn't matter to the state.

If a couple is NOT married, and have a child together, to which he IS biologically related, and she, say, gives birth, they live together and raise the kid for a year and then she skips town for Reno, and like, her mother decides she wants custody because she always hated the father, he needs (in most states, yada yada) DNA testing to prove he's the father and keep custody, because, legally, he's a random individual.

If someone isn't biologically related, or wasn't married to the person, but was acting as a parent, they can go to court to prove that, through financial records, school records, outside testimony, etc., and that'd be fine, but it takes proving.

The court/state will not go by anyone just claiming to be a parent without some kind of proof, be it a marriage license or a DNA test or records, or even the word of another parent without the same.

cornflake · Nov 9, 2017

Jan74 said:
So after re-reading your OP she was coerced into signing a document she didn't want to sign. I smell a lawsuit and of course the father should be looked for. With todays modern technology it wouldn't be hard for the police to locate the father. Even if he was out of town on business they would dispatch an officer to the hotel etc. So lets say I'm in Toronto (2day drive away) police here would speak with police there and they would find me. Just like if a child was in the hospital and they needed to locate/notify the parents the police would do everything in their power to locate and track down parents.

Police would not coerce a parent into signing a custody document, its completely outside their realm of authority. If the woman was in police custody she would be encouraged to call a lawyer.

Cops aren't generally in the business of encouraging people to call lawyers, heh.

Jan74 · Nov 9, 2017

cornflake said:
Cops aren't generally in the business of encouraging people to call lawyers, heh.

Don't you have Miranda Rights read to you after being arrested? If the police are trying to obtain a confession they have to tell you you have the right to remain silent and you have the right to a lawyer. In Canada we don't have "Miranda" rights but the police have to offer you legal counsel. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

cornflake · Nov 9, 2017

Jan74 said:
Don't you have Miranda Rights read to you after being arrested? If the police are trying to obtain a confession they have to tell you you have the right to remain silent and you have the right to a lawyer. In Canada we don't have "Miranda" rights but the police have to offer you legal counsel. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Indeed they do read you your rights -- and then will usually begin to question you. You have to invoke that right, refuse to respond, and request, specifically, an attorney, to get one. Cops aren't so dumb as to offer them. You have a right to an attorney, you also have the right to talk all you want without one and help the cops out.

See the thread I posted a week or so ago about the man who said to a cop who was questioning him, 'give me a lawyer dog,' and how that state's supreme court said it was legal for the cop to keep questioning him and NOT get him a lawyer because he might not have been actually asking for questioning to cease until an attorney was present, but may have been asking for 'a lawyer dog,' like a beagle who'd passed the bar.

bombergirl69 · Nov 10, 2017

cornflake said:
...but may have been asking for 'a lawyer dog,' like a beagle who'd passed the bar.

Yeah, but see, even then, one presumes that if said beagle had passed the bar, s/he'd tell her client to shut the fuck up. So regardless if one was requesting a lawyer, a lawyer dog, or Mr. Ed, still don't follow their logic...

Anyway, no, other than reading rights as required, it would seem atypical for police to encourage a suspect to call a lawyer!

cornflake · Nov 10, 2017

bombergirl69 said:
Yeah, but see, even then, one presumes that if said beagle had passed the bar, s/he'd tell her client to shut the fuck up. So regardless if one was requesting a lawyer, a lawyer dog, or Mr. Ed, still don't follow their logic...

Anyway, no, other than reading rights as required, it would seem atypical for police to encourage a suspect to call a lawyer!

Indeed. The typical response to 'I think I need a lawyer,' is something on the order of, 'why, are you guilty?' or 'I thought you wanted to help us solve this/clear your name,' or ....

Fruitbat · Nov 10, 2017

@Jan74- I think you are glopping things together here that, while certainly interrelated, are separate.

For example, the OP was asking if the authorities would have to "coerce" her to sign/give consent to take her child into temporary custody. As was mentioned earlier, it doesn't apply because if the child is in unsafe conditions, the authorities do not need her permission to take the child into temporary custody in the first place. (Which makes sense. I mean, the whole point of the authorities having to step in and take control is... just that).

Also, Miranda rights don't apply. They are for criminal accusations, whereas taking a child into temporary custody is civil (family court).

The police might be the first ones called and would of course also deal with any criminal side of it- such as if this all came about during a drug bust on the mother or if the neighbors called the cops due to abuse/neglect (which the mother could be charged criminally for, in addition to the civil/family court side of it). But they'd soon turn the child over to CPS (civil/family court).

And of course an attorney would not arrive on the scene, that would come later, both in family court and possibly/probably also criminal court (which would be two different courts and two different attorneys).

In addition to whatever criminal court the case would be referred to, a family court judge (which is where attorneys for the family court side of it enter the picture) would have to soon decide if the temporary placement CPS made would stand or if the child should be returned to the mother. In my state, that needs to occur within three days of an emergency removal from the parent.

And then it goes on from there, likely with both the family court and criminal court sides both working together but also separately.

Or, something like that... Safe to say, it's complicated.

cornflake · Nov 10, 2017

While Fruit is correct, and at the risk of slight further derail but just as a point of information as the thread has gone this way, Canadian civil rights are, in this case as in others (like freedom of the press and speech) not as far-reaching as in the U.S. To wit

While the police must be respectful of an individual’s [charter] rights, a rule that would require the police to automatically retreat upon a detainee stating that he or she has nothing to say would not strike the proper balance between the public interest in the investigation of crimes and the suspect’s interest in being left alone," the justices wrote.

The OP seems to be discussing a case in the U.S., so further moot, but it shows how the laws and customs do differ even though we think they're similar.

Jan74 · Nov 10, 2017

cornflake said:
Indeed. The typical response to 'I think I need a lawyer,' is something on the order of, 'why, are you guilty?' or 'I thought you wanted to help us solve this/clear your name,' or ....

really? Is that the mindset of American police officers? I always took the TV portrayal in regards to how officers interrogate suspects with a grain of salt. My father was a Sargent with O.P.P(Ontario Provincial Police) and during an investigation I don't think they jump to "why, are you guilty?" mentality when someone requests legal aide. The police are there to simply gather facts and determine if any laws are broken. It's not up to them to determine guilt, that's the courts job.

Fruitbat said:
@Jan74- I think you are glopping things together here that, while certainly interrelated, are separate.

For example, the OP was asking if the authorities would have to "coerce" her to sign/give consent to take her child into temporary custody. As was mentioned earlier, it doesn't apply because if the child is in unsafe conditions, the authorities do not need her permission to take the child into temporary custody in the first place. (Which makes sense. I mean, the whole point of the authorities having to step in and take control is... just that).

Also, Miranda rights don't apply. They are for criminal accusations, whereas taking a child into temporary custody is civil (family court).

The police might be the first ones called and would of course also deal with any criminal side of it- such as if this all came about during a drug bust on the mother or if the neighbors called the cops due to abuse/neglect (which the mother could be charged criminally for, in addition to the civil/family court side of it). But they'd soon turn the child over to CPS (civil/family court).

And of course an attorney would not arrive on the scene, that would come later, both in family court and possibly/probably also criminal court (which would be two different courts and two different attorneys).

In addition to whatever criminal court the case would be referred to, a family court judge (which is where attorneys for the family court side of it enter the picture) would have to soon decide if the temporary placement CPS made would stand or if the child should be returned to the mother. In my state, that needs to occur within three days of an emergency removal from the parent.

And then it goes on from there, likely with both the family court and criminal court sides both working together but also separately.

Or, something like that... Safe to say, it's complicated.

Agreed I think there are two different issues. However I stand by my opinion that the police are not going to coerce a person to sign a CPS document, that isn't their role. Agreed the lawyer would come later unless the police are asking you for a statement, that is when you have the right to refuse to speak and request legal counsel. They will come to the police station and they have to provide you with access to legal advise, if you choose that route. It doesn't mean you have to speak with a lawyer and I'm sure many people provide statements without legal advice.

Jan74 · Nov 10, 2017

cornflake said:
While Fruit is correct, and at the risk of slight further derail but just as a point of information as the thread has gone this way, Canadian civil rights are, in this case as in others (like freedom of the press and speech) not as far-reaching as in the U.S. To wit

The OP seems to be discussing a case in the U.S., so further moot, but it shows how the laws and customs do differ even though we think they're similar.

I agree there are many similarities and many differences too. In general I don't think people fear the police here, their role is pretty defined. They gather evidence, determine if a law is broken and press charges if so. I think CPS in both countries is a murky grey world full of issues.

bombergirl69 · Nov 10, 2017

Nope. the police don't have to coerce anyone to sign anything when they remove. If a child needs to be removed, they'll (police or CPS) remove (get an Emergency Protective Order) The parent can give names and numbers of family members to the police, and those folks will be checked out.

But Cornflake is correct--every lawyer I have ever worked with (many!) as well as family members who are prosecutors say the same thing--the police are not your friend, as in, don't talk to them, even if you think you have nothing to hide! They are extremely good interviewers. If you are detained, ask for a lawyer dog and shut up. Do not give them permission to "glance around your car," or anything else. They need a warrant and they should get one. * Police are in the business of solving cases. They can definitely push a bit if they think someone could be helpful, which may or may not be in that person's best interest.

To the OP, i'd check out the CPS regs in whatever state you're writing about--they should be online--and that will give you an idea of the timeline and how the agency works (EPS, TIA, TLC, etc.)

* not meant in any way to function as actual legal advice, just friendly recommendations

Fruitbat · Nov 10, 2017

Jan74 said:
Agreed I think there are two different issues. However I stand by my opinion that the police are not going to coerce a person to sign a CPS document, that isn't their role. Agreed the lawyer would come later unless the police are asking you for a statement, that is when you have the right to refuse to speak and request legal counsel. They will come to the police station and they have to provide you with access to legal advise, if you choose that route. It doesn't mean you have to speak with a lawyer and I'm sure many people provide statements without legal advice.

I don't understand what you are saying here: "However I stand by my opinion that the police are not going to coerce a person to sign a CPS document, that isn't their role." I don't think anyone said the police would coerce someone to sign a CPS document or that it was their role. We are saying it wouldn't be necessary because the signature wouldn't be required in the first place. Also, as has been mentioned, the OP is asking about the procedures in the United States, which may not be the same as in Canada.

About legal advice, in the U.S., no, I am not sure they do "provide you with" access to legal advice, if you are not indigent. And even if they did, in reality, the system here is severely strained and you may not get very timely or very high quality assistance. Indigent people who are going to court on very serious charges often face a dire shortage of good free legal assistance.

I know you didn't say otherwise on this next part so this it's moving on to my opinion in general. Sometimes it just doesn't make much sense to not cooperate with the authorities, practically speaking. For example, if I get stopped in my car and the police want to search my car and/or purse (which has happened) I allow it because I know I don't have anything illegal and I don't want to sit on the side of the road for a couple of hours while they get a court order, then search it anyway. I assume that's what would have happened, anyway. I guess they might say "Oh, nevermind then," and let you go but I'd guess not.

With CPS, too, nobody can make you speak before you can get an attorney by your side but of course that doesn't automatically mean CPS can't act until then if they have cause to believe the child is in danger. And it could be you'd have something to say on the scene that might prevent them from placing your child with strangers in the foster care system (for a day or two anyway).

So fwiw, just pointing out that people also probably cooperate with the authorities without a court order or an attorney being present just because it's not always very practical or helpful to them not to. Which is not to say the authorities wouldn't rather you just did it all their way because that's also true.

Fruitbat · Nov 10, 2017

To the OP, if you're still with us, about the father being incommunicado, I think you could swing it but maybe not with him being away with his job. Maybe instead he was out on a date with someone new and his phone was misplaced or stolen. That might explain a day or two. Or just cut the part where he couldn't be found and have him show up right away, if it will work with your story.

cornflake · Nov 10, 2017

Fruit -- yeah, you are entitled to legal representation if you're going to court or if you've been arrested. If you're indigent, the system does indeed provide you with a lawyer. If you can 'afford' one... call legal aid, heh, but you don't have to be entirely destitute to get a public defender.

Jan74 said:
really? Is that the mindset of American police officers? I always took the TV portrayal in regards to how officers interrogate suspects with a grain of salt. My father was a Sargent with O.P.P(Ontario Provincial Police) and during an investigation I don't think they jump to "why, are you guilty?" mentality when someone requests legal aide. The police are there to simply gather facts and determine if any laws are broken. It's not up to them to determine guilt, that's the courts job. ...

That is the mindset of American cops, Canadian cops... I've heard tons of stories about Canadian cops employing the exact same tactics as American ones. They're cops; they want to close cases, and they believe everyone is guilty and lying.

bombergirl69 said:
Nope. the police don't have to coerce anyone to sign anything when they remove. If a child needs to be removed, they'll (police or CPS) remove (get an Emergency Protective Order) The parent can give names and numbers of family members to the police, and those folks will be checked out.

But Cornflake is correct--every lawyer I have ever worked with (many!) as well as family members who are prosecutors say the same thing--the police are not your friend, as in, don't talk to them, even if you think you have nothing to hide! They are extremely good interviewers. If you are detained, ask for a lawyer dog and shut up. Do not give them permission to "glance around your car," or anything else. They need a warrant and they should get one. * Police are in the business of solving cases. They can definitely push a bit if they think someone could be helpful, which may or may not be in that person's best interest.

To the OP, i'd check out the CPS regs in whatever state you're writing about--they should be online--and that will give you an idea of the timeline and how the agency works (EPS, TIA, TLC, etc.)

* not meant in any way to function as actual legal advice, just friendly recommendations

Heh, in my hippie-type box I was told as a wee flake that you never talk to cops or let them in anyplace unless you're the one who called them. That was just considered a basic life lesson. I was also told to find a cop if I was lost, and when to call them, but if you didn't, keep your mouth firmly shut and call a lawyer.

CPS and Custody

thisiskortny5

Fruitbat

.

thisiskortny5

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

GregFH

Jan74

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

bombergirl69

Jan74

Jan74

Jan74

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

Jan74

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

bombergirl69

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

Fruitbat

.

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

Jan74

Jan74

bombergirl69

Fruitbat

.

Fruitbat

.

cornflake

practical experience, FTW