Brent Blair Sault CA$ interrogating child with questions cops are not permitted to ask

The good thing here is the even composure of the caller turned into anger, so the guy is fully aware of the trepidation he causes, so the parent here has a right to be suspicious. He is asking leading questions, so the obvious response would be to say "can you show me..." the hard copy of the evidence. 

It would seem clear that CAS has asked teachers to keep an eye out for any excuse to become involved and start fishing. It would also appear likely the caller had already interrogated the child. The results of that interrogation, if there were any new concerns arising out of this, are questions that should be asked by this worker. Also, this would be among the first question the parent would ask the caller, if they or another did such an interrogation. In this case, you ask for the location and time, witnesses, who in the school authorized this, and so on.

A random call from an unknown number should never be answered and only go to voicemail anyways. A surprise call that catches you unprepared is precisely the desired objective.

Parents should assume that any call from a social worker is a prelude for a removal, and the callers ONLY objective is to fish for information on an ongoing basis until that objective is achieved.

Obtain the full identification, job title, agency location, contact information (email and phone and fax) and proof of college of social worker registration, of the calling party needs to be established first. 

This social worker only said his first name. Refusal on their part to supply registration information establishes whether or not they have the legislated right to be performing an investigation, which prevents them from writing down you are uncooperative, when in fact it is they that are operating illegally, and refuse to admit they are violating the law in the course of their alleged duties.

The child's full name and birthdate and who has custody must be stated. What you want to find out is where they got that information, if you as a parent did not give it to them.

Next, the child protection concern has to be stated up front. "Writing in a planner" is not a child protection concern, it is communication from one adult to another, so what makes it a "protection" concern that warrants a costly investigation. This is financial fraud to begin investigations that are not protection related. 

What would have to happen is the child reads the information, and feels "emotionally abused" and reports that to an adult, who then contacts CAS with a protection concern. So, in order to expose the underlying motives of CAS when you suspect they are targeting you (as would seem very clear in this case), is you very carefully and politely probe for this information. 

Also, you as a parent would be asking the worker to outline the path of remedy for the "concern". If the workers says the remedy is not to write stuff in the planner that upsets the child or the child will be removed, what they have really said is they possess court-believable evidence that would justify removal, and you need to get this hard copy non-hearsay evidence with the social workers written conclusion.

The fact that such a trivial "concern" has now been raised, likely had more to do with these activism against CAS they wish to stop. THAT is the proof you need to search for.