Tag Archives: 14th amendment parents rights to child

Senator Ed Ableser CAN Find ANY Reason in ANY Home to Remove EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOUR CHILDREN! Watch!

Posted on by

Child Protective Services – Topic 2 – Detention of your Child(ren)

Posted on by

Detention: The removal of your child(ren) from your care by Child Protective Services

One thing is very important for people to know and that is Child Protective Services DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER until YOU GIVE IT TO THEM. Otherwise, they can go take a hike.

If you think there is some kind of law that says that YOU HAVE TO TALK TO THEM you are wrong. No county that I know of has such a law. Often, they arrive with the police. This is merely to INTIMIDATE YOU but also to protect them against you flipping out. We are often shielded from news stories about parents who go postal on social workers who threaten to take their child away. I think so no one gets any crazy ideas. However, a few have made into the mainstream. I have heard of people shooting CPS workers in the face and recently a mother hunted down the social worker who terminated her rights and killed her in cold blood. Let’s be honest, that is our initial urge in such a devastating event. Violence is counterproductive because when that mother’s child grows up she will most likely still be in prison and until the day she dies. There is no chance of ever having a close relationship with your child if you have to spend the rest of your life in prison.

As soon as CPS shows up at your door, and you ignorantly agree to speak to them, RECORD EVERYTHING! If they tell you that they are there to remove your child, say “NO!”. OBJECT to everything that is undocumented, lacks witness testimony, that is unreasonable, and make sure you get it recorded. If that day has already passed, you can still RECORD every future conversation with anyone and everyone involved in your case, in person and over the phone. If you think it is illegal to record a conversation that YOU are a party to, I have news for you:

Who must give permission to record a telephone or in-person conversation?

Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a “one-party consent” law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. Furthermore, if you are not a party to the conversation, a “one-party consent” law will allow you to record the conversation or phone call so long as your source consents and has full knowledge that the communication will be recorded. Check your state’s law to see if they use the one-party consent law.

Every parent feels that their child will be taken “over their dead body”. Believe me, THAT IS WHAT IT WOULD BE if you decided to stick to that way of thinking. Dead or in jail of course. My husband and I went to jail for taking our son back from THEIR ILLEGAL DETENTION of our son, Donnelly. Of course for some reason, CPS in Riverside County, California, believes that they have a legal right over your child WITHOUT ANY SIGNED COURT ORDERS giving them custody! The police do not require the same from CPS as they do parents when involved in a “legal” custody battle. Us parents need to show the police a duly court stamped CUSTODY ORDER SIGNED BY AN OFFICIAL STATE JUDGE in order to receive their assistance to regain custody and control over your child. CPS can simply say they have custody and sometimes show them a MINUTE ORDER that is NOT SIGNED BY ANY JUDGE (because the “official” they call a “Judge” is merely an ADMINISTRATIVE “HEARING OFFICER”). BE SURE TO RESEARCH THIS IN YOUR COUNTY.

In California, CPS MUST CONSIDER PLACEMENT WITH A FAMILY MEMBER FIRST! This is from the current CA Welfare & Institutions Code:

361.3.  (a) In any case in which a child is removed from the
physical custody of his or her parents pursuant to Section 361,
preferential consideration shall be given to a request by a relative
of the child for placement of the child with the relative, regardless
of the relative's immigration status. In determining whether
placement with a relative is appropriate, the county social worker
and court shall consider, but shall not be limited to, consideration
of all the following factors:
   (1) The best interest of the child, including special physical,
psychological, educational, medical, or emotional needs.
   (2) The wishes of the parent, the relative, and child, if
appropriate.
   (3) The provisions of Part 6 (commencing with Section 7950) of
Division 12 of the Family Code regarding relative placement.
   (4) Placement of siblings and half siblings in the same home,
unless that placement is found to be contrary to the safety and
well-being of any of the siblings, as provided in Section 16002.
   (5) The good moral character of the relative and any other adult
living in the home, including whether any individual residing in the
home has a prior history of violent criminal acts or has been
responsible for acts of child abuse or neglect.
   (6) The nature and duration of the relationship between the child
and the relative, and the relative's desire to care for, and to
provide legal permanency for, the child if reunification is
unsuccessful.
   (7) The ability of the relative to do the following:
   (A) Provide a safe, secure, and stable environment for the child.
   (B) Exercise proper and effective care and control of the child.
   (C) Provide a home and the necessities of life for the child.
   (D) Protect the child from his or her parents.
   (E) Facilitate court-ordered reunification efforts with the
parents.
   (F) Facilitate visitation with the child's other relatives.
   (G) Facilitate implementation of all elements of the case plan.
   (H) Provide legal permanence for the child if reunification fails.
   However, any finding made with respect to the factor considered
pursuant to this subparagraph and pursuant to subparagraph (G) shall
not be the sole basis for precluding preferential placement with a
relative.
   (I) Arrange for appropriate and safe child care, as necessary.
   (8) The safety of the relative's home. For a relative to be
considered appropriate to receive placement of a child under this
section, the relative's home shall first be approved pursuant to the
process and standards described in subdivision (d) of Section 309.
   In this regard, the Legislature declares that a physical
disability, such as blindness or deafness, is no bar to the raising
of children, and a county social worker's determination as to the
ability of a disabled relative to exercise care and control should
center upon whether the relative's disability prevents him or her
from exercising care and control. The court shall order the parent to
disclose to the county social worker the names, residences, and any
other known identifying information of any maternal or paternal
relatives of the child. This inquiry shall not be construed, however,
to guarantee that the child will be placed with any person so
identified. The county social worker shall initially contact the
relatives given preferential consideration for placement to determine
if they desire the child to be placed with them. Those desiring
placement shall be assessed according to the factors enumerated in
this subdivision. The county social worker shall document these
efforts in the social study prepared pursuant to Section 358.1. The
court shall authorize the county social worker, while assessing these
relatives for the possibility of placement, to disclose to the
relative, as appropriate, the fact that the child is in custody, the
alleged reasons for the custody, and the projected likely date for
the child's return home or placement for adoption or legal
guardianship. However, this investigation shall not be construed as
good cause for continuance of the dispositional hearing conducted
pursuant to Section 358.
   (b) In any case in which more than one appropriate relative
requests preferential consideration pursuant to this section, each
relative shall be considered under the factors enumerated in
subdivision (a). Consistent with the legislative intent for children
to be placed immediately with a responsible relative, this section
does not limit the county social worker's ability to place a child in
the home of an appropriate relative or a nonrelative extended family
member pending the consideration of other relatives who have
requested preferential consideration.
   (c) For purposes of this section:
   (1) "Preferential consideration" means that the relative seeking
placement shall be the first placement to be considered and
investigated.
   (2) "Relative" means an adult who is related to the child by
blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship,
including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status
is preceded by the words "great," "great-great," or "grand," or the
spouse of any of these persons even if the marriage was terminated by
death or dissolution. However, only the following relatives shall be
given preferential consideration for the placement of the child: an
adult who is a grandparent, aunt, uncle, or sibling.
   (d) Subsequent to the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 358,
whenever a new placement of the child must be made, consideration for
placement shall again be given as described in this section to
relatives who have not been found to be unsuitable and who will
fulfill the child's reunification or permanent plan requirements. In
addition to the factors described in subdivision (a), the county
social worker shall consider whether the relative has established and
maintained a relationship with the child.
   (e) If the court does not place the child with a relative who has
been considered for placement pursuant to this section, the court
shall state for the record the reasons placement with that relative
was denied.
   (f) (1) With respect to a child who satisfies the criteria set
forth in paragraph (2), the department and any licensed adoption
agency may search for a relative and furnish identifying information
relating to the child to that relative if it is believed the child's
welfare will be promoted thereby.
   (2) Paragraph (1) shall apply if both of the following conditions
are satisfied:
   (A) The child was previously a dependent of the court.
   (B) The child was previously adopted and the adoption has been
disrupted, set aside pursuant to Section 9100 or 9102 of the Family
Code, or the child has been released into the custody of the
department or a licensed adoption agency by the adoptive parent or
parents.
   (3) As used in this subdivision, "relative" includes a member of
the child's birth family and nonrelated extended family members,
regardless of whether the parental rights were terminated, provided
that both of the following are true:
   (A) No appropriate potential caretaker is known to exist from the
child's adoptive family, including nonrelated extended family members
of the adoptive family.
   (B) The child was not the subject of a voluntary relinquishment by
the birth parents pursuant to Section 8700 of the Family Code or
Section 1255.7 of the Health and Safety Code.

All too often, CPS will use a catch phrase to support their kidnapping of your child(ren) such as “the child was at imminent risk” or even the lesser, “the child was at risk”. The “risk” can be as minimal as to not even exist because they can make it up and not have to provide ANY real evidence or ANY real witnesses. In most Juvenile Dependency actions, (which is ACTUALLY JUST A CIVIL OR ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) the mere filing of a Petition along with a Detention Report, regardless of its correctness or truthfulness, constitutes a “prima facie” case which means:

Prima Facie

[Latin, On the first appearance.] A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.

In common parlance the term prima facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence).

For most civil claims, a plaintiff must present a prima facie case to avoid dismissal ofthe case or an unfavorable directed verdict. The plaintiff must produce enough evidence on all elements of the claim to support the claim and shift the burden of evidence production to the respondent. If the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case,the respondent may move for dismissal or a favorable directed verdict without presenting any evidence to rebut whatever evidence the plaintiff has presented. This is because the burden of persuading a judge or jury always rests with the plaintiff.

Assume that a plaintiff claims that an employer failed to promote her based on hersex. The plaintiff must produce affirmative evidence showing that the employer used illegitimate, discriminatory criteria in making employment decisions that concerned the plaintiff. The employer, as respondent, does not have a burden to produce evidence until the plaintiff has made a prima facie case of Sex Discrimination (TexasDepartment of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 67 L. Ed.2d 207 [1981]). The precise amount of evidence that constitutes a prima facie case varies from claim to claim. If the plaintiff does not present a prima facie case with sufficient evidence, the judge may dismiss the case. Or, if the case is being heard by a jury, the judge may direct the jury to return a verdict for the respondent.

Prima facie also refers to specific evidence that, if believed, supports a case or anelement that needs to be proved in the case. The term prima facie evidence is used inboth civil and Criminal Law. For example, if the prosecution in a murder casepresents a videotape showing the defendant screaming death threats at the victim,such evidence may be prima facie evidence of intent to kill, an element that must beproved by the prosecution before the defendant may be convicted of murder. On itsface, the evidence indicates that the defendant intended to kill the victim.

Statutes may specify that certain evidence is prima facie evidence of a certain fact.For example, a duly authenticated copy of a defendant’s criminal record may beconsidered prima facie evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions and may be usedagainst the defendant in court (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-3-412 [West 1996]). A Civil Law example is a statute that makes a duly certified copy or duplicate of a certificateof authority for a fraternal benefit society to transact business prima facie evidencethat the society is legal and legitimate (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 10-14-603 [West1996]).

Further readings

Herlitz, Georg Nils. 1994. “The Meaning of the Term ‘Prima Facie.'” Louisiana LawReview 55.

Cross-references

Burden of Persuasion.

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

prima facie

(pry-mah fay-shah) adj. Latin for “at first look,” or “on its face,” referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial. A prima facie case presented to a grand jury by the prosecution will result in an indictment. Example: in a charge of bad check writing, evidence of a half dozen checks written on a non-existent bank account, makes it a prima facie case. However, proof that the bank had misprinted the account number on the checks might disprove the prosecution’s apparent “open and shut” case. (See: prima facie case)

Most often, CPS has NO WARRANT AND THEREFORE NO LEGAL GROUNDS TO REMOVE YOUR CHILD! They must state in their PETITION as well as their DETENTION REPORT what the reasons are, and if no warrant, they must state the facts, clearly and concisely, what evidence they had to believe the child(ren) were at imminent risk of being abuse or neglected. Do you know what they say in their detention reports? Things like, “The family has had a prior CPS case therefore, due to someone calling in again then the parents did not benefit from services provided by the Department therefore the child was at risk of abuse or neglect.”!  WTF???

Sometimes it is very difficult for me to write these posts as this kind of shit really disturbs me!

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO THE FOLLOWING AT THIS POINT:

  1.  RESEARCH RESEARCH RESEARCH – Look up your state’s laws regarding child welfare, look up and get a copy of your county’s MANUAL OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, find out what YOUR ATTORNEY CAN AND SHOULD DO FOR YOU AND WHAT YOUR CHILD’S ATTORNEY CAN AND SHOULD BE DOING FOR YOUR CHILD(REN). Call them on their lack of proper representation, call them, leave messages, quote the laws and policies you look up, write and call their superiors if the attorney is not making proper responses and objections. You can also find help on Facebook page called Families Against Government Abuse: https://www.facebook.com/groups/familesagainstgovernmentabuse/?ref=browser and another called T.E.A.R.S.: https://www.facebook.com/groups/347127752109413/?ref=browser  From there you should find many more groups.