These are funny cartoons that include references to actual cases in Riverside County, CA.
This is a precedent. Hope to see more!
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:
[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 ). 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]).
Herlitz, Georg Nils. 1994. “The Meaning of the Term ‘Prima Facie.'” Louisiana LawReview 55.
(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:
- 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.
THIS SITE IS DEDICATED AND NAMED AFTER MY PRECIOUS SON, DONNELLY KEATON BURNS.
I AM CRYING RIGHT NOW.
Referral has two meanings in Child Protective Services
Referral=When someone calls a CPS hotline and says that they believe a child is being abused.
Referral= An approval and authorization to provide payment to a “service” that is “required” and demanded upon you in order to get your child(ren) back from CPS such as counseling, drug testing and parenting classes.
For this post I will be “referring” to the first REFERRAL I described above.
Who called CPS on you? Was it a family member or close friend?
This is the shittiest type of referral because these are the people who are supposed to be there for you, not feed you to the wolves. If a family member or close friend feels that they are “helping” you by calling CPS on you then they do not deserve to be considered family or close friend. With friends and family like that, you don’t need any enemies. If you are one of those family or friends that have called on someone, I think that if you are here, you are regretting it. It’s OK, at least you are here and most people have no clue as to what they are doing to a family when they make that call. But did you have the BEST intentions? NO you didn’t but still, you are here. The best thing you can do for them now is TAKE BACK WHAT YOU SAID AND DO IT IN COURT AND ON PAPER, SUBMIT IT TO THE JUDGE PERSONALLY. HELP YOUR FAMILY MEMBER OR CLOSE FRIEND AS MUCH AS YOU CAN AND NEVER DO THAT AGAIN!
ANYONE CAN CALL THE CPS HOTLINE and report anything they want regardless of whether they are telling the truth or NOT. A disgruntled neighbor, friend, family member, an ex-spouse or partner, your child’s friend’s mother or father, a complete stranger who witnessed you yelling at your kid in the grocery store and managed to get the phone number you have on your car advertising your business, a jogger passing by your house and hears a loud bang and then the cry of a child (this really happened to a friend of my brother’s. The loud bang was a broomstick falling to the floor and it startled a young child causing them to cry. The broom wasn’t even close to hitting the child.) The person making the “referral” does not have to have proof nor do they ever have to testify! NEVER! Their names are kept secret (unless they call your social worker directly while you have an open case, then this information may be in the case/contact log). No background check for the person’s credibility will be performed and they can be convicted child abusers themselves!
What can you do to avoid the “referral” by someone you know? You certainly can lower the odds by just getting along with people. I wish I would have put more effort into not being a bitch to my husband’s ex-wife that is for sure! I thought I was so much better than her, I looked at her like she was a piece of shit (she was and still is) but I didn’t have to go out of my way to write her that letter telling her so. I had my reasons at the time but golly gee willicker, if I could go back in time, I would kiss that woman’s ass for sure! I had no idea of the evil she was capable of doing. So be kind to your neighbors, ex-spouse or girlfriend, be tolerant of certain personality defects, try your best to be firm but always nice. Don’t piss your mother off (they must rank #4 in the people who call!) and try to get along with your sister. This would not only improve your chances of not being falsely reported, it also strengthens your family bonds and that is positive for everyone.
MANDATED REPORTERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS
A lot of calls are from “mandated reporters” who are professionals who can be charged with a crime for failing to report “suspected” child abuse either in criminal or civil court as well as pay a hefty fine and possibly lose their license. I believe that there may be a minimum referral quota but I can not verify that.
Here is a partial list of “Mandated Reporters”:
School Cafeteria Lady/Worker
School Clerk/Office Staff
School Social Worker
Hospital Social Worker
Doctor’s Office Staff
Dental Office Staff
Code Enforcement Officers
Animal Control Officers
Substance Abuse Program Directors, Counselors, Volunteers and Office Staff
Domestic Violence Prevention Program Directors, Counselors, Volunteers and Office Staff
Parenting Class Teacher, Administrator, Volunteers and Office Staff
Anyone who works at Macy’s Department Store (no kidding!)
Utility Workers (like the people that come out to turn on/off your electricity, water or gas)
Refuse Pick-up Drivers
Mail Delivery Persons
ANY PERSON WHO WORKS FOR GOVERNMENT INCLUDING CITY, COUNTY, STATE AND FEDERAL!
Each CPS office has its own referral evaluation process. You should be able to find the one for your county by searching, “Child Welfare Policies in ____ County”. How the agency in your area responds depends on several factors such as current case load, budget conditions and case to staff ratio. All too often calls will be “evaluated out” simply because they were understaffed and over budget already. Even more disgusting is when CPS KNOWS a child is in real danger and they don’t do a damn thing! They let that child get hurt or die just so they can spin it so that they can say they need more money! Shameful, despicable behavior!
The call center will receive the call, ask pertinent information about the child and the child’s family and/or residence but they will not verify the caller’s credibility whatsoever. Personally, the person who called on us was herself a child abuser and on the CACI index along with having a criminal record which included child endangerment. Not to mention a lengthy drug abuse history!
At your first hearing be sure to OBJECT to any policy violations that you can find. If they are supposed to get a warrant then OBJECT to the detention of your children on the grounds that they violated ____ Policy (state your source which is the Manual for your county). Do this especially if they did not have any valid reason to suspect that your child was at imminent risk. Such as simply school attendance ONE alleged positive drug test or for refusing to drug test. You can use this policy in your Objections, Declaration and Statements of Fact in Response to the Petition and Detention Reports. Be sure to list all the policies and procedures that they did not adhere to regarding the referral, investigation and removal of your child(ren).
CPS abuses their power this is no secret. Supposedly, they get a rush from “saving” children so most often, to feed their egos and get their “saving” fix for the day, they will out and out falsify things you say and things your children say so NEVER speak to them without an attorney present. I know this is hard to do so at least say as little as you can! Always be polite because they will use your attitude against you. Say everything with a smile and thank them for their concern. But still, do your homework, READ YOUR COUNTY’S CHILD WELFARE POLICIES AND USE IT AGAINST THEM AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY. IT WILL GO A LONG WAY TO MAKING YOUR CASE FOR THE APPEALS COURT.
I finally completed Part 6 of our story including getting arrested for a possession of stolen property that was not stolen and more falsified hair follicle tests.
Part 7 should be much more exciting as I will explain what happened in Arizona and show how we “stole” our son back from CPS who never has legal custody of our children because they never had any SIGNED COURT ORDERS!
If I dedicated my life to Christ and converted to an acceptable religion, would anyone’s views and opinions of me change? Would I then be “accepted”? I doubt it. You know why? Because I don’t need to do those things to be a good or better person. I am a good decent person who made some poor decisions because I MADE THOSE DECISIONS WITH MY HEART. I am trying to change that but it is hard. To become cold and heartless is not in my nature. To look out for only myself is very difficult. But if I promise to try, will I be given a reprieve? Can I pass go and collect the love from people who now despise me based on lies they were told about me? 951-295-6854 If anyone has anything to say to me please call, ask me anything you want. I am an open book. Oops, that is not a good way to “cover my butt” is it? I am thinking with my heart again.
When you are finished watching this video, please visit: www.savekendall.com
According to this NO! But almost all county social service “child protection” agencies across the country and abroad DO REMOVE CHILDREN BASED ON ONE TEST ALONE. Is it LEGAL? The answer is NO IT IS NOT “LEGAL”. Nowhere in the California Welfare & Institutions Codes does it state that they have authority to take possession of a child based on ONE drug test. Often, CPS will remove your child simply for declining to cooperate, if it comes back “diluted” which only means that there was not enough creatiine in your urine so the test was aborted. So, if a person drinks the recommended 8-10 eight ounce glasses of water a day and goes to test before they have eaten and/or digested any portion of food then most likely the test will be considered a “dilute”. That will prompt CPS to suggest and ultimately state as a fact, that you used and purposely drank an exessive amount of water to “fool” the test. What a bunch of bullcrap that is, especially when you do not know these things before hand! I know, I experienced it.
A MOUTH SWAB TEST SHOULD NEVER BE USED TO REMOVE YOUR CHILD BECAUSE THESE TESTS ARE INITIAL TESTS AND THEIR PURPOSE IS TO SAVE MONEY ON LABORATORY TESTS AS THEY CAN QUICKLY SHOW THAT THE SUBJECT DOES NOT HAVE ANY DRUGS DETECTABLE IN THEIR SYSTEM. This includes any “on-the-spot” or “on location” tests such as a “dip stick”. A positive test is NEVER positive until confirmed by a scientifically calibrated testing machine in a certified laboratory. BUT DOES ANYONE IN CHILD PROTECTION OR THE JUVENILE DEPENDENCY COURT EVER ACKNOWLEDGE THESE BASIC DRUG TESTING PRINCIPLES AND REGULATIONS? NO THEY DO NOT. Want to know WHY? Because the “lawyers” for the parents and children DO NOT OBJECT, DO NOT CHALLENGE AND DO NOT CARE about children and families.
TO THE DEFENSE PANEL LAME-O ATTORNEYS: STAND UP FOR WHAT KNOW IS RIGHT, NOT WHAT YOUR HAVE “BOUGHT-IN” TO! DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU REALLY ARE, NOT DOING THE RIGHT THING? YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF LAZY SOCIOPATHIC SADISTIC SORCERERS SEIZING YOUNGSTERS FOR SELFISH SECURITY
Often social workers will use mouth swab preliminary drug test kits and they are told to use them as evidence to remove children. They KNOW that they can and will get away with it because they KNOW the parent’s lawyers will NOT object to their use nor will they challenge ANY DRUG TEST WHATSOEVER.
In our second case, I declined to participate in their drug testing as they faked the results more often than not. Twice they tried to “prove” to me that they do not fake tests and came up with two negative hair follicle tests but it is so obvious how they cut-and-pasted the real test document onto their THIRD PARTY COHORT (CDT iNC.) LETTERHEAD like they do for the fake ones. Near the end of our first CPS case, I did not even show up at the collection site to give a hair sample and they still came up with a positive hair follicle test! You can tell how fake this test is by the fact that it does not claim to be positive for amphetamines. It is IMPOSSIBLE for hair to be positive for only methamphetamines because when you consume methamphetamines, it quickly converts to amphetamine metabolites as that is the main ingredient of methamphetamines. Can’t make meth without ephedrine which is what? An amphetamine! Many clinical and case studies have been conducted on this issue and the research documentation available online. If the “lawyers” were actually on your side, they would contest, object and motion to dismiss based on the falsification of documents that CPS social workers commonly submit to the COURT. That, in and of itself, is a FELONY in California!
Both offering and preparing false evidence are obstruction of justice crimes in California. Penal Code 132 PC makes it a felony to knowingly present false written evidence in pretty much any kind of legal proceeding.1 Similarly, Penal Code 134 PC makes it a crime to prepare any false evidence with the intent to use it in a legal proceeding (even if, for whatever reason, the false evidence never actually gets presented in court).2
Offering or preparing false evidence under Penal Code 132 PC or Penal Code 134 PC is a California felony.4 This means that it is possible to be sentenced to as much as three (3) years in California state prison if you are convicted.5
California Penal Code Section 115 PC: Filing A False Document
1. Definition and Elements of the Crime
Filing a False Document under California Penal Code Section 115 PC makes it a felony to file any forged or false document with a public office.
The statute requires a prosecutor to prove the following elements:
- A defendant provided a document for filing, recording or registration with any public office in California
- The defendant knew that the document was false or a forgery when he or she filed it AND
- The document was one that, if genuine, could be legally filed.
The term “document” has been interpreted broadly by courts and prosecutors. The statute is most frequently used to prosecute the filing of false property deeds in connection with real estate fraud schemes. However, Filing a False Document charges can involve almost any document that can be legally filed in a public office, including bail bonds, probation work referrals, and even fishing records.
Looking to make some quick money, a man forges a copy of a property transfer deed indicating that he purchased a home from his mother and he is now the lawful owner. The man files this forged property deed with the county recorder’s office and then takes out substantial loans against the property. Not only is the man guilty of mortgage fraud, he would also be criminally liable for Filing a False or Forged Document and could be prosecuted for both offenses.
3. Related Offenses
Filing a False Document under Penal Code Section 115 PC is usually associated with other Theft Crimes andWhite Collar Crimes such as Real Estate Fraud and Mortgage Fraud. In fact, prosecutors may prefer to file charges under Penal Code 115 PC because it is a felony level offense that is easier to prove than some of the more complex fraud charges.
Related charges also include:
- Forgery – California Penal Code Section 470 PC
- Perjury – California Penal Code Section 118 PC
- Grand Theft – California Penal Code Section 487 PC
HERE IS ONE OF EIGHT FALSIFIED “DRUG TEST” DOCUMENTS THE DEPARTMENT CLAIMED WERE RESULTS OF HAIR FOLLICLE TESTS:
I really wish I could help every single person that is experiencing the traumatic and horrific injustices of Child Protective Services. If I was physically capable of helping each and every one of you on a personal level I would, in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I cannot do that. When I do attempt to help someone, their story practically immobilizes me as I know it brings out very real and very emotional memories of my experiences and loss. Please bear with me and keep calling or email me at: firstname.lastname@example.org.
My husband and I read every single heartbreaking story and feel your pain as if it were us. Every detailed story makes me cry, and more so mad at the monsters that go around acting like they are saving children. What a rouse the system is! I have very very strong negative opinions of those people for the following reasons:
[DISCLAIMER: I DO DESPISE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE AGENCIES AND THOSE PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES SOCIAL WORKERS AS WELL AS THE COURT COHORTS BUT THAT SHOULD NOT BE PERCEIVED AS ANY KIND OF PHYSICAL THREAT AS I CAN REFRAIN FROM ACTING VIOLENT. I DO NOT PROMOTE VIOLENCE AGAINST THESE PEOPLE AND WOULD NOT SUPPORT NOR CONDONE ANYONE WHO PERPETRATED VIOLENCE OR THREATS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST ANY HUMAN BEING. YOU HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO CHOOSE HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT SOCIAL WORKERS AND THEIR COURT COHORTS RATHER THAN FEEL THE WAY I FEEL WITHOUT HESITATION. JUST BECAUSE I DESPISE THEM DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU SHOULD DESPISE THEM, IT IS YOUR PERSONAL CHOICE.
I despise social workers and their supervisors for all the extremely vulgar lies that come out of their mouths and/or write in their reports about good, decent parents;
I despise social workers and their supervisors for every cover-up of their deception;
I despise social workers and their supervisors for every broken promise that they make;
I despise social workers and their supervisors for separating children who are obviously bonded to their parents and siblings;
I despise social workers and their supervisors for placing children with strangers who TRULY ABUSE AND NEGLECT THEM;
I despise social workers and their supervisors for separating siblings;
I despise social workers and their supervisors for not caring about the children or hearing their voices when they speak about NOT being abused and that they are happy and well cared for at home;
I despise social workers and their supervisors for claiming that a child said things about their parent that they did not say;
I despise social workers and their supervisors for threatening or coercing children into claiming that they had been abused;
I despise social workers and their supervisors for performing invasive and very uncomfortable sexual assault examinations on children that they KNOW have not been subjected to any sexual abuse (until they themselves do that with the examination);
I despise social workers and their supervisors for failing to assess family members for placement and/or for claiming to family members that they are not approved despite the assessment department sending them a letter stating that they had been approved;
I despise social workers and their supervisors for administering psychotropic medication to children as young as 12 months old without consulting the parent;
I despise social workers and their supervisors for denying parents knowledge of the administration of drugs and the right to make that medical decision;
I despise social workers and their supervisors for denying the rights of the parents to make any medical decisions, denying their right to know their child’s medical condition
I despise social workers and their supervisors for RE-VACCINATING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN DESPITE HAVING THE CHILD’S VACCINE RECORDS IN THEIR FILES!
I despise social workers and their supervisors for taking custody of children whose parents chose not to subject their child to extremely harmful chemotherapy and radiation for the treatment of cancer and chose a homeopathic approach;
I despise social workers and their supervisors for taking illegal custody of children as a retaliation to good parents for speaking out and warning other parents of this gross injustice;
I despise social workers and their supervisors for not reporting injuries of children in foster care;
I despise social workers and their supervisors for not reporting deaths of children in foster care;
I despise social workers and their supervisors for failing to investigate obvious abuse perpetrated upon children in foster care:
I despise social workers and their supervisors for falsifying evidence and submitting such evidence to the court;
I despise the court for always siding with CPS;
I despise the court for never dismissing a petition due to lack of evidence;
I despise the court for sustaining every objection of county counsel and overruling any and all objections made by the parents or their counsel;
I despise the court for failing to find CPS in contempt when they do not follow court “orders” but use any and all major or minor deviations of the Welfare & Institutions code by the parents against them;
I despise the court for being so positively bias towards the County and so negatively against the parents;
I despise the court for failing to question anything that the social workers report says or the evidence attached to it;
I despise the court for adopting each recommendation of the Department as it makes its “Findings and Orders”, as they say, “I adopt the recommendations contained on page (blah blah blah) of the (blah blah blah) Report dated (blah blah blah)” rather than make his/her findings based on credible evidence and testimony;
I despise the court for conducting “hearings” in an adversarial manner;
I despise the “Defense Panel” attorneys for failing their clients in every way possible;
I despise the court for failing to clearly state on the record the reasons for finding that the child(ren) come within Welfare & Institutions Code Section 300;
I despise the court and the Defense Panel for failing to question the legitimacy of documents, the validity of the social worker’s testimony, and for failing to allow the parents or other family members to speak in court;
I despise County Counsel for sleeping with the “Judge”;
I despise the Director of Social Services for pushing the Supervisors to remove without offering the family any real services and for claiming that demanding a parent to drug test is considered a “service” and is allowed to be used as a Reasonable Effort to allow the children to remain at home;
I despise the way that the county submits Minute Orders to the State of California for qualifying for AFSA and CAPTA despite the fact that the Minute Orders do not accurately reflect the conduct of the hearing;
I despise the “Collaborative Partners” for either 1) Being completely ignorant to what the County is doing to children and families; or 2) Knowing what is going on and contributing to the destruction of the families;
I despise the “headhunters” who are usually nurses or wannabe doctors who will see a situation that they can manipulate and turn into something bad against the parents and completely wrong and untrue, this bothers me so much I have hyperventilated from the stress of hearing the injustice;
I despise the police officers that go to people’s homes and watch their rights be violated and watch children be removed from people that they can clearly see care properly for their children;
I despise anyone who is aware of the injustices and does nothing.
And these are the reasons I can think of off the top of my head! There are many more reasons and they all have to do with specific cases. I will be listening to someone’s story and they will tell me something that the social worker did or said and I will get all red in the face and just say, “Oh my god, I swear, I despise those people!”
Like I said, I wish I could help every person who visits our site and cries out for help. Reading the comments on ‘Families Destroyed, Tell Your Story” and on other posts literally debilitates me sometimes because I want to write objections for everyone, I want to write and call social workers, supervisors and the Director himself/herself for each and every one of you but it is physically impossible for me to do so. My husband and I keep talking about funding. We are exploring our options and applying for whatever we can. I want to create an alternative to CPS. I want to have a legal staff, I want to provide seminars and workshops for parents currently in the system. I want to convince everyone who is unaware of what is happening to us that this shit needs to change. Its like when we learned (or maybe just led to believe, I’m not sure) in school about what happened in Germany to the Jews and even non-Jews and thought, “Oh my God, how could that have happened? Why did the people of Germany just sit by and let their government do that?” Well, why are WE, CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, letting this happen to our own families?????
This post, as all posts, is dedicated to our son, Donnelly Keaton Burns, our little baby boy who was stolen by CPS and their court cohorts (with the help of Leslie Ann Logan Burns Hoyle) for adoption incentive funding
Another child dies in foster care, it happens everyday. Yes, some children die at the hands of their parents or step-parents and CPS claims they “save” children but they have shown, time after time, that they do not choose better caregivers. You know why? BECAUSE THEY DON’T FREAKING CARE ABOUT CHILDREN!
When my husband and I rescued our son from the dangers of foster care bail was set at a half a million dollars and this lady kills a baby and gets only a hundred thousand dollar bail?
I changed the heading of this post. Originally I posted something I had to remove as I was very upset at the time I posted it. Then I posted a redaction. Now I am focusing this post on the news story below which is why I was upset to begin with. But the story below just goes to show why my husband and I rescued our son on May 23, 2011 after visiting him at the CPS office in Moreno Valley, CA and seeing a bruise on his face which he said that his “brother”, meaning the foster brother, hit him in the face. That rescue is the reason that the adoptive parents of him filed and were granted a restraining order against my husband and I. It is just not right to use protective actions against us as if they were criminal in nature. There is no reason to fear us unless they are abusing our son and I do not believe they are. Why would we rescue a child who is not being abused? Why would we upset the only life and family he knows because I am sure that he does not remember us at all. That upsets me very much that they do not remind him that he has a family that loves him more than anything. The loss of our son not only affects my husband and I, but his sisters’ lives, his brothers’ lives, his grandfather’s life, his aunts’ and uncles’ lives and his cousins’ lives. WE ALL miss him so much.
Here is the original post from the redaction heading:
I am upset and heartbroken but I am also very fearful of our corrupt government. In fact, I believe that the government is the best thing ever. The President is the most wonderful President that ever lived. Our local officials and police are just doing their job and are personally very nice people. They care about humanity and just try to keep law and order in our communities. The government takes such good care of us all and we should all be very thankful that we have such a wonderful government full of wonderful people who look out for us and especially our children. They take such good care of our children that they save parents from the indictments and prosecutions of killing their children by taking them away from us and putting them with strangers who eventually throw babies to the ground and kill them. So the foster parents are doing that nasty deed for the parents, isn’t that so kind of them?
I am being extremely sarcastic. Check out this story:
Oh AND I DID NOT MEAN GOING TO PRISON FOR KIDNAPPING! I MEANT MY NEW YEARS RESOLUTION I DON’T CARE IF I GO TO PRISON FOR POSTING THAT POST. THAT’S ALL.
ATTORNEY SHAWN MCMILLAN HAS FILED A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST SOCIAL WORKERS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Riverside County is VERY GOOD at hiding the fact that they literally steal children from innocent parents. They make it LOOK LIKE they are doing the “right thing” but in reality, they are not playing by their own rules. The Welfare & Institutions Codes are violated in every case but they will hold the parents to codes that shouldn’t even apply to them. It is teamwork, not only is the County railroading parents and abusing children but the whole Court system is involved. County Counsel, the Defense Panel, the Clerk, and yes, THE “JUDGE” are all fully aware of the scheme against parents and the taking of their children all for FEDERAL FUNDING and their paychecks. It IS a conspiracy and I can give you more people involved as well, such as every contractor for services such as the psychologists and psychiatrists that perform the “psychological evaluations” that end up saying whatever CPS wants it to say, the drug counselors who fake, falsify and CHANGE DRUG TEST RESULTS! The regular doctors at hospitals such as Rady Children’s Hospital who literally “shop” for kids for CPS to take as well as Kaiser Hospital who allow CPS to enter into the maternity ward and just steal babies! I am not exaggerating, no I am not. They will use absolutely nothing against a parent and make it into something. Actually, anything can be construed to declare that a child comes withing W&I Code Section 300. A “preponderance” is merely an utterance from anyone regardless of how far removed the utterance was. Hearsay is only applied to parents when they have paid for their own drug tests that prove they are not using drugs but a hair sample can go to a reputable lab but come back from a third party on a piece of paper which is not from that lab nor has any indication that the results are actually the donor’s. Look here!
DO YOU SEE ANY NAME ON THIS DOCUMENT? NO. BUT IT WAS USED TO REMOVE MY CHILDREN AND ULTIMATELY TERMINATE OUR PARENTAL RIGHTS!
Read more about McMillan’s lawsuit here:
I think that a Christian should not be so judgmental as to NOT even SPEAK to Donnelly’s parents because of the lies CPS social workers told them. Would Jesus completely
block out the parents of a child whom they obviously cherished from the bottom of their souls? I do not believe he would. Would Jesus file a restraining order against people who clearly miss their son more than anything in the whole world? I do not think so. Would Jesus hold such resentment and contempt for people he has never even tried to get to know? I do not believe so. Being a Christian is more than just going to church. Being a Christian is more than going to bible study. Christ would not judge so harshly. Christ would not purposely and carelessly allow two parents to bear the pain and loss of their child if that child was still alive. Jesus would heal that pain, not make it worse. Are you really CHRISTIANS?
I want to wish my son a Merry Christmas and I hope you learn to be a REAL Christian despite the examples you are being influenced by.
All I want for Christmas is to see and hold my son so he knows that we did not abandon him, that we love him and that he will always be in our hearts and minds as he is every single millisecond or ever single second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day, of every week in every month of every year. We love and miss you so much Donnelly. All I want for Christmas is YOU!
THE FIRST THING TO UNDERSTAND IS THIS: Child Protective Services DOES NOT REALLY CARE ABOUT THE CHILDREN! Now you know why they do the mean things they do.
THE SECOND THING TO UNDERSTAND IS: CPS only cares about FUNDING. This is what drives them to do ANYTHING.
My top ten list of advice and information:
1. STAY CALM AND COLLECTED. When you yell, argue, and/or make threats of any kind, they have the ammunition to accuse you of being violent and/or claim that the children would not be safe in a “volatile environment”. Always be polite and courteous to everyone who has anything to do with your case. Yelling and arguing only incites them to make up more crap about you and an excuse to refuse to return your children. When I say be polite and courteous, I mean play it up big by saying things like, “Thank you so much for your help and concern with the welfare of my family. I really appreciate everything that the Department is doing for us. We strive to become better parents, regardless of how. We are learning a lot and are dedicated to completing our case plan.” YOU DO NOT HAVE TO MEAN IT! I know how you really feel about them. This is normal. Heck, if I said all the things I thought about social workers, well, I would have a lot of problems to deal with. That is all I will say. My mom always used to say, “Kill them with kindness.” Best advice she ever gave me yet, in this situation, I understand how difficult it is to do. However, it is well worth the efforts as this has a great deal to do with if and when they return your child(ren). This is not a guarantee but it is very important that your social worker LIKES YOU.
2. Stop fighting them. UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN NOT BEAT THEM IN COURT – EVER! What I mean by that is this: The case will not be dismissed for lack of evidence. It will NOT be dismissed once you prove your innocence. It just will not happen so let’s move on. [ALTHOUGH IT IS POSSIBLE IF A BRAVE LAWYER OR GROUP OF LAWYERS HAS ENOUGH YOU-KNOW-WHAT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE THAT EXPOSES THE ABUNDANT CODES, STATUTES AND REGULATORY ACTS WHICH ARE VIOLATED IN EVERY CASE. If every parent hired a private attorney or if there was a program through the BAR Association where pro bono services were provided to defendants in Juvenile Dependency cases, the court cohorts would not be able to collaborate and collect our kids for cash!] However, there is a lawyer named Vincent Davis who has been educating and preparing parents and guardians for court.
When I say stop fighting them, I do not mean that you shouldn’t get objections on the record. This is extremely important for appeal. So, file a Declaration or Objections to the Detention or similar document that clearly objects to the false allegations, the fabricated evidence and the perjury the social worker has made and submitted to the court in the form of written testimony (the Detention Report and or any other report the county has filed).There are things you can prove with providing your “attorney” proof of in the form of documents and testimony. This may alleviate requirements of some of their case plan programs but it will not get your case dismissed.
Once you get your children back and the case CLOSED, you can and should sue them. But check your local and state rules regarding claims against a government agency. You may have to file an administrative complaint FIRST. A Federal 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 complaint for violating your 14th Amendment rights and your child’s 4th Amendment rights is a good way to go however, it is not the only way.
3. .Complete the case plan without complaining or arguing. If you don’t feel you should have to go to any Domestic Violence classes, you need to tell your lawyer to negotiate that requirement if there has been no domestic violence. YOU CAN BARGAIN WITH CPS but you must get it approved by a CPS supervisor and/or the Court.
4. GET EVERY PROMISE IN WRITING. Whether it is to place your children with family, increase your visits, close your case early, or to relieve you from drug testing, write up a promise agreement and have them sign it.
5. RECORD AND DIARY EVERYTHING. Al;ways make sure to get names, dates and times or every communication with CPS and your lawyer. This will be particularly beneficial when you sue them as well as be able to politely disagree with social workers when they tell you something different that they told you previously.
6. NEVER MISS A VISIT WITH YOUR CHILDREN. EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO START WALKING THE NIGHT BEFORE, GET THERE SOMEHOW. IF YOU MISS A VISIT THEY COULD TAKE YOUR VISITS AWAY BY SAYING THAT YOU HAVE NO INTEREST IN VISITING.
7. If you do need to complain, do it in writing and send copies to those in higher positions. DO NOT BE AFRAID TO WRITE TO THE DEPARTMENT’S DIRECTOR! This will ALWAYS GET THEIR ATTENTION and most times your complaint is duly acknowledged and something is corrected.
8. IF THE ALLEGATIONS WERE EVEN SLIGHTLY TRUE, STOP THE BEHAVIOR PERMANENTLY. If they said you were doing drugs, STOP USING DRUGS! If they said there was domestic violence and it is true, EITHER FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET ALONG OR SEPARATE. When you can’t prove you were not on drugs or that there was no domestic violence, the quickest way to get the children returned is to separate immediately and make sure that CPS has NO KNOWLEDGE OR SUSPICIONS THAT YOU BOTH ARE COMMUNICATING. That means do not talk on the phone, do not email, do not meet them in public places during the day. Make sure when you do talk or see one another that you are not followed. Take extra precautions to ensure that whatever actions you have taken to convince CPS that the children are or will be “safe” stays that way according to them. WHAT THEY DO NOT KNOW WILL NOT HURT YOU. Also, do not tell anyone anything different than what you tell CPS.
9. Always file an appeal regardless of what your “attorney” says. You never know what the appellate court will be able to argue. However, you MUST GET OBJECTIONS ON THE RECORD!
10. ,MAKE FRIENDS WITH THE FOSTER MOTHER/FATHER. This can prove to be your most valuable ally.
COME HELP RAISE AWARENESS AND PROTEST AGAINST FORCED ADOPTIONS!
WHERE: Ontario Convention Center 2000 E. Convention Center Way, Ontario, CA 91764
WHEN: Thursday, November 20, 2014 [10:30 am]
WHAT TO BRING: SIGNS, SIGNS AND MORE SIGNS!
If you can’t bring a sign, no worries but if you can, get a posterboard, a black Sharpie and a red Sharpie and write your child’s name on it and say, “My child was stolen by _____ County Child Protective Services” or something or whatever you want to write on it. Bring your VOICE!
INVOLUNTARY/FORCED ADOPTION PEACEFUL PROTEST! Thursday. Nov 20, 2014 the Ontario Convention Center Located at 2000 E. Convention Center Way in Ontario, CALIFORNIA 91764. Children and family services is hosting the event for final adoption. As many of you know a lot of these children are INVOLUNTARY adoptions and many parents want their children! Many families had rights terminated unjustly and without due process in the juvenile courts many of these children end up abused and we must let the world know this is happening and its a kids for cash scheme via our government! Not all the adoptions however we know MANY children are being adopted out without due process and having parental rights terminated unjustly as well as loving fit family members wanting their family are being denied! We must raise awareness and EXPOSE what is happening to our children and families! Lets all of us advertise and sponsor a protest at the convention center. I know WE CAN DO IT! We can keep it peaceful. Lets do this people!!!! this is our spot lets make it a large!!! this is HUGE! “LET’S KEEP THE HEAT ON” LETS JOIN TOGETHER! please only accept invitation if you are going! This is in STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF ONTARIO
PROOF OF WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING, COMPARING THE JUVENILE COURT TO A CIRCUS!:
As many of our regular viewers may know, I often check out the search terms in which people have used to stumble upon our blog. Some questions really upset me because it shows that CPS abuse is in full force and effect. Corruption is ramped. False allegations are on the riste. “Judges” continue to side with CPS regardless of available witnesses and evidence presented by the parents. A lot of people are asking about getting the FBI involved. Well, here is my experience about that.
I cannot give a difinitive answer to why the FBI does not investigate Child Protective Services. However, several years ago, now deceased I believe, former Special Agent in Charge of the Los Angeles Field Office, Ted Gunnerson did investigate. Most of the report contained his own testimony as to what he personally witnessed. There are many videos from Mr. Gunnerson on YouTube. You can learn about many operations and investigations involving not only children but many major events and their respective cover-ups. Here is a link to a series of 8 videos
There must be at least a few FBI agents who have surely seen Gunnerson’s videos and read his reports. However, Gunnerson is officially labeled “emotionally disturbed”. This gives you an idea that the FBI completely ignores the kidnapping of our children by CPS. They refuse to get involved in the outrageous injustices bestowed upon families being railroaded by Child Protective Services. They use the excuse that “a Court of competent jurisdiction provided parents due process but subsequently made findings of parental unfitness therefore, CPS and the courts followed the law.”.
We tried to get the FBI involved in our case as well as one other case of a woman we know. In each case, the agents listened and seemed to be concerned. However, there was no follow-up despite several calls back to them.
Here is what happened in our case:
After four years of dealing with CPS, my husband and I had enough. Enough of their manipulative, lying asses. It was blatantly obvious that their plan was to keep and adopt out our precious son. The Court thought they directed physical custody of the children to stay with my father and they did for a few days. After that, he let us take them home every night and for the weekends. We suggested that if anything were to happen that he could blame us so he would feel more comfortable about not getting into any trouble. After what happened to us during our first case, my father was well aware of the manipulative and shady practices of social workers yet this time, my Mom was not around to help him manage the chaos and frustration that having these people in our lives creates. At our first hearing of our second case, the Hearing Officer returned the children to my husband. At the second hearing they were “removed” again. My husband was asked about where the children were and he said that they were with their grandfather. That was true, my kids and I were with my Dad while my husband was at the hearing but we weren’t living there. The Hearing Officer simply stated that the kids were placed with my father but you know what? NO ONE EVER CALLED TO TELL MY FATHER THAT THE COURT “ORDERED” THE CHILDREN PLACED WITH HIM. NO ONE CHECKED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CHILDREN WERE SAFE. NOT EVEN A PHONE CALL FOR ALMOST TWO MONTHS! One social worker came by a few days before the third hearing but other than that, there was no way for him to even know he had placement of the children if we had not told him!
After several months of the same run-round of lies and manipulation we went through the first time, and after receiving threatening and blackmail-like voicemails from my husband’s ex-wife, we up and moved to Arizona. We already had the children with express permission from my father although we all did have a falling out right about then too. But we took off anyway, and were warmly welcomed by our friends. One whose grandchildren had been needlessly removed from her house a long time ago. The other turned out not to be our “friend” after all. Also, there was a lady they were letting live there for free because they felt sorry for her. Well, she ended up getting annoyed that we were all taking up so much room and Donnelly was making noise or something, so she ended up calling CPS to let them know we were there. She also claimed that the granddaughter had “inappropriate photos” on her phone.
When CPS came to the door, our “friend” was only interested in saving his own ass and traded us for it. As soon as we were aware that CPS was at the door, we had grabbed the kids and went out the back door. Luckily our “friend”s” car was parked in the backyard so we grabbed the keys and took off down the alley. We left without a carseat, shoes, money, our vehicle, and my husband’s trade tools (for earning money to support us) so he went back to retrieve some of those things. He took too long so I began to worry and I went back into the neighborhood. I had no idea that the cops were lurking about waiting for us to come back. When I was spotted and realized it, I took off and tried to play like I was a neighborhood resident, pulling into an empty driveway and turning off the engine. I didn’t realize that there was a helicopter hovering above. Needless to say, the cops turned the corner and knew exactly where we were.. One cop ran up to the car and went to the passenger side where my 17 year old daughter was. He was asking who she was and if she was ok. He was also asking about my son. I toyed with the idea of turning on the car, shoving it into reverse and running from them. Then I started the engine and began to put the car in reverse. Before I knew it another officer had my door open and I was told to put the car in park with a gun pointed to my head. I obeyed his command and then I was dragged out of the car, the gun still to my head, his hands nearly choking me, my arms and hands were restrained and I was in the back of a cop car within seconds. They even removed my earrings, necklace and rings and had them bagged up.
While I was in the back of the cop car, an officer put a phone to my ear and I was told that my husband was on the other end and that I needed to talk him into turning himself in or else he might get seriously hurt. He was inside our friend’s house and the phone he was using was our friend’s phone. He was apparently collaborating and cooperating with the police. I talked to my husband and while he was distracted talking to me on the phone, the cops rushed into that house and tackled him. They brought him down the street to where I was sitting in the cop car and my children sitting on the curb. Then the Arizona social worker, Monique Vazquez arrived. She saw us both in custody and LAUGHED! But an officer began talking to me while I was in the cop car and I tried explaining the situation to her. That is when she asked me if I was the biological mother of the children and I said, “Yes, of course I am, who did you think we were?” She excused herself and went and spoke to the officer in charge. I could hear the anger in his voice when he approached Vazquez and asked her if we were the biological parents. She admitted that we were. Then he demanded to see a court order and she couldn’t provide one. The lead officer then spoke with two other officers who quickly released my husband and I from the back of the cop car, apologizing, I don’t know how many times. We were told that we still had rights to our children but they didn’t say anything else. I wish we would have attempted to pick up our son and refuse to allow him to be taken. I wish I could go back in time and see what would happen if we did that. Instead, we felt intimidated. Extremely intimidated due to what we had just been put through. My daughter however, was refusing to go with them. She even asked the police if she had to go, she said, “What are you going to do? Pick me up and force me into that car? I don’t think so, you can’t t TOUCH me!” The police did not say anything. But Donnelly was already in the CPS car by then and we asked her to go so Donnelly wouldn’t be alone. The whole way to the CPS office, she was texting me, telling me every corner they turned, every street they drove. I think that may be the reason why they separated her from Donnelly. They stuck Kayla in a group home and Donnelly went to a foster home. I replied to her text which told me so and asked her to make sure that she be given a contact phone number for Donnelly.
After the night with the cops and the taking of our children, my husband was on the phone, calling everyone who could possibly do anything to assist us. The FBI was the second call, the first was to CPS in California. My husband called the local Arizona field office, then Los Angeles. Both agents whom my husband spoke with seemed genuinely concerned but we didn’t receive any further response. My husband called back several times with no return phone call. He also went down the to local police station and complained about how we were treated the night before and demanded that they do something. They pretty much had to kick him out of the station because he refused to leave until they gave him some answers.
By the second day, Kayla had the phone number and had spoken with Donnelly. Within 2 hours I had 4 addresses of Donnelly’s possible location. I sent my husband and friend to go find him. Meanwhile, Kaya was begging for me to pick her up because the group home was full of rough and rowdy girls who threatened to “initiate” her by replacing her shampoo with Nair. That is a very traumatic threat for a teenage girl. I told Kayla to figure out a way to get out of the house, which was like escaping from a prison for her, and to wait at the CVS that was a few blocks away. I sent someone to pick her up. Kayla was with us the rest of the time, CPS wasn’t even looking for her. They never even called us to let us know that she was “missing” from the group home!
Kayla told us that she was told that Calfiornia CPS was scheduled to pick her up in a few hours. I had to call off my husband from looking for Donnelly as Kayla believed that California already had him.
A few weeks later, after having visited Donnelly three weeks in a row, driving back to California every week, we couldn’t bear the pain that was evident on our son’s face and in his voice begging to leave with us. We made several more phone calls the the FBI, with no return call, after observing a bruise on Donnelly’s face. Donnelly explained to us that his “brother” (foster) hit him. We made a resolution to rescue Donnelly ourselves if authorities were not going to help us.
We then planned and executed a rescue mission which was quite successful. However, our actions landed us on a Most Wanted list, the subjects of an Amber Alert and made several local and national news reports, TV, radio and print. Eventually we were apprehended in Flagstaff, Arizona after a family trip to the Grand Canyon. Charged with kidnapping and child stealing, we were extradited to California. My husband’s bail was set at $500,000, mine at $80,000.
We wholeheartedly believed we were in the right to rescue our son. According to Welfare & Institutions Code Section 248.5, the Court must sign all Orders. In our case, and many other cases I know of, the Juvenile Dependency Court in Riverside, California, Southwest Courthouse, DID NOT SIGN ANY ORDERS GRANTING THE COUNTY CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN. Anyone who has ever been to Family Court and custody orders were granted denying one parent physical custody and restricting them to supervised visitation only, will be able to relate the situation as follows:
You go to court for custody. The other parent has acted inappropriately with your child and the Judge issues an Order restricting or removing physical custody of the child from that parent, giving them supervised visitation only. (SAME THING JUVENILE DEPENDENCY COURT WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE THEY ARE DOING). But one day, the other parent picks the child up from school and simply takes the child to their house. You go to pick your child up from school and learn that the other parent already picked up the child. You call the parent and they tell you they are at home with the child. You ask for the child back, they say no. So you call the police and they meet you at the home. Before they do anything, they want to see a SIGNED AND VALID COURT ORDER. But you do not have it with you. They say, well, go to the Court and get a copy. You say, “Okay.” and proceed to the courthouse. You wait in line, you pay the copy fee and take the copy to the police station. They take a look at it and say, “Well, let’s go get your child.” You arrive at the other parent’s home and the police assist you with the safe return of your child. The other parent does not even get arrested in most cases, unless the child has been hurt or if the police were threatened in any way during the confrontation.
First of all, WE DID NOTHING TO OUR CHILD. HE WAS PROPERLY LOVED AND CARED FOR. HE WAS OUR LOVE CHILD, WE CHERISHED DONNELLY. WE STILL CHERISH DONNELLY AND WOULD NEVER EVER HURT OR NEGLECT HIM NO MATTER WHAT. Well, if no custody orders are ever signed by a Judge in a Juvenile Dependency issue, why the hell does the police assist them in removing children from parents? We could have and would have beat our criminal charges after rescuing Donnelly however, it would have taken some time, a year or more. Meanwhile, the Juvenile Dependency case would have proceeded with or without us. With us in custody, we had no chance and with the amount of the bail, we were stuck in jail. So, we had to make a choice and that was to take a plea bargain in order to be released prior to our parental rights being terminated. We plead guilty to “child stealing” and were sentenced to a year in county jail. We were given credit for time served and calculating good time credits, we were given a release date that would keep us in custody until November 22, 2011 which was before the next Dependency hearing was set.
But good old CPS, always thinking of the child, placed Donnelly in a pre-adoptive home and a glowing report was prepared to make it appear that it was a far better home than my husband and I could possibly provide. They used Kayla’s “AWOL” event and continued absence from contacting CPS, our criminal record, along with many other exaggerated circumstances and plain old lies against us. We got into some more trouble right before the hearing and that completely ruined all of our chances to get Donnelly back.
This is absolutely CRAZY! These people CHOSE to adopt a child, they chose to adopt a “special needs” child, just like couples chose to have a natural child. Natural parents don’t receive any money for having a “special needs” child. Most of the “special needs” children ,who they claim “need” medication, wouldn’t need medication if they were never taken from their families!! The system is the most discusting, perverse, hypocritical, abomination! Adoptive parents don’t deserve money any more or less than the biological parents!
Watch this news report:
Click on the picture or the link below.
This code section explains how CPS needs to file another Petition when they remove a child placed with the parents, family or non-relative kinship/guardian (a person somehow related to the family or is a close friend): So, if CPS removed your child but allowed the child to come home but the case is still open and you have to participate in “services”, then they come and remove the child AGAIN, OR your child was removed and placed with, say, your mom, but then CPS comes to remove the child from mom’s house, or if your child was removed and placed with a non-relative kinship and they come to remove the child from them, then they MUST file another document called a 387-Supplemental.
(Every State has rules, laws, statutes, codes or other court regulations that govern CPS court. If I do not have the links on the side under your state, just Google, “CPS laws” or “Child Welfare Statutes” or “Child Protection Codes” and you should be able to find them.)
387. (a) An order changing or modifying a previous order by removing a child from the physical custody of a parent, guardian, relative, or friend and directing placement in a foster home, or commitment to a private or county institution, shall be made only after noticed hearing upon a supplemental petition. (b) The supplemental petition shall be filed by the social worker in the original matter and shall contain a concise statement of facts sufficient to support the conclusion that the previous disposition has not been effective in the rehabilitation or protection of the child or, in the case of a placement with a relative, sufficient to show that the placement is not appropriate in view of the criteria in Section 361.3. (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), dependency jurisdiction shall be resumed for a child as to whom dependency jurisdiction has been suspended pursuant to Section 366.5 if the jurisdiction established pursuant to Section 601 or 602 is terminated and if, after the issuance of a joint assessment pursuant to Section 366.5, the court determines that the court’s dependency jurisdiction should be resumed. (d) Upon the filing of the supplemental petition, the clerk of the juvenile court shall immediately set the same for hearing within 30 days, and the social worker shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the persons and in the manner prescribed by Sections 290.1 and 291. (e) An order for the detention of the child pending adjudication of the petition may be made only after a hearing is conducted pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 305).
Many people ask about a “388 hearing”, well, here is the California Welfare & Institutions Code for that:
388. (a) (1) Any parent or other person having an interest in a child who is a dependent child of the juvenile court or a nonminor dependent as defined in subdivision (v) of Section 11400, or the child himself or herself or the nonminor dependent through a properly appointed guardian may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court or in which a guardianship was ordered pursuant to Section 360 for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court. The petition shall be verified and, if made by a person other than the child or the nonminor dependent shall state the petitioner’s relationship to or interest in the child or the nonminor dependent and shall setforth in concise language any change of circumstance or new evidence that is alleged to require the change of order or termination of jurisdiction. (2) When any party, including a child who is a dependent of the juvenile court, petitions the court prior to an order terminating parental rights, to modify the order that reunification services were not needed pursuant to paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.5, or to modify any orders related to custody or visitation of the subject child, and the court orders a hearing pursuant to subdivision (d), the court shall modify the order that reunification services were not needed pursuant to paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.5, or any orders related to the custody or visitation of the child for whom reunification services were not ordered pursuant to paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.5, only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed change is in the best interests of the child. (b) Any person, including a child or the nonminor dependent who is a dependent of the juvenile court, may petition the court to assert a relationship as a sibling related by blood, adoption, or affinity through a common legal or biological parent to a child who is, or is the subject of a petition for adjudication as, a dependent of the juvenile court, and may request visitation with the dependent child, placement with or near the dependent child, or consideration when determining or implementing a case plan or permanent plan for the dependent child or make any other request for an order which may be shown to be in the best interest of the dependent child. The courtmay appoint a guardian ad litem to file the petition for thedependent child asserting the sibling relationship if the courtdetermines that the appointment is necessary for the best interests of the dependent child. The petition shall be verified and shall set forth the following: (1) Through which parent he or she is related to the dependent child. (2) Whether he or she is related to the dependent child by blood, adoption, or affinity. (3) The request or order that the petitioner is seeking. (4) Why that request or order is in the best interest of thedependent child. (c) (1) Any party, including a child who is a dependent of the juvenile court, may petition the court, prior to the hearing set pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 366.21 for a child described by subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, or prior to the hearing set pursuant to subdivision (e) ofSection 366.21 for a child described by subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, to terminate court-ordered reunification services provided under subdivision (a) of Section 361.5 only if one of the following conditions exists: (A) It appears that a change of circumstance or new evidenceexists that satisfies a condition set forth in subdivision (b) or (e) of Section 361.5 justifying termination of court-orderedreunification services. (B) The action or inaction of the parent or guardian creates a substantial likelihood that reunification will not occur, including, but not limited to, the parent’s or guardian’s failure to visit the child, or the failure of the parent or guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan. (2) In determining whether the parent or guardian has failed to visit the child or participate regularly or make progress in the treatment plan, the court shall consider factors that include but are not limited to, the parent’s or guardian’s incarceration, institutionalization, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, deportation, or participation in a court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program. (3) The court shall terminate reunification services during the above-described time periods only upon a finding by a preponderance of evidence that reasonable services have been offered or provided, and upon a finding of clear and convincing evidence that one of the conditions in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) exists. (4) Any party, including a nonminor dependent, as defined insubdivision (v) of Section 11400, may petition the court prior to the review hearing set pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 366.31 to terminate the continuation of court-ordered family reunification services for a nonminor dependent who has attained 18 years of age. The court shall terminate family reunification services to the parent or guardian if the nonminor dependent or parent or guardian are not in agreement that the continued provision of court-ordered family reunification services is in the best interests of the nonminordependent. (5) If the court terminates reunification services, it shall order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held within 120 days. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent. The court may order a nonminor dependent who is otherwise eligible to AFDC-FC benefits pursuant to Section 11403 to remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement. (d) If it appears that the best interests of the child or the nonminor dependent may be promoted by the proposed change of order, modification of reunification services, custody, or visitation orders concerning a child for whom reunification services were not ordered pursuant to paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.5, recognition of a sibling relationship, termination of jurisdiction, or clear and convincing evidence supports revocation or termination of court-ordered reunification services, the court shallorder that a hearing be held and shall give prior notice, or cause prior notice to be given, to the persons and in the manner prescribed by Section 386, and, in those instances in which the manner of giving notice is not prescribed by those sections, then in the manner the court prescribes. (e) (1) On and after January 1, 2012, a nonminor who attained 18 years of age while subject to an order for foster care placement and, commencing January 1, 2012, who has not attained 19 years of age, or, commencing January 1, 2013, 20 years of age, or, commencing January 1, 2014, 21 years of age, or as described in Section 10103.5, for whom the court has dismissed dependency jurisdiction pursuant toSection 391, or delinquency jurisdiction pursuant to Section 607.2, or transition jurisdiction pursuant to Section 452, but has retained general jurisdiction under subdivision (b) of Section 303, or the county child welfare services, probation department, or tribal placing agency on behalf of the nonminor, may petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent or delinquent child of the juvenile court, for a hearing to resume the dependency jurisdiction over a former dependent or to assume or resume transition jurisdiction over a former delinquent ward pursuant to Section 450. The petition shall be filed within the period that the nonminor is of the age described in this paragraph. If thenonminor has completed the voluntary reentry agreement, as described in subdivision (z) of Section 11400, with the placing agency, the agency shall file the petition on behalf of the nonminor within 15 judicial days of the date the agreement was signed unless the nonminor elects to file the petition at an earlier date. (2) (A) The petition to resume jurisdiction may be filed in the juvenile court that retains general jurisdiction under subdivision (b) of Section 303, or the petition may be submitted to the juvenile court in the county where the youth resides and forwarded to the juvenile court that retained general jurisdiction and filed with that court. The juvenile court having general jurisdiction under Section 303 shall receive the petition from the court where the petition was submitted within five court days of its submission, if the petition is filed in the county of residence. The juvenile court that retained general jurisdiction shall order that a hearing be held within 15 judicial days of the date the petition was filed if there is a prima facie showing that the nonminor satisfies the following criteria: (i) He or she was previously under juvenile court jurisdiction, subject to an order for foster care placement when he or she attained 18 years of age, and has not attained the age limits described in paragraph (1). (ii) He or she intends to satisfy at least one of the conditions set forth in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, of subdivision (b) of Section 11403. (iii) He or she wants assistance either in maintaining or securing appropriate supervised placement, or is in need of immediate placement and agrees to supervised placement pursuant to the voluntary reentry agreement as described in subdivision (z) of Section 11400. (B) Upon ordering a hearing, the court shall give prior notice, or cause prior notice to be given, to the persons and by the means prescribed by Section 386, except that notice to parents or former guardians shall not be provided unless the nonminor requests, in writing on the face of the petition, notice to the parents or former guardians. (3) The Judicial Council, by January 1, 2012, shall adopt rules of court to allow for telephonic appearances by nonminor former dependents or delinquents in these proceedings, and for telephonic appearances by nonminor dependents in any proceeding in which the nonminor dependent is a party, and he or she declines to appear and elects a telephonic appearance. (4) Prior to the hearing on a petition to resume dependencyjurisdiction or to assume or resume transition jurisdiction, the court shall order the county child welfare or probation department to prepare a report for the court addressing whether the nonminor intends to satisfy at least one of the criteria set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 11403. When the recommendation is for the nonminor dependent to be placed in a setting where minor dependents also reside, the results of a background check of the petitioning nonminor conducted pursuant to Section 16504.5, may be used by the placing agency to determine appropriate placement options for the nonminor. The existence of a criminal conviction is not a bar to eligibility for reentry or resumption of dependency jurisdiction or the assumption or resumption of transition jurisdiction over a nonminor. (5) (A) The court shall resume dependency jurisdiction over a former dependent or assume or resume transition jurisdiction over a former delinquent ward pursuant to Section 450, and order that the nonminor’s placement and care be under the responsibility of the county child welfare services department, the probation department, tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization, if the court finds all of the following: (i) The nonminor was previously under juvenile court jurisdiction subject to an order for foster care placement when he or she attained 18 years of age. (ii) The nonminor has not attained the age limits described in paragraph (1). (iii) Reentry and remaining in foster care are in the nonminor’s best interests. (iv) The nonminor intends to satisfy, and agrees to satisfy, at least one of the criteria set forth in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, of subdivision (b) of Section 11403, and demonstrates his or her agreement to placement in a supervised setting under the placement and care responsibility of the placing agency and to satisfy the criteria by signing the voluntary reentry agreement as described in subdivision (z) of Section 11400. (B) In no event shall the court grant a continuance that would cause the hearing to resume dependency jurisdiction or to assume or resume transition jurisdiction to be completed more than 120 days after the date the petition was filed. (C) The agency made responsible for the nonminor’s placement and care pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall prepare a new transitional independent living case plan within 60 calendar days from the date the nonminor signed the voluntary reentry agreement as described in subdivision (z) of Section 11400 and submit it to the court for the review hearing under Section 366.31, to be held within 70 days of the resumption of dependency jurisdiction or assumption or resumption of transition jurisdiction. In no event shall the review hearing under Section 366.3 be held more than 170 calendar days from the date the nonminor signed the voluntary reentry agreem
If the Defense Panel did the same maybe they wouldn’t be so ignorant in court. At the very least they should have a code book in their office don’t you think? Here are a few codes I would like to share.
396. It is the policy of the Legislature that foster care should be a temporary method of care for the children of this state, that children have a right to a normal home life free from abuse, that reunification with the natural parent or parents or another alternate permanent living situation such as adoption or guardianship is more suitable to a child’s well-being than is foster care, that this state has a responsibility to attempt to ensure that children are given the chance to have happy and healthy lives, and that, to the extent possible, the current practice of moving children receiving foster care services from one foster home to another until they reach the age of majority should be discontinued.
397. In order to carry out the policy stated in Section 396, each county welfare department or probation department shall report to the State Department of Social Services, in the frequency and format determined by the department, foster care characteristic data and care information deemed essential by the department to establish a foster care information system. The report shall include, but not be limited to, elements that identify the factors necessitating foster care placement, the appropriateness of the placement, and the case goal or objective such as reunification, adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care placement.
399. Any minor being considered for placement in a foster home
shall have the right to make a brief statement to the court making a decision on placement. The court may disregard any preferences expressed by the minor. The minor’s right to make a statement shall not be limited to the initial placement, but shall continue for any proceedings concerning continued placement or a decision to return to parental custody.
So, your child HAS A SAY in their placement.
If your child is 10 or older, regardless of your child’s age, tell them to speak up in court even if the Court MAY completely disregard it. Did you know that the children can also APPEAL any decision? All they have to do is tell their lawyer to do that and they must regardless of whether or not they feel it is in the child’s “best interests”.
U.S. federal laws that govern CPS agencies include:
In 1690, in what is now the United States, there were criminal court cases involving child abuse. In 1692, states and municipalities identified care for abused and neglected children as the responsibility of local government and private institutions.In 1696, The Kingdom of England first used the legal principle of parens patriae, which gave the royal crown care of “charities, infants, idiots, and lunatics returned to the chancery.” This principal of parens patriae has been identified as the statutory basis for U.S. governmental intervention in families’ child rearing practices.
In 1825, states enacted laws giving social-welfare agencies the right to remove neglected children from their parents and from the streets. These children were placed in almshouses, in orphanages and with other families. In 1835, the Humane Society founded the National Federation of Child Rescue agencies to investigate child maltreatment. In the late-19th century, private child protection agencies – modeled after existing animal protection organizations – developed to investigate reports of child maltreatment, present cases in court and advocate for child welfare legislation.
In 1853, the Children’s Aid Society was founded in response to the problem of orphaned or abandoned children living in New York. Rather than allow these children to become institutionalized or continue to live on the streets, the children were placed in the first “foster” homes, typically with the intention of helping these families work their farms.
In 1874, the first case of child abuse was criminally prosecuted in what has come to be known as the “case of Mary Ellen.” Outrage over this case started an organized effort against child maltreatment In 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt convened the White House Conference on Child Dependency, which created a publicly funded volunteer organization to “establish and publicize standards of child care.” By 1926, 18 states had some version of county child welfare boards whose purpose was to coordinate public and private child related work. Issues of abuse and neglect were addressed in the Social Security Act in 1930, which provided funding for intervention for “neglected and dependent children in danger of becoming delinquent.” 
In 1912, the federal Children’s Bureau was established to manage federal child welfare efforts, including services related to child maltreatment. In 1958, amendments to the Social Security Act mandated that states fund child protection efforts. In 1962, professional and media interest in child maltreatment was sparked by the publication of C. Henry Kempe and associates’ “The battered child syndrome” in JAMA. By the mid-1960s, in response to public concern that resulted from this article, 49 U.S. states passed child-abuse reporting laws. In 1974, these efforts by the states culminated in the passage of the federal “Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act” (CAPTA; Public Law 93-247) providing federal funding for wide-ranging federal and state child-maltreatment research and services. In 1980, Congress passed the first comprehensive federal child protective services act, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-272), which focused on state economic incentives to substantially decrease the length and number of foster care placements.
Partly funded by the federal government, Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies were first established in response to the 1974CAPTA which mandated that all states establish procedures to investigate suspected incidents of child maltreatment.
In the 1940s and 1950s, due to improved technology in diagnostic radiology, the medical profession began to take notice of what they believed to be intentional injuries. In 1961, C. Henry Kempe began to further research this issue, eventually identifying and coining the term battered child syndrome. At this same time, there were also changing views about the role of the child in society, fueled in part by the civil rights movement.
In 1973, Congress took the first steps toward enacting federal legislature to address the issue of child abuse. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act was passed in 1974, which required states “to prevent, identify and treat child abuse and neglect.”
Shortly thereafter, in 1978, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was passed in response to concerns that large numbers of Native American children were being separated from their tribes and placed in foster care. This legislation not only opened the door for consideration of cultural issues while stressing ideas that children should be with their families, leading to the beginnings offamily preservation programs. In 1980, the Adoption Assistance Act was introduced as a way to manage the high numbers of children in placement. Although this legislation addressed some of the complaints from earlier pieces of legislation around ensuring due process for parents, these changes did not alleviate the high numbers of children in placement or continuing delays in permanence. This led to the introduction of the home visitation models, which provided funding to private agencies to provide intensive family preservation services.
In addition to family preservation services, the focus of federal child welfare policy changed to try to address permanence for the large numbers of foster children care. Several pieces of federal legislation attempted to ease the process of adoption including Adoption Assistance Act; the 1988 Child Abuse Prevention, Adoption, and Family Services Act; and the 1992 Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, Adoption, and Family Services Act. The 1994 Multi-Ethnic Placement Act, which was revised in 1996 to add the Interethnic Placement Provisions, also attempted to promote permanency through adoption, creating regulations that adoptions could not be delayed or denied due to issues of race, color, or national origin of the child or the adoptive parent.
All of these policies led up to the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), much of which guides current practice. Changes in the Adoptions and Safe Families Act showed an interest in both protecting children’s safety and developing permanency.This law requires counties to provide “reasonable efforts” (treatment) to preserve or reunify families, but also shortened time lines required for permanence, leading to termination of parental rights should these efforts fail. ASFA introduced the idea of “concurrent planning” which demonstrated attempts to reunify families as the first plan, but to have a back-up plan so as not to delay permanency for children.
Comparison to other similar systems
The United Kingdom has a comprehensive child welfare system under which Local Authorities have duties and responsibilities towards children in need in their area. This covers provision of advice and services, accommodation and care of children who become uncared for, and also the capacity to initiate proceedings for the removal of children from their parents care/care proceedings. The criteria for the latter is ‘significant harm’ which covers physical, sexual and emotional abuse and neglect. In appropriate cases the Care Plan before the Court will be for adoption. The Local Authorities also run adoption services both for children put up for adoption voluntarily and those becoming available for adoption through Court proceedings. The basic legal principle in all public and private proceedings concerning children, under the Children Act 1989, is that the welfare of the child is paramount. In recognition of attachment issues, social work good practice requires a minimal number of moves and the 1989 Children Act enshrines the principle that delay is inimical to a child’s welfare. Care proceedings have a time frame of 40 weeks and concurrent planning is required. The final Care Plan put forward by the Local Authority is required to provide a plan for permanence, whether with parents, family members, long-term foster parents or adopters. Nevertheless, ‘drift’ and multiple placements still occur as many older children are difficult to place or maintain in placements. The role of Independent Visitor, a voluntary post, was created in the United Kingdom under the 1989 Children Act to befriend and assist children and young people in care.
In England, Wales and Scotland, there never has been a statutory obligation to report alleged child abuse to the Police. However both the Children Act 1989 and 2004 makes clear a statutory obligation on all professionals to report suspected child abuse.
The statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children 2006 created the role of Local Authority Designated Officer, This officer is responsible for managing allegations of abuse against adults who work with children (Teachers, Social Workers,Church leaders, Youth Workers etc.).
Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCB’s) are responsible ensuring agencies and professionals,in their area,effectively safeguard and promote the welfare of children. In the event of the death or serious injury of a child, LSCB’s can initiate a ‘Serious Case Review’ aimed at identifying agency failings and improving future practice.
The planned ContactPoint database, under which information on children is shared between professionals, has been halted by the newly elected coalition government (May 2010). The database was aimed at improving information sharing across agencies. Lack of information sharing had been identified as a failing in numerous high profile child death cases. Critics of the scheme claimed it was evidence of a ‘big brother state’ and too expensive to introduce.
Working Together to Safeguard Children 2006 (updated in 2010) and the subsequent ‘The Protection of Children in England: A Progress Report’ (Laming, 2009) continue to promote the sharing of data between those working with vulnerable children.
A child in suitable cases can be made a ward of court and no decisions about the child or changes in its life can be made without the leave of the High Court.
In England the Murder of Victoria Climbié was largely responsible for various changes in child protection in England, including the formation of the Every Child Matters programme in 2003. A similar programme – Getting it Right for Every Child – GIRFEC was established in Scotland in 2008.
In Ontario, services are provided by independent Children’s Aid Societies. The societies receive funding from, and are under the supervision of the Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services. However, they are regarded as a Non-governmental organization (NGO) which allows the CAS a large degree of autonomy from interference or direction in the day to day running of CAS by the Ministry. The Child and Family Services Review Board exists to investigate complaints against CAS and maintains authority to act against the societies.
The Patronato Nacional de la Infancia (PANI) is responsible for Child Protection in Costa Rica.
The agency was founded in 1930 by Dr. Luis Felipe Gonzalez Flores, a Costa Rican magnate at the time. It was founded to combat infant mortality, that at the time, was rampant in Costa Rica. The idea was to put infants up for adoption that the mother could not afford to support (abortion is a crime in Costa Rica).
Today the focus is on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The agency still favors adoption, since abortion is illegal in Costa Rica.
Effects of early maltreatment on children in child welfare
Children with histories of maltreatment, such as physical and psychological neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse, are at risk of developing psychiatric problems. Such children are at risk of developing a disorganized attachment.Disorganized attachment is associated with a number of developmental problems, including dissociative symptoms, as well as depressive, anxiety, and acting-out symptoms.
Standards for Reporting
Generally speaking, a report must be made when an individual knows or has reasonable cause to believe or suspect that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect. These standards guide mandatory reporters in deciding whether to make a report to child protective services.
Persons Responsible for the Child
In addition to defining acts or omissions that constitute child abuse or neglect, several states’ statutes provide specific definitions of persons who can get reported to child protective services as perpetrators of abuse or neglect. These are persons who have some relationship or regular responsibility for the child. This generally includes parents, guardians, foster parents, relatives, or legal guardians. Once taken away from home, the stated goal of CPS is to reunite the child with their family. In some cases, due to the nature of abuse children are not able to see or converse with the abusers. If parents fail to complete Court Ordered terms and conditions, the children in care may never return home.
Child Protective Services Statistics
The United States government’s Administration for Children and Families reported that in 2004 approximately 3.5 million children were involved in investigations of alleged abuse or neglect in the US, while an estimated 872,000 children were determined to have been abused or neglected, and an estimated 1,490 children died that year because of abuse or neglect. In 2007, 1,760 children died as the result of child abuse and neglect. Child abuse impacts the most vulnerable populations, with children under age five years accounting for 76% of fatalities. In 2008, 8.3 children per 1000 were victims of child abuse and neglect and 10.2 children per 1000 were in out of home placement.
On September 30, 2010, there were approximately 400,000 children in foster care in the U.S. of which 36% percent were ages 5 and under. During that same period, almost 120,000 birth to five year-olds entered foster care and a little under 100,000 exited foster care. U.S. Child Protective Services (CPS) received a little over 2.5 million reports of child maltreatment in 2009 of which 61.9% were assigned to an investigation. Research using national data on recidivism indicates that 22% of children were rereported within a 2-year period and that 7% of these rereports were substantiated.
Child Protective Services Recidivism in the United States
In order to understand CPS recidivism in the U.S., there are several terms that readers must familiarize themselves with. Two often-used terms in CPS recidivism are rereport (also known as rereferral) and recurrence. Either of the two can occur after an initial report of child abuse or neglect called an index report. Although the definition of rereport and recurrence is not consistent, the general difference is that a rereport is a subsequent report of child abuse or neglect after an initial report (also known as an index report) whereas recurrence refers to a confirmed (also known as substantiated) rereport after an initial report of child abuse and neglect. Borrowing from the definition used by Pecora et al. (2000), recidivism is defined as, “Recurring child abuse and neglect, the subsequent or repeated maltreatment of a child after identification to public authorities.” It is important to highlight that this definition is not all-inclusive because it does not include abused children who are not reported to authorities.
There are three main sources of recidivism data in the U.S.—the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW), and the National Incidence Study (NIS)—and they all have their own respective strengths and weaknesses. NCANDS was established in 1974, and it consists of administrative data of all reports of suspected child abuse and neglect investigated by CPS. NSCAW was established in 1996 and is similar to NCANDS in that it only includes reports of child abuse and neglect investigated by CPS, but it adds clinical measures related to child and family well-being that NCANDS is lacking. NIS was established in 1974, and it consists of data collected from CPS as well. However, it attempts to gather a more comprehensive picture of the incidence of child abuse and neglect by collecting data from other reporting sources called community sentinels.
Brenda Scott, in her 1994 book Out of Control: Who’s Watching Our Child Protection Agencies, criticizes CPS, stating, “Child Protective Services is out of control. The system, as it operates today, should be scrapped. If children are to be protected in their homes and in the system, radical new guidelines must be adopted. At the core of the problem is the antifamily mindset of CPS. Removal is the first resort, not the last. With insufficient checks and balances, the system that was designed to protect children has become the greatest perpetrator of harm.”
An ongoing case about the Nastić family living in U.S. has received an intervention from the Serbian government. Children were taken away from their parents after their naked photos were found on the father’s computer. Such photos are common in Serbia culture. Furthermore, parents claim that their ethnic and religious rights have been violated – children are not permitted to speak Serbian, nor to meet with their parents for orthodox Christmas. They can meet only mother once a week. Children have suffered psychological traumas due to their separation from parents. Polygraph showed that father did not abuse children. Trial is set for January 26. Psychologists from Serbia stated that few hours of conversation with children are enough to see whether they have been abused. Children were taken from their family 7 months ago. FBI started an investigation against the CPS.
Senator Nancy Schaefer stated “The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998 reported that six times :as many children died in foster care than in the general public and that once removed to official “safety”, these children are far more likely to :suffer abuse, including sexual molestation than in the general population. Think what that number is today ten years later!”
- The NCCAN report on “Perpetrators of Maltreatment”provides the following figures
Maltreatment per 100,000 US children CPS Parents Physical Abuse 160 59 Sexual Abuse 112 13 Neglect 410 241 Medical Neglect 14 12 Fatalities 6.4 1.5
Senator Schaefer also stated
- “that poor parents very often are targeted to lose their children because they do not have the where-with-all to hire lawyers and fight the system. Being poor does not mean you are not a good parent or that you do not love your child, or that your child should be removed and placed with strangers;
- that all parents are capable of making mistakes and that making a mistake does not mean your children are to be removed from the home. Even if the home is not perfect, it is home; and that’s where a child is the safest and where he or she wants to be, with family;
- that parenting classes, anger management classes, counseling referrals, therapy classes and on and on are demanded of parents with no compassion by the system even while the parents are at work and while their children are separated from them. (some times parents are required to pay for the programs) This can take months or even years and it emotionally devastates both children and parents. Parents are victimized by “the system” that makes a profit for holding children longer and “bonuses” for not returning children to their parents;
- that caseworkers and social workers are very often guilty of fraud. They withhold and destroy evidence. They fabricate evidence and they seek to terminate parental rights unnecessarily. However, when charges are made against Child Protective Services, the charges are ignored;
- that the separation of families and the “snatching of children” is growing as a business because local governments have grown accustomed to having these taxpayer dollars to balance their ever-expanding budgets;
- that Child Protective Services and Juvenile Court can always hide behind a confidentiality clause in order to protect their decisions and keep the funds flowing. There should be open records and “court watches”! Look who is being paid!
There are state employees, lawyers, court investigators, guardian ad litems, court personnel, and judges. There are psychologists, and psychiatrists, counselors, caseworkers, therapists, foster parents, adoptive parents, and on and on. All are looking to the children in state custody to provide job security. Parents do not realize that the social workers are the glue that hold “the system” together that funds the court, funds the court appointed attorneys, and the multiple other jobs including the “system’s” psychiatrists, therapists, their own attorneys and others.
- that The Adoption and the Safe Families Act, set in motion first in 1974 by Walter Mondale and later in 1997 by President Bill Clinton, offered cash “bonuses” to the states for every child they adopted out of foster care. In order to receive the “adoption incentive bonuses” local child protective services need more children. They must have merchandise (children) that sells and you must have plenty so the buyer can choose. Some counties are known to give a $4,000 to $6,000 bonus for each child adopted out to strangers and an additional $2,000 for a “special needs” child. Employees work to keep the federal dollars flowing;
- State Departments of Human Resources (DHR) and affiliates are given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population. For every child DHR and CPS can get adopted, there is the bonus of $4,000 or maybe $6,000. But that is only the beginning figure in the formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the State has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. Therefore States and local communities work hard to reach their goals for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care.
- that there is double dipping. The funding continues as long as the child is out of the home. There is funding for foster care then when a child is placed with a new family, then “adoption bonus funds” are available. When a child is placed in a mental health facility and is on 16 drugs per day, like two children of a constituent of mine, more funds are involved and so is Medicaid;
- As you can see this program is ordered from the very top and run by Health and Human Resources. This is why victims of CPS get no help from their legislators. It explains why my bill, SB 415 suffered such defeat in the Judicial Committee, why I was cut off at every juncture. Legislators and Governors must remember who funds their paychecks.
- that there are no financial resources and no real drive to unite a family and help keep them together or provide effective care;
- that the incentive for social workers to return children to their parents quickly after taking them has disappeared and who in protective services will step up to the plate and say, “This must end! No one, because they are all in the system together and a system with no leader and no clear policies will always fail the children. Just look at the waste in government that is forced upon the tax payer;
- that the “Policy Manuel” is considered “the last word” for CPS/DFCS. However, it is too long, too confusing, poorly written and does not take the law into consideration;
- that if the lives of children were improved by removing them from their homes, there might be a greater need for protective services, but today children are not safer. Children, of whom I am aware, have been raped and impregnated in foster care;
- It is a known fact that children are in much more danger in foster care than they are in their own home even though home may not be perfect.
- that some parents are even told if they want to see their children or grandchildren, they must divorce their spouse. Many, who are under privileged, feeling they have no option, will divorce and then just continue to live together. This is an anti-family policy, but parents will do anything to get their children home with them. However, when the parents cooperate with Child Protective Services, their behavior is interpreted as guilt when nothing could be further from the truth.
- Fathers, (non-custodial parents) I must add, are often treated as criminals without access to visit or even see their own children and have child support payments strangling the very life out of them;
- that the Foster Parents Bill of Rights does not stress that a foster parent is there temporarily to care for a child until the child can be returned home. Many foster parents today use the Foster Parent Bill of Rights as a means to hire a lawyer and seek to adopt the child placed in their care from the real parents, who are desperately trying to get their child home and out of the system. Recently in Atlanta, a young couple learning to be new parents and loving it, were told that because of an anonymous complaint, their daughter would be taken into custody by the State DFCS. The couple was devastated and then was required by DFCS to take parenting classes, alcohol counseling and psychological evaluations if they wanted to get their child back. All of the courses cost money for which most parents are required to pay. While in their anxiety and turmoil to get their child home, the baby was left for hours in a car to die in the heat in her car seat by a foster parent who forgot about the child. This should never have happened. It is tragic. In many cases after the parents have jumped through all the hoops, they still do not get their child. As long as the child is not returned, there is money for the agency, for foster parents, for adoptive parents, and for the State.
- that tax dollars are being used to keep this gigantic system afloat, yet the victims, parents, grandparents, guardians and especially the children, are charged for the system’s services.
- that grandparents have called from all over the State of Georgia and from other states trying to get custody of their grandchildren. CPS claims relatives are contacted, but there are many many cases that prove differently. Grandparents who lose their grandchildren to strangers have lost their own flesh and blood. The children lose their family heritage and grandparents, and parents too, lose all connections to their heirs.
- that The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998 reported that six times as many children died in foster care than in the general public and that once removed to official “safety”, these children are far more likely to suffer abuse, including sexual molestation than in the general population. Think what that number is today ten years later!
- That according to the California Little Hoover Commission Report in 2003, 30% to 70% of the children in California group homes do not belong there and should not have been removed from their homes.” 
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services had itself been an object of reports of unusual numbers of poisonings, death, rapes and pregnancies of children under its care since 2004. The Texas Family and Protective Services Crisis Management Team was created by executive order after the critical report Forgotten Children of 2004.
Texas Child Protective Services was hit with a rare if not unprecedented legal sanction for a “groundless cause of action” and ordered to pay $32,000 of the Spring family’s attorney fees. Judge Schneider wrote in a 13-page order, “The offensive conduct by (CPS) has significantly interfered with the legitimate exercise of the traditional core functions of this court.”
2008 Raid of YFZ Ranch
In April 2008, the largest child protection action in American history raised questions as the CPS in Texas removed hundreds of minor children, infants, and women incorrectly believed to be children from the YFZ Ranch polygamist community, with the assistance of heavily armed police with an armored personnel carrier. Investigators, including supervisor Angie Voss convinced a judge that all of the children were at risk of child abuse because they were all being groomed for under-age marriage. The state supreme court disagreed, releasing most children back to their families. Investigations would result in criminal charges against some men in the community.
Gene Grounds of Victim Relief Ministries commended CPS workers in the Texas operation as exhibiting compassion, professionalism and caring concern. However, CPS performance was questioned by workers from the Hill Country Community Mental Health-Mental Retardation Center. One wrote “I have never seen women and children treated this poorly, not to mention their civil rights being disregarded in this manner” after assisting at the emergency shelter. Others who were previously forbidden to discuss conditions working with CPS later produced unsigned written reports expressed anger at the CPS traumatizing the children, and disregarding rights of mothers who appeared to be good parents of healthy, well-behaved children. CPS threatened some MHMR workers with arrest, and the entire mental health support was dismissed the second week due to being “too compassionate.” Workers believed poor sanitary conditions at the shelter allowed respiratory infections and chicken pox to spread.
CPS problem reports
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, as with other states, had itself been an object of reports of unusual numbers of poisonings, death, rapes and pregnancies of children under its care since 2004. The Texas Family and Protective Services Crisis Management Team was created by executive order after the critical report Forgotten Children of 2004. Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn made a statement in 2006 about the Texas foster care system. In Fiscal 2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively 30, 38 and 48 foster children died in the state’s care. The number of foster children in the state’s care increased 24 percent to 32,474 in Fiscal 2005, while the number of deaths increased 60 percent. Compared to the general population, a child is four times more likely to die in the Texas foster care system. In 2004, about 100 children were treated for poisoning from medications; 63 were treated for rape that occurred while under state care including four-year old twin boys, and 142 children gave birth, though others believe Ms. Strayhorn’s report was not scientifically researched, and that major reforms need to be put in place to assure that children in the conservatorship of the state get as much attention as those at risk in their homes.
Disproportionality & Disparity in the Child Welfare System
In the United States, data suggests that a disproportionate number of minority children, particularly African American and Native American children, enter the foster care system. National data in the United States provides evidence that disproportionality may vary throughout the course of a child’s involvement with the child welfare system. Differing rates of disproportionality are seen at key decision points including the reporting of abuse, substantiation of abuse, and placement into foster care. Additionally, once they enter foster care, research suggests that they are likely to remain in care longer. Research has shown that there is no difference in the rate of abuse and neglect among minority populations when compared to Caucasian children that would account for the disparity. The Juvenile Justice system has also been challenged by disproportionate negative contact of minority children. Because of the overlap in these systems, it is likely that this phenomenon within multiple systems may be related.
In May 2007, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, No. 05-16071 that a CPS social worker who removed children from their natural parents into foster care without obtaining judicial authorization was acting without due process and without exigency (emergency conditions) violated the 14th Amendment and Title 42 United State Code Section 1983. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that a state may not make a law that abridges “… the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” and no state may “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Title 42 United States Code Section 1983 states that citizens can sue in federal courts any person who acting under a color of law to deprive the citizens of their civil rights under the pretext of a regulation of a state, See.
In case of Santosky v. Kramer, 455 US 745, Supreme Court reviewed a case when Department of Social Services removed two younger children from their natural parents only because the parents had been previously found negligent toward their oldest daughter. When the third child was only three days old, DSS transferred him to a foster home on the ground that immediate removal was necessary to avoid imminent danger to his life or health. The Supreme Court vacated previous judgment and stated: “Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence. But until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship”.
A District of Columbia Court of Appeals concluded that the lower trial court erred in rejecting the relative custodial arrangement selected by the natural mother who tried to preserve her relationship with the child. The previous judgment granting the foster mother’s adoption petition was reversed, the case remanded to the trial court to vacate the orders granting adoption and denying custody, and to enter an order granting custody to the child’s relative.
In 2010 an ex-foster child was awarded $30 million by jury trial in California (Santa Clara County) for sexual abuse damages that happened to him in foster home from 1995 to 1999. The foster parent, John Jackson, was licensed by state despite the fact that he abused his own wife and son, overdosed on drugs and was arrested for drunken driving. In 2006, Jackson was convicted in Santa Clara County of nine counts of lewd or lascivious acts on a child by force, violence, duress, menace and fear and seven counts of lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14, according to the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office. The sex acts he forced the children in his foster care to perform sent him to prison for 220 years. Later in 2010, Giarretto Institute, the private foster family agency responsible for licensing and monitoring Jackson’s foster home and others, also was found to be negligent and liable for 75 percent of the abuse that was inflicted on the victim, and Jackson was liable for the rest.
In 2009 Oregon Department of Human Services has agreed to pay $2 million into a fund for the future care of twins who were allegedly abused by their foster parents; it was the largest such settlement in the agency’s history. According to the civil rightssuit filed on request of twins’ adoptive mother in December 2007 in U.S. Federal Court, kids were kept in makeshift cages—cribs covered with chicken wire secured by duct tape—in a darkened bedroom known as “the dungeon.” The brother and sister often went without food, water or human touch. The boy, who had a shunt put into his head at birth to drain fluid, didn’t receive medical attention, so when police rescued the twins he was nearly comatose. The same foster family previously took in their care hundreds of other children over nearly four decades. DHS said the foster parents deceived child welfare workers during the checkup visits.
Several lawsuits were brought in 2008 against the Florida Department of Children & Families (DCF), accusing it of mishandling reports that Thomas Ferrara, 79, a foster parent, was molesting girls. The suits claimed that though there were records of sexual misconduct allegations against Ferrara in 1992, 1996, and 1999, the DCF continued to place foster children with Ferrara and his then-wife until 2000. Ferrara was arrested in 2001 after a 9-year-old girl told detectives he regularly molested her over two years and threatened to hurt her mother if she told anyone. Records show that Ferrara had as many as 400 children go through his home during his 16 years as a licensed foster parent from 1984 to 2000. Officials stated that the lawsuits over Ferrara end up costing the DCF almost $2.26 million. Similarly, in 2007 Florida‘s DCF paid $1.2 million to settle a lawsuit that alleged DCF ignored complaints that another mentally challenged Immokalee girl was being raped by her foster father, Bonifacio Velazquez, until the 15-year-old gave birth to a child.
In a class action lawsuit Charlie and Nadine H. v. McGreevey was filed in federal court by “Children’s Rights” New York organization on behalf of children in the custody of the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). The complaint alleged violations of the children’s constitutional rights and their rights under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, theChild Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment, 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, theAmericans with Disabilities Act, and the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA). In July 2002, the federal court granted plaintiffs’ experts access to 500 children’s case files, allowing plaintiffs to collect information concerning harm to children in foster care through a case record review. These files revealed numerous cases in which foster children were abused, and DYFS failed to take proper action. On June 9, 2004, the child welfare panel appointed by the parties approved the NJ State’s Reform Plan. The court accepted the plan on June 17, 2004. The same organization filed similar lawsuits against other states in recent years that caused some of the states to start child welfare reforms.
In 2007 Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick obtained a jury verdict against Orange County (California) and two of its social workers for violating her Fourteenth Amendment rights to familial association. The $4.9 million verdict grew to a $9.5 million judgment as the County lost each of its successive appeals. The case finally ended in 2011 when the United States Supreme Court denied Orange County’s request to overturn the verdict.
In April 2013, Child Protective Services in Sacramento sent in police to forcibly remove a 5-month-old baby from the care of parents.
Alex and Anna Nikolayev took their baby Sammy out of Sutter Memorial Hospital and sought a second opinion at Kaiser Permanente, a competing hospital, for Sammy’s flu-like symptoms. Police arrived at Kaiser and questioned the couple and doctors. Once Sammy had been fully cleared to leave the hospital, the couple went home, but the following day police arrived and took Sammy. On June 25, 2013 the case against the family was dismissed adn the family filed a lawsuit against CPS and the Sacramento Police Department.
In a nationwide study, researchers examined children in 595 families over a period of 9 years. They discovered that in the households where child abuse was substantiated by evidence, risk factors remained unchanged during interviews with the families.
- Child Welfare
- Cinderella effect
- Foster Care
- Child Abuse
- National Association of Social Workers
- Parenting Coordinator
Similar organizations in other countries
- Bureau Jeugdzorg and Raad voor de Kinderbescherming Netherlands
- Jugendamt Germany and Austria
- Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service England and Wales
- Patronato Nacional de la Infancia in Costa Rica
- Pecora et al. (1992), p. 231.
- Ibid., pp. 230-1.
- Ibid., p. 230.
- Pecora et al. (1992), pp. 230-31; Petr (1998), p. 126.
- Children’s Aid Society. “History”.
- Axinn, June; Levin,Herman (1997). Social Welfare: a history of the American response to need (4th ed.). White Plains, New York: Longman. ISBN 9780801317002.
- Ellett, Alberta J.; Leighninger, Leslie (10 August 2006). “What Happened? An historical perspective of the de-professionalization of child welfare practice with implications for policy and practice”. Journal of Public Child Welfare 1 (1): 3–34.doi:10.1300/J479v01n01_02.
- Crosson-Tower, Cynthia (1999). Understanding child abuse and neglect (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.ISBN 9780205287802.
- Laird & Michael (2006).
- Pecora et al. (1992), p. 232; Petr (1998), p. 126.
- Pecora et al. (1992), pp. 232-3; Petr (1998), pp. 126-7.
- “Child Protective Services – HISTORICAL OVERVIEW, CURRENT SYSTEM”.
- “Reporting Child Abuse – Child Protective Services”.
- Antler, S (1978). “Child Abuse: An emerging social priority”. Social Work 23: 58–61.
- Administration for Children & Families. “Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974 P.L. 93-247”. Child Welfare Information Gateway. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
- Limb, GE; Chance, T; Brown, EF (December 2004). “An empirical examination of the Indian Child Welfare Act and its impact on cultural and familial preservation for American Indian children”. Child Abuse & Neglect 28 (12): 1279–89.doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.06.012. PMID 15607770.
- Mitchell, LB; Barth, RP; Green, R; Wall, A; Biemer, P; Berrick, JD; Webb, MB (Jan–Feb 2005). “Child welfare reform in the United States: findings from a local agency survey.”. Child Welfare 84 (1): 5–24. PMID 15717771.
- Administration for Children & Families. “Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 P.L. 96-272”. Child Welfare Information Gateway. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
- Administration for Children & Families (2011). “Major Federal Legislation Concerned with Child Protection, Child Welfare, and Adoption”. Child Welfare Information Gateway. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
- Lincroft, Y.; Resher, J. (2006). “Undercounted and Underserved: Immigrant and refugee families in the child welfare system”. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
- Mitchell, Lorelei B.; Barth, Richard P.; Green, Rebecca; Wall, Ariana; Biemer, Paul; Berrick, Jill Duerr; Webb, Mary Bruce. “Child Welfare Reform in the United States: Findings from a Local Agency Survey”. Child Welfare 84 (1): 5–24 . ISSN 0009-4021.
- “About Ontario’s children’s aid societies”. Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services. Retrieved 19 April 2011.
- “Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11”. E-laws.gov.on.ca. Retrieved 2013-11-15.
- “Complaints Against a Children’s Aid Society”. Child and Family Services Review Board. Retrieved 17 April 2011.
- Gauthier, L., Stollak, G., Messe, L., & Arnoff, J. (1996). Recall of childhood neglect and physical abuse as differential predictors of current psychological functioning. Child Abuse and Neglect 20, 549-559
- Malinosky-Rummell, R. & Hansen, D.J. (1993) Long term consequences of childhood physical abuse. Psychological Bulletin114, 68-69
- Lyons-Ruth K. & Jacobvitz, D. (1999) Attachment disorganization: unresolved loss, relational violence and lapses in behavioral and attentional strategies. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.) Handbook of Attachment. (pp. 520-554). NY: Guilford Press
- Solomon, J. & George, C. (Eds.) (1999). Attachment Disorganization. NY: Guilford Press
- Main, M. & Hesse, E. (1990) Parents’ Unresolved Traumatic Experiences are related to infant disorganized attachment status. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Ciccehetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds), Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention (pp161-184). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
- Carlson, E. A. (1988). A prospective longitudinal study of disorganized/disoriented attachment. Child Development 69, 1107-1128
- Lyons-Ruth, K. (1996). Attachment relationships among children with aggressive behavior problems: The role of disorganized early attachment patterns. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 64, 64-73
- Lyons-Ruth, K., Alpern, L., & Repacholi, B. (1993). Disorganized infant attachment classification and maternal psychosocial problems as predictors of hostile-aggressive behavior in the preschool classroom. Child Development 64, 572-585
- “Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect”. Childwelfare.gov. Retrieved 2010-08-21.
- Prevent Child Abuse New York. “2007 Child Abuse and Neglect Fact Sheet”.
- American Humane Association. “Emotional Abuse”. Stop Child Abuse.
- “Kids Count Data Center”. The Annie E. Casey Foundation.[citation not found]
- “The AFCARS Report Preliminary FY 2010 Estimates as of June 2011”. http://www.acf.hhs.gov. Retrieved 2011-10-06.
- “Child Maltreatment 2009”. http://www.acf.hhs.gov. Retrieved 2011-10-06.
- Fluke, J. D.; Shusterman, G. R., Hollinshead, D. M., & Yuan, Y.-Y. (2008). “Longitudinal analysis of repeated child abuse reporting and victimization: multistate analysis of associated factors”. Child Maltreatment: 76–88.
- Pecora, P. J., Whittaker, J., Maluccio, A., & Barth, R. (2000). The child welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research. Aldine de Gruyter.
- Wulczyn, F. (2009). “Epidemiological Perspectives on Maltreatment Prevention”. The Future of Children: 39–66.
- Scott, Brenda (1994) Out of Control: Who’s Watching Our Child Protection Agencies? p. 179
- “United States: Serbian Couple Struggles to Get Children Back · Global Voices”. Globalvoicesonline.org. 2011-01-04. Retrieved 2013-11-15.
- “News – U.S.: Serbian couple fights to get children back”. B92. Retrieved 2013-11-15.
- “Press Online :: Press Green”. Pressonline.rs. Retrieved 2013-11-15.
- “The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services – report by Senator Nancy Schaefer, September 25, 2008”.
- State agency hit with rare sanction for taking custody of Spring infants
- KVUE.com, Richardson group: Polygamists’ children are OK April 18, 2008 by Janet St. James / WFAA-TV
- Crotea, Roger (10 May 2008). “Mental health workers rip CPS over sect”. San Antonio Express-news .
- Comptroller Strayhorn Statement On Foster Care Abuse June 23, 2006
- Hill R.B. (2004) Institutional racism in child welfare. In J. Everett, S. Chipungu & B. Leashore (Eds.) Child welfare revisited (pp. 57-76). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
- Hill, R. B (2006) Synthesis of research on disproportionality in child welfare: An update. Casey-CSSP Alliance for Racial Equity in Child Welfare.
- Wulczyn, F. Lery, B., Haight, J., (2006) Entry and Exit Disparities in the Tennessee Foster Care System. Chapin Hall Discussion Paper.
- National Incidence Study (NIS), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, (1996)
- Pope, C.E. & Feyerherm, W. (1995) Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System Research Symmary. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
- Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, No. 05-16071
- Title 42 United States Code Section 1983
- “Civil Rights Complaint Guide”.
- “Santosky v. Kramer, 455 US 745 – Supreme Court 1982”.
- “In re TJ, 666 A. 2d 1 – DC: Court of Appeals 1995”.
- “South Bay sex-abuse lawsuit: Ex-foster child awarded $30 million”.
- “Estey & Bomberger announces Jury Awards $30 Million in San Jose Molestation Case”.
- “Gresham foster kids abused despite DHS checks”. The Oregonian. 2009-04-04.
- “Abuse in children’s foster care: State officials call for outside review”. The Oregonian. 2009-09-02.
- “Florida Foster Care Child Molestation”.
- “Foster parent, 79, accused of molesting girls in his care”.
- “Child of rape now 9, yet DCF settlement held up”.
- “Florida Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 60”.
- “Florida Senate – 2010”.
- Charlie and Nadine H. v. McGreevey
- “New Jersey (Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine)”.
- “Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine”.
- “Legal Documents (Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine)”.
- “Results of Reform”.
- “Order Granting Fees Incurred on Appeal”.
- “U.S. Supreme Court Denies Orange County’s (California) Request”.
- “News10 – Couple still unclear why CPS took their baby”.
- Bakalar, Nicholas (2010-10-11). “Doubts Rise Over Child Protective Service Inquiries”. The New York Times.
- Drake, B. & Jonson-Reid, M. (2007). A response to Melton based on the Best Available Data. Published in: Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 31, Issue 4, April 2007, Pages 343-360.
- Laird, David and Jennifer Michael (2006). “Budgeting Child Welfare: How will millions cut from the federal budget affect the child welfare system?” Published in: Child Welfare League of America, Children’s Voice, Vol. 15, No. 4 (July/August 2006). Available on-line at: http://www.cwla.org/voice/0607budgeting.htm.
- Pecora, Peter J., James K. Whittaker, Anthony N. Maluccio, with Richard P. Barth and Robert D. Plotnick (1992). The Child Welfare Challenge: Policy, Practice, and Research. NY:Aldine de Gruyter. ISBN .
- Petr, Christopher G. (1998). Social Work with Children and their Families: Pragmatic Foundations. NY:Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-510607-5.
- Scott, Brenda (1994), “Out of Control. Who’s Watching Our Child Protection Agencies?”. Huntington House Publishers. ISBN paper. ISBN hardback.
- MacLaren Hall Child Protection Institution Home Site History of Child Protection in America
- U.S. Children’s Bureau (CB), includes:
- Snowfall – One family’s account of CPS action
- Child Welfare League of America
- Child Shield USA
- American Family Rights
- FightCPS.com – Fighting CPS Prosecution of False Allegations
- – Information and Support for Parents Falsely Accused
- German Federal Office of Statistics, Statistics 1995–2012 outlining German Jugendamt activity
I hope to keep this list ongoing. If anyone would like to contribute to this list, please comment.
Here are some things I learned about the way Child Protective Service Social Workers and the agency as a whole, operates:
1. Be aware that if any social worker calls you to tell you that they are closing their investigation and you need to bring the child(ren) down to their office to sign some papers THIS IS A TRICK! THEY INTEND TO KIDNAP YOUR CHILD. They do not need a “signature” to close out anything!
2. Often, social workers will try to bluff you claiming that your drug test results were positive just to get you to fess up on yourself. Do not fall for this trick.
3. Social workers are “collaborative partners” with ALL OF THEIR CONTRACTED SERVICE PROVIDERS. Never trust any employee or doctor that CPS has paid to provide you “services”. Those “confidentiality” laws mean nothing when it comes to providing CPS with any and all information about you. They only use these laws against you. You have a right to all the information in your file regardless of where it is.
4. NEVER ADMIT TO THINGS YOU DIDN’T DO. This is where I messed up. I was constantly pressured to “take responsibility for my actions” during our first case. I was threatened to have my children removed if I didn’t say that I had a drug problem. I wish I would have stood my ground and hired an expert witness to testify as to the legitimacy of those drug test documents.
5. Never give the Hearing Officer a dirty look.
6. Never ever believe a social worker. If they say that they are recommending that the case be closed, maybe the paperwork says that but that doesn’t mean that is what they are really telling the Hearing Officer to do. This is just so you don’t give them a hard time when dealing with you for another six months.
7. Always ask the Hearing Officer in court for a copy of the Minute Orders. That way you don’t have to pay for it at the clerk’s office or go through the hassle trying to get one. They can print it out right there in the courtroom and hand it to you. When you get home, make a copy and send it to your lawyer because they are never seem to have a copy of it.
8. If the Hearing Officer orders CPS to do something for you and they do not do it, warn the social worker and their supervisor that you know you can file a document for them to be found in contempt. Give them a deadline of not more than 5 business days to comply with the Minute Order and follow up with a confirmation letter. Send this letter to the social worker, adding a “cc” to their supervisor and the agency Director.
9. Child protection workers are like cops. You have the right to remain silent because if you share your strengths and weaknesses with them they will use it against you to kidnap your children. – Pure Mad Angel
10. After you are threatened with the possibility of never having your children returned and coerced into cooperating with CPS’s “services”, act like you are “benefitting” from them. Pour the sugar on thick and tell them how much you are learning and how grateful you are. Patronize them but don’t make it seem too fake. Be polite and nice to the worker and never argue or yell at them.
11. Prior to every hearing you will receive a copy of the social worker’s report which is submitted to the court. Be firm when it comes to their lies and manipulations. Make sure you write a rebuttal and file it with the court. Make sure that you use the words “I object to..” and “the social worker’s statement is false”. There are different rules in every state as well as the county regarding the deadline to file a response. If you fail to meet this deadline, your statement will not be a part of the official record. Check with the clerk and ask what the deadline for filing this rebuttal (written in the form of a Declaration) with the court and serving it upon all other parties. Do not count on your attorney to serve the other attorneys, have someone 18 years old or older mail it to CPS’s attorney, (County Counsel), the other parent’s attorney and the child(ren)’s attorney (Minors Counsel). You should find these names and addresses in the first few pages of the report that you are rebutting. In essence, failing to object to the lies makes them sort of true as far as the record goes therefore, any appeal based on perjury will be denied.
The following was inspired by a document available on another site, http://nfpcar.org/References/DOnDont.htm
12. Never invite a social worker or law enforcement into your home. This is if you do not have a current open CPS case. Unfortunately, if you refuse to let social workers in when they do their home visit it will have a very negative effect on your case and could result in the removal of your children. However, if the children are not currently placed in your home, they have no reason to be there unless it is to assess your home for the return of your children.
All Sheriff’s Officers Police and Police Officers must be made aware of the biggest pediphile ring in America hidding in child Protective Services.
There have been many testimonies before congress like my wife and myself. the fact that nothing has been done to protect our children so far from this pediphile criminal ring doing business as CPS shows me that congress is willing to continue to take the money from the sale of children knowing their lives are destroyed. We have to take steps to destroy CPS from the inside our selves. We are working on steps to undermine CPS as we speak. We will give a detailed plan out here in the next few weeks for parents to teach at home or to tell you children when you see them. The way to start now is every single day you see your child tell them you love them no matter what, they can come home to you and everything CPS tells them is a lie. Make sure they have a phone number known by heart, kids are smart teach them your number in a song, it is easy and all parents must stick together, tell everyone you know to never call CPS.
The other day I posted that I was retiring from donnellyjustice. Many people commented on that post. Everyone was so caring and supportive and thankful for all that my husband and I have been doing for the cause and exposing this corrupt, evil system that steals our children. So, I won’t be retiring after all, too many people need this information and I may have felt like giving up the other day, but I changed my mind. I apologize for publicizing my weaknesses and insecurities. I was at rock bottom that day. I won’t give up, ever.
Thank you so much to those who commented. Your comments are gone because I deleted the post.
So, if you can tell, I was experiencing personal problems.
back to the subject of this post:
…ESPECIALLY WHEN IT WAS YOU AND YOUR SPOUSE’S LOVE CHILD!
My husband and I made such a beautiful baby. He was so healthy when he was born! My husband’s ex-wife, Leslie Ann Logan Hoyle, was such a jealous freak that she called the hospital and CPS over 25 times during the 4 days I was in labor!
Does anyone know what an APGAR score is? Well its an assessment of a newborn baby and whether or not it needs immediate medical attention. The highest score is a 10.0. If a newborn is going through DRUG WITHDRAWALS there is NO WAY it would score a 9.9 like my son was given! My husband’s extremely vindictive ex-wife, Leslie Ann Logan Hoyle (Ann Jule), is so disturbed that she would make false allegations against us simply because one time I wrote her a letter that made her face the things she had done to her own children. Leslie Ann Logan Hoyle also has an “in” with the Department as her mother worked at the same office that the social workers who came to the hospital worked at. She worked there for over 35 years. Also, Leslie Ann Logan Hoyle WAS a registered nurse AND A DRUG ADDICT who often went to this same hospital to get shots of morphine or demerol when she was jonesing, and CLAIMED THAT SHE KNEW THOSE WHO WORKED IN LABOR AND DELIVERY. She MADE CPS TAKE OUR SON AWAY THE VERY FIRST TIME. IF THERE WAS NEVER THE FIRST CASE, THERE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN ANY SECONDARY CASE. .
Long story short, our love child was adopted out to people who refuse to even speak to us despite being CHRISTIANS!
This has put such a strain on our marraige, I can’t even begin to explain it because it is personal however, I would like to dedicate the song, “Stay” by Rhianna to my husband, who can dish it out but can’t take it. I wish I didn’t dish it out back at him at all. I wish we could just be nice and get along like normal people but HAVING YOUR CHILD STOLEN AND HAVING NO RECOURSE (OR AT LEAST IT TAKING SO LONG TO FILE OUR RECOURSE BECAUSE I DEAL WITH TOO MUCH PERSONAL STUFF) puts a great strain on us individually.
P.S., Check out the Juvenile Dependency Court page, I have added a few things and will be working on providing even more information. I am also putting together a “Juvenile Dependency Court Survival Guide”. I hope to have this done within the next few weeks.
STAY – RHIANNA
[see the video below]
All along it was a fever
A cold sweat hot-headed believer
I threw my hands in the air I said show me something
He said, if you dare come a little closer
Round and around and around and around we go
Ohhh now tell me now tell me now tell me now you know
Not really sure how to feel about it
Something in the way you move
Makes me feel like I can’t live without you
It takes me all the way
I want you to stay
It’s not much of a life you’re living
It’s not just something you take, it’s given
Round and around and around and around we go
Ohhh now tell me now tell me now tell me now you know
Not really sure how to feel about it
Something in the way you move
Makes me feel like I can’t live without you
It takes me all the way
I want you to stay
Ohhh the reason I hold on
Ohhh cause I need this hole gone
Funny you’re the broken one but I’m the only one who needed saving
Cause when you never see the lights it’s hard to know which one of us is caving
Not really sure how to feel about it
Something in the way you move
Makes me feel like I can’t live without you
It takes me all the way
I want you to stay, stay
I want you to stay, ohhh
I have been REALLY MISSING MY SON lately, I mean EVEN MORE THAN USUAL!
What would YOU do if this happened to you? I know most of our visitors have gone through this same ordeal, I am talking to those who have never been personally involved with CPS (other than to maybe adopt a child). Would you be able to control yourself? Would you just say, “Well, they all thought I was a bad parent so I must have been so my child is better off without me.”? Or would you do anything you were possibly capable of? But guess what? They file a RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST YOU! The ADOPTED PARENTS WON’T EVEN LISTEN TO YOU!! You can’t call or text them let alone go to their house or you’ll go to JAIL AGAIN! What do you do? Maybe if any adoptive parents out there have the answer, please comment or email me at email@example.com.
Click on the picture or here: VIDEOS OF DONNELLY
CPS whistleblower tells it all how CPS is a terrorist group stealing children. This video tells it like it is.
Watch this video and understand what is going on in America and Great Britten. This is a long video but full of information on what to do. This is just as relevant in other countries as well as the United States. Lets make this movement so big that the government understands we will defend our children to our death. To leave our child alone. We will not take this any longer.
It is time people stop believing and calling Child Protective Services. It is a fact that children are abused far more often in CPS care. If you call CPS on a family the chance these children will be abused goes up by 80% Watch this video and see where your tax dollars are going.