Subscribe to continue reading
Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.
Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.
Substance use can be just about ANYTHING! Caffeine, cigarettes, Hookah, vaping, beer, Monster drinks, vitamins, Tylenol, Motrin, high blood pressure medicine, ice cream, steak, Vicks vapor, USING YOUR PHONE, anything they can say you are are “addicted” to!
Carte Blanche to steal your kids for a paycheck!
Juvenile Dependency Court will support anything they say. We need to change this cash cow system. I have some ideas I am working on. Tell your story here:
CPS steals children, please watch this documentary. Produced by Patrick Howley and directed by Ben DeLaurentis, this film shows and proves everything I have been saying plus things I didn’t even know! CPS targeted children and families during COVID-19 shutdowns. I figured it was happening, I just wasn’t doing the research at the time.
To EVERY HEARTBROKEN MOTHER, FATHER, AUNT, UNCLE, COUSIN, BROTHER, SISTER, AND STEP-RELATIVES: I GRIEVE WITH YOU. I feel the pain and sorrow, I feel the loss, I feel the frustration, I feel the outrage, I feel the unfairness, I feel your need for help. What they are doing to you is a CRIME, in fact, many crimes over and over and over. They do not abide by their OWN laws and regulations, they do not adhere to their policies, procedures, and manuals. They do not do what they are supposed to do, they have no hearts, they have no souls, they work for a paycheck and your child is their meal ticket. That is the cold hard truth of it all. They don’t care about you or your child(ren) they claim to have “core values” that sound nice and helpful but those are just words they use to get away with what they do. Here is a clip from the Montana Child and Family Services Division regarding “core values”:
Do they realize that we can see right through these kinds of words? When INTEGRITY is a core value of social work, then STEALING children isn’t a moral issue for social workers. They remove, discriminately, choosing well-behaved, good-looking children, from decent parents for federal funds. Some of my readers have commented claiming CPS only removes children who are abused and neglected but most, not all, of those children do not have attractive adoptive qualities and many are treated even worse by social services, foster homes, and even after adoption. This most likely is due to behavioral issues. Foster parents should undergo a higher level of scrutiny and extensive training including psychology courses to understand these children better but it is very easy to become a foster parent hell, many foster parent’s backgrounds are overlooked and obtain exceptions due to the number of foster homes needed due to the volume of children who are removed from their homes. I will say this once again, children would rather be abused at home than by strangers. It is a difficult thing to swallow, I know but if you were a child and the option was presented to you, which would you choose?
Removing funding for foster homes, or at least greatly reducing the amount of money and making foster homing be a voluntary, for the good of the community action. If one cannot afford to take on the expense of another child then they should not be a foster parent. According to this literature, child welfare is supposed to be a community effort to better society. But the system protocols are insane, as Molly McGrath, former DPSS Director, would put it. They keep doing something that isn’t working.
This is not a site to come to if you are guilty of child abuse and looking for information on how to beat CPS. Most likely, you have custody of your children anyway, or better yet, CPS removed the children from the other, non-offending, parent and placed them with you, a monster in disguise.
I wish CPS lived up to it’s stated core values and actually cared about children, but they do not. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that 55% of the children CPS rightfully removed (that is giving them one hell of a benefit of the doubt) there are still 45% that are wrongfully removed. THAT IS TOO MANY! I guarantee you that of that 55%, only 20% of those children are placed back at home, and of the 45% only 5% get placed back at home.
Each and every hour of each and every day I think about you Donnelly. I miss you so very much. My heart breaks again every day too as I think of the last time you saw me, “Mommy, me go with you, Mommy, me go with you!” as I was in handcuffs being taken to jail after I told the police everything. I was hoping they would realize that CPS was wrong and have no signed court orders giving them custody of you.
Please do not tell your unjust, typical CPS horror story here this is for those who have had a POSITIVE experience having this agency “help you” and “provide services” that have not done any emotional or physical damage to your family (so you think). I would like to make sure this site tells all sides good or bad.
My personal belief is that no one will comment except for a social worker or two pretending to be a parent or a troll looking to advertise something.. I will approve only positive comments here so again, if you have a horror story see the page entitled, “Families Destroyed – Tell your story here.”https://donnellyjustice.wordpress.com/families-destroyed-tell-your-story/
If one of your social workers was nice and helped you get your kids back you can comment here. If you are a social worker and want to defend your position and answer the question, “How do you live with yourself knowing you rip families apart?” Feel free.
I know when you were younger you actually remembered that you were adopted but for some reason you don’t remember now. I am praying that you have visited this site and watched some of the home videos and at least maybe kind of remember. I wish your adopted father would let us at least chat over messenger or text. You have a right to know the truth about what happened and why we lost you.
I AM NOT A CRAZY CRIMINAL like people have portrayed me. I have a criminal record, yes, and on paper it looks bad but I can explain everything. I have a kind heart and a restless soul ever since we lost you and it is very hard to cope sometimes but I am a very reasonable person and I am not dangerous. People who spoke bad of me had an agenda of their own for various reasons which I can explain. I wish my life wasn’t so complicated but like I said, sometimes I just want to crawl in a hole and never come out because it is extremely hard to overcome my record and what has been said about me. It seems like a lost cause to even try to help your family understand who I really am. I was a very attentive, loving, caring, nurturing mother and we didn’t deserve this separation. Not one bit. Please, Jon, please talk to me. I know you are a God-fearing, Jesus believing man, do you think that Jesus would keep a mother from her son if she was begging and pleading regardless of what others have said about her? I believe he would have an open heart yet take some precautions to ensure everyone’s safety. Measures can be taken to assure that no harm comes to Donnelly. We could have a Zoom meeting or something. You and I first, so you can get your own impression of who I am. I am begging you. Donnelly and I both need this desperately. I would have given my life to save Kristin and I told Arron to tell you that. If I could trade my life for hers I would do it in a heartbeat. I am so sorry for your loss.
Please email me and I will give you my phone number. donnellyjustice@hotmail.com.
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 [1981]). The precise amount of evidence that constitutes a prima facie case varies from claim to claim. If the plaintiff does not present a prima facie case with sufficient evidence, the judge may dismiss the case. Or, if the case is being heard by a jury, the judge may direct the jury to return a verdict for the respondent.
Prima facie also refers to specific evidence that, if believed, supports a case or anelement that needs to be proved in the case. The term prima facie evidence is used inboth civil and Criminal Law. For example, if the prosecution in a murder casepresents a videotape showing the defendant screaming death threats at the victim,such evidence may be prima facie evidence of intent to kill, an element that must beproved by the prosecution before the defendant may be convicted of murder. On itsface, the evidence indicates that the defendant intended to kill the victim.
Statutes may specify that certain evidence is prima facie evidence of a certain fact.For example, a duly authenticated copy of a defendant’s criminal record may beconsidered prima facie evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions and may be usedagainst the defendant in court (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-3-412 [West 1996]). A Civil Law example is a statute that makes a duly certified copy or duplicate of a certificateof authority for a fraternal benefit society to transact business prima facie evidencethat the society is legal and legitimate (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 10-14-603 [West1996]).
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 teachers
School Nurse
School Principal
School Counselor
School Janitor
School Administrator
School Staff
School Volunteer
School Cafeteria Lady/Worker
School Clerk/Office Staff
School Librarian
School Social Worker
Hospital Doctor
Hospital Nurse
Hospital Administrator
Hospital Social Worker
Hospital Staff
Hospital Chaplin
Regular Doctor
Doctor’s Nurse
Doctor’s Office Staff
Doctor’s Aide
Psychologist/Psychiatrist
Counselor/Therapist
Daycare Administrators
Daycare worker
Dentist
Dental Assistant
Dental Office Staff
Police Officers
Code Enforcement Officers
Animal Control Officers
Probation 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!
(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)
http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/res/pdf/SDM_Manual.pdf
If anyone believes this organization helps kids, you better step into the real world. I have seen this happen over and over again so many times I have lost count the list is in the thousands and this is a fact. CPS is so irresponsible with our children and the facts have been in for a very long time. We must close this organization down. Any congressman, senator who doesn’t agree that something must be done NOW is on THE TAKE and letting kids get killed for money. These are children’s lives and these are not throw away kids, these kids were taken from loving homes. CPS doesn’t target bad homes for a reason, to keep up adoption numbers by taking good kids. I have researched this problem for many years and this is not opinion this is fact.
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.[1] In 1692, states and municipalities identified care for abused and neglected children as the responsibility of local government and private institutions.[2]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.[3]
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.[4]
In 1853, the Children’s Aid Society was founded in response to the problem of orphaned or abandoned children living in New York.[5] 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.[6][7]
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[8] 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.”[6] By 1926, 18 states had some version of county child welfare boards whose purpose was to coordinate public and private child related work.[7] 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.” [8]
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.[9] 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.[10] 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.[11] 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.[12]
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.[13]
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.[14] In 1961, C. Henry Kempe began to further research this issue, eventually identifying and coining the term battered child syndrome.[14] 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.[7]
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[15] was passed in 1974, which required states “to prevent, identify and treat child abuse and neglect.”[8]
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.[16] 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.[17] In 1980, the Adoption Assistance Act[18] was introduced as a way to manage the high numbers of children in placement.[7] 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.[17] This led to the introduction of the home visitation models, which provided funding to private agencies to provide intensive family preservation services.[7]
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.[17] Several pieces of federal legislation attempted to ease the process of adoption including Adoption Assistance Act;[18] the 1988 Child Abuse Prevention, Adoption, and Family Services Act; and the 1992 Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, Adoption, and Family Services Act.[19] 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.[20]
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.[20]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.[7][20] 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.[21]
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.[22]
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.[23] The societies receive funding from, and are under the supervision of the Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services.[24] 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.[25]
The Patronato Nacional de la Infancia (PANI) is responsible for Child Protection in Costa Rica.[26]
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).[26]
In 1949, after the Costa Rican Civil War, a new constitution was written, it called for the agency to be an autonomous institution in the government, autonomous from any ministry.[26]
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.
Children with histories of maltreatment, such as physical and psychological neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse, are at risk of developing psychiatric problems.[27][28] Such children are at risk of developing a disorganized attachment.[29][30][31]Disorganized attachment is associated with a number of developmental problems, including dissociative symptoms,[32] as well as depressive, anxiety, and acting-out symptoms.[33][34]
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.[35]
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.[35]
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.[36] Child abuse impacts the most vulnerable populations, with children under age five years accounting for 76% of fatalities.[37] 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.[38]
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.[39] 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.[40] 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.[41]
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),[42] 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.[42]
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.[43]
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.”[44]
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.[45][46][47]
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!”
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
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.
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.”[49]
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.[50] 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.[51]
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[52] of 2004. Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn made a statement in 2006 about the Texas foster care system.[53] 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.
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.[54] 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.[55] Additionally, once they enter foster care, research suggests that they are likely to remain in care longer.[56] 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.[57] The Juvenile Justice system has also been challenged by disproportionate negative contact of minority children.[58] 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[59] 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[60] 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.[61]
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.[62] 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”.[62]
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.[63] 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.[63]
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.[64][65] 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.[64] 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.[64]
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.[66] 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.[67] DHS said the foster parents deceived child welfare workers during the checkup visits.[66]
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.[68][69] 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.[68] 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.[68] Officials stated that the lawsuits over Ferrara end up costing the DCF almost $2.26 million.[69] 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.[70][71][72]
In a class action lawsuit Charlie and Nadine H. v. McGreevey[73] 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).[74][75] 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).[76] 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.[74] 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.[75] The same organization filed similar lawsuits against other states in recent years that caused some of the states to start child welfare reforms.[77]
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.[78] The $4.9 million verdict grew to a $9.5 million judgment as the County lost each of its successive appeals.[78] The case finally ended in 2011 when the United States Supreme Court denied Orange County’s request to overturn the verdict.[79]
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.[80] 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.[81]
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.[82]
This woman worked for social services in the 1990’s BUT I GUARANTEE NOTHING HAS CHANGED, IN FACT, IT HAS BECOME BIGGER MONSTER. Social workers rarely speak out because their lives are threatened!
JUST AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING, JUVENILE DEPENDENCY COURT IS RIGGED. THERE IS NO WAY TO “BEAT” CPS. The “Judge” will never dismiss any case, for any reason. They are hired by the County and are instructed to never rule against CPS and the parent’s lawyers are told never to OBJECT TO ANYTHING!
Here is a video of social service kidnappers in the UK. Thank you to Cornel Brown who posted this video. Everyone needs to do this to expose COMMON PURPOSE which is at the heart of the destruction of the U.S. GOOGLE: COMMON PURPOSE also GOOGLE: AGENDA 21 AND BILL GATES.
Help us inform parents, help us expose the illegal practices of CPS and Dependency Court, help end children being abused in foster care! Doing NOTHING doesn’t change anything.
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.
We want every parent to get behind this movement for the rights of the family, anti Child Protective Services video. Fathers 4 Justice at ANTI CPS Protest, June 5th, 2013, Sacramento.
Parents the facts are in. Ask yourself will your child be killed before you try to PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN FROM THE CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES TRAFFICKING.INDUSTRY If we have to hurt these people to protect our children then that is what will happen..Americans allow their children to be sexually abused and even murdered by Child Protective Services under the guise of saving the children, That sounds just as crazy as a Iran attacking us because they are jealous of our freedoms, people need to recognize propaganda and false flag operations and stop being so stupid.
The Evil Ones holding the office of the White House tell Child Protective Services that we need 10 or 20 thousand children to be sacrificed every year. But there are some unspeakable acts which are so barbaric that even an occupied nation like the US cannot permit unless they ignore that it exist. The politicians have been caught molesting children and then they are never heard from again. All anyone has to do is look these things up. .
The Transportation Security Administration is allowed to hire men and women of such a low caliber for the TSA that they are willing to put their hands inside the underwear of children and their parents teaching an entire generation to submit to public humiliation and molestation. If the man with a badge wants to molest you, then you cannot say No. Nor can your mother say No to public humiliation. Even a Presidential candidate and well known public figures have been groped.
The TSA is not just at airports. They are at bus and rail stations, at highway road blocks, at sporting events and will soon be at shopping malls.
The people who for the time being own our governments kidnap 250,000 women and children a year world wide to be used as sex slaves. True most of these women and children are taken by organized Russian Jewish crime syndicates from eastern Europe. But what does happen to missing children and to children under protective custody in
America?
There is the famous case of the Texas Youth Commission. TYC is the second largest custodial care facility for juveniles in America. Texas Rangers (police) were fired for investigating complaints of wide spread child abuse at TYC. US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez was accused of misconduct for failure to investigate well documented cases of abuse. One hired officer said, “ to get hired in one of these facilities you must be a pedophile or at least buy into the abuse of these children. Everyone hired had a felony of a serous crime.” Since Gonzalez was a republican, you would expect the Democrats to have made a strong case against President Bush’s chief legal officer. Certainly against Bill Baumann, assistant U.S. attorney, who made the case that the minors consented to and even enjoyed the acts of pedophilia, therefore no further action was necessary. Could it be that Democrats as well as Republicans do not want any real investigations into these reported cases because it would lead to to their donors too?
Similar stories can be found at Florida’s Department of Children and Families (DCF.) In Florida residents are threatened and harassed by the DCF branch of the Broward Sheriff’s Office if they report neighborhood drug dealers who pay cops. Based on statistics, children are sexually abused 8.6 times more while in DCF Custody. The state of Florida lost more than 3,000 children in Foster care. What happened to those children?
DynCorp and Halliburton have been accused with overwhelming evidence of human trafficking, sexual slavery and forced labor. Yet DynCorp has been given contracts to staff and manage Child Protective Services in many states. Catherine Austin Fitts had a
secretary who was falsely accused of child abuse in a state where DynCorp ran CPS. Her secretary beat the false charges by moving her secretary across a state line to a DynCorp free CPS.
Historically, the sale of addictive drugs has been practiced by the Anglo-Jewish Empire to control occupied subjects as evidenced by the Opium wars of 1839–1842 and 1856–1860. Currently, America has been inundated with drugs ever since Israel and their friends inside the American government successfully assassinated President Kennedy and covered it up from public view. The CIA and its business partner, the Sinaloa drug cartel, has been routinely shipping 5 tons of cocaine at a time into the US. That nearly 80,000 Mexicans have been killed in drug wars over the past 5 years actually is considered to be a good thing as the people in charge seem to enjoy human sacrifice.
Bankers make a lot of money by laundering a trillion dollars a year in illegal drug sales. They are also laundering the profits for human traffickers. Aaron Lopez was one of the wealthiest Jews in colonial America. He was a slave trader who unsuccessfully sued the colony of Rhode Island for citizenship. Historical records unearthed a few years ago in Britain revealed Lopez was an agent for the Rothschilds. Jews owned 90% of the slaver ships. One neglected aspect of this trade was that rum from the more than 20 Jewish distillers plus guns were sold to Indians who killed settlers and were in turn killed.
In Israel there are hundreds of brothels at which many of the women are captive victims of the slave trade. They are forcibly given drugs and raped a dozen or more times a day. The Talmud tells Jewish men that they are not guilty of a crime if the women they repeatedly rape are not Jewish. That explains the lack of prosecutions in Israel.
In the United States bankers have stolen over 30 trillion dollars. The Talmud tells the Jews that robbing the Gentiles is allowed as soon as they get control of the government. There is abundant evidence that America is an occupied nation. Israel is permitted to assassinate our Presidents and to blow up buildings with Americans inside.
I explained to a young black woman today that Americans will not be aware that they have been robbed of 30 trillion dollars until hyperinflation cuts their wages in half over the next 16 months.
http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/israel-shahak-the-laws-against-non-jews-in-2-minutes/
This next article explains why Israel demands we die to make it safe for their fantasies.
Zionist Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder: A Fatal But Treatable Social Disease
http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/israel-shahak-the-laws-against-non-jews-in-2-minutes/
If You Do Not Learn Real History, You Will Be Dead Really Soon.
This concerns the right of Israel to blow up buildings with Americans inside.
Judaica And 911 Part II
http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/judaica-and-911-part-ii/
Lest you despair:
Is An American Military Coup The World’s Last, Best And Only Hope?
I would suppose the people of the world will want at that time to redress all of their grievances against the people who think they own our governments. This assumes we do not die in World War III making Israel safe for its fantasies. Or die in a plague. Or die in American concentration camps.
Author’s Notes: The first article is from a series on the Talmud.
Israel Shahak: The Laws Against Non-Jews In 2 Minutes
These judges have orders to follow what the CPS workers claim even if it is not legal. These judges do not think for themselves and are so ignorant and withdrawn from what a real parent is like. If your judge has a JAG background ask for a different judge trust me on this. They take orders and the family does not mean anything, These judges will not follow the law they only answer to funding and ORDERS from above your child does not matter to these mindless abusers and we will get them fired. COUNT ON IT (FACT)
WE HAVE SO MUCH EVIDENCE AGAINST CPS STEALING CHILDREN.
THANK YOU TIM DONNELLY
Someone googled, “Does anyone know where Sharon Burns is?”. Well, if you are looking for me, you can email me at billandsharon9@msn.com and leave your phone number, I will be more than happy to call you, whoever you are.
Are you so entwined with the lie that CPS takes children from bad homes that you can not consider other possibilities so that the children you are raising may have the shared love of the people who so deeply miss them? Not to take them from you but to share in the joy of watching them grow. Here we sit being punished for a crime we did not commit paying the ultimate price that a parent can pay. Have you not watched the news lately showing how CPS takes children from homes on a daily basis that should not be removed? Yet the possibility of our son being kidnapped from a loving home of parents who will never give up no matter what the cost is to us.
The things I write here I think about 7 days a week 24 hours a day since my beautiful little boy was so needlessly taken from his mother and I, not to mention all his siblings, we all miss him so much. At the very least tell him that? I miss his warm happy smile and still can’t imagine life without him.
From a man with a very heavy heart. If I was able to speak to the adoptive parents of my son who just happen to think a loving little child landed at their door and didn’t come from a loving home is just not so. My son is my world and I pray everyday just to be able to see him again smiling and happy.
William R. Burns
for donnellyjustice
Listen to this video. This man is just a decent American who wants change in California. As a parent I never thought the this government would be so out of control as it is right now, If we don’t do something right now to stop these criminals in our government by getting better people into office, we won’t have this experiment called a free republic any longer. It is almost to late now.
He has strong family values and is fighting for California parents, and our Constitutional rights.
He seems to be a man of principle and we need this so bad these days. Child Protective Services has been destroying families for funding and then filtered through the general fund into other state and county agencies.
I have been following Tim Donnelly now for some time and he has found a believer in me. Families must have more support from Government.
DO NOT CALL CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, if you do call CPS the chances of the child being hurt or neglected go up greatly. Out of 1570 children who died in 2011 80% of those died in foster care or adoptive care. These facts have come up the same for over 10 years that children are safer in even abusive homes than with strangers.
Watch
Watch your children from the state and schools they will say just about anything to take your child.