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.
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.
[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)
I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO THE FOLLOWING AT THIS POINT:
THIS SITE IS DEDICATED AND NAMED AFTER MY PRECIOUS SON, DONNELLY KEATON BURNS.
I AM CRYING RIGHT NOW.
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.
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!
When you are finished watching this video, please visit: www.savekendall.com
Read more about McMillan’s lawsuit here:
(click on the link above to download a copy)
HERE IS A LINK TO CALIFORNIA CPS POLICIES
YOU CAN GOOGLE “CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES POLICIES ___ (NAME OF YOUR STATE)
Ha ha ha ha Temecula doesn’t get any guards!!!!!
Convened as a lawfully recognized Tribunal of Conscience in Brussels in the fall of 2012, and issuing its final verdict on February 25, 2013, the Common Law Court named and indicted thirty defendants for perpetrating or concealing Genocide in Canada against indigenous people. These defendants included then-Pope Benedict, Joseph Ratzinger, former Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Elizabeth Windsor “Queen of England”, and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
After an exhaustive presentation of the evidence of crimes by church and state in Canada, and a refusal by the defendants to respond or refute the evidence, all of the defendants were found guilty of criminal conspiracy and Genocide, and were sentenced in absentia to 25 years in prison and the forfeit of all the wealth and property of their estates and institutions. Citizen arrest warrants were issued, and on August 4, 2013, the Vatican and Crown of England were declared to be transnational criminal bodies under international law, and were lawfully disestablished.
Please watch this video and visit: http://www.itccs.org for more information.
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.
So, if you can tell, I was experiencing personal problems.
back to the subject of this post:
CPS whistleblower tells it all how CPS is a terrorist group stealing children. This video tells it like it is.
BECAUSE IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERTURN THE TERMINATION OF THEIR RIGHTS! IF YOU ARE STILL GOING TO DEPENDENCY COURT YOU MUST OBJECT TO THE SOCIAL WORKERS’S LIES AND FALSIFIED EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD (IN COURT DURING THE HEARING.) IN ORDER TO HAVE ANY CHANCE ON APPEAL. This is Very important. The courtroom may seem very intimidating but you must speak out! Make yourself heard in court.
SO MANY PEOPLE FEEL THAT THERE IS NO HOPE BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS SO DEEP IN OT’S OWN AGENDA THAT NO ONE OF AUTHORITY WILL LISTEN OR THEY ARE ALREADY AWARE OF THIS STEALING OF CHILDREN AND LET IT CONTINUE. Thank God for Tim Donnelly, HE IS TRYING TO HELP US! BLESS YOU TIM DONNELLY.
THOUSANDS OF PARENTS WHOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN TERMINATED ARE FORCED TO ACCEPT THEIR LOSS AND ARE TOLD BY FRIENDS AND FAMILY TO “JUST GET OVER IT”. HOW THE HELL CAN ANYONE SAY THAT TO A PARENT WHOSE HEART IS SO BROKEN THEY DON’T WANT TO LIVE ANOTHER MINUTE? WOULD IT BE NICE TO SAY THAT TO A PARENT WHOSE CHILD DIED IN A TRAGIC ACCIDENT? OF COURSE NOT! THEN WHY WOULD ANYONE SAY THAT TO A PARENT WHO FEELS THAT THEIR CHILD WAS STOLEN? THE GOVERNMENT F_KS EVERYTHING UP WHY IN GOD’S NAME DOES EVERYONE BELIEVE THAT CPS IS ANY DIFFERENT FROM SAY, TSA?
This corruption is not even hidden. If you could do a child a favor and just show this video to parents. EVERYONE MUST KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON WITH OUR