These are funny cartoons that include references to actual cases in Riverside County, CA.
What I Know About Room S103
Have you or has anyone in your family been forced to participate in the scheme called Juvenile Dependency Court? If not, here is how it goes at the Southwest Injustice Center located on Auld Road in Murrieta, California:
Social workers from Child Protective Services (DPSS-CPS) illegally confiscate and seize your child(ren). A petition is then filed so they can continue to hold your child hostage. The ransom is your participation in “services” in which they are paid to pretend that you need. You participate in these “services” until their imaginary clock runs out at which time they terminate your parental rights and sell your child to someone else. They call that “adoption”.
They used to give children back to their parents but nowadays they get more money from “adoption incentives” which is money from the federal government to “ensure the child a safe and permanent environment”. However, some children may still go home because they need to show that “reunification” is still the “primary goal”. Often, those homes ARE unsafe so when the child does get hurt they can say, “See the reocurrence of maltreatment with the parents? We need more money!” I’m not saying that if your children are returned that your home is unsafe, you may actually have a social worker with pull and a conscience.
The first “hearing” is called a “Detention Hearing”. You enter the court, get searched and go through a metal detector, then down the hall to S103 and wait outside the rented courtroom with about 10 other families, and wait for the cop to come out and tell you to check in. Your name might be called prior to that to speak to an “attorney” who already knows exactly what the outcome of your case will be because the “judge” (who is on the County’s payroll as a “Hearing Officer”) has already decided what to do. If you are lucky enough to receive a copy of the Detention Report prior to your case being heard, you will find what that outcome is by looking for the page that says, “Recommended Findings and Orders”. The hearing officer simply “adopts” them all without argument from your “attorney”. You will not be advised of what the Petition means, you will not be advised of your rights, your child will not be advised of their rights, your “attorney” will waive all formal readings and will “submit” to the allegations of the Petition. Your children will be “ordered” detained and another hearing will be set. The only things that may be up for discussion are placement and visitation. You must push for placement with family AT THAT FIRST HEARING. Otherwise, good luck getting your child placed with family. You can request placement after that however, they will take their sweet time assessing your family’s home and most likely will come up with some reason not to place your child with your family. Visits will be supervised at the CPS office. You will get to see your kids once or twice a week for an hour or two. Depending on the situation, the visits may increase and/or change location and take place at a foster agency. If your child is a newborn you must request more visits on the grounds that the mother-infant bond must be established. However, if there are any allegations of drug use, your baby will be denied breastmilk.
You will be “ordered” to participate in CPS’s “services” which include:
Drug Testing – Yes, they consider this a “service” to you! Usually, all parents must take time off of work to drug test (even if there are no allegations of drug use);
Parenting Classes – Everyone is forced to learn the most basic parenting skills using videos from the 1970’s
Substance Abuse Counseling – Beware, even if the allegations do not include drugs, they may come up with something ridiculous such as your breath smelling like alcohol, use a very old DUI or other under the influence charge against you or claim that one of your urine drug tests were “diluted” which they say is a “dirty” test because you purposely drank too much water before testing to cover up using drugs or alcohol;
Anger Management – Even if there has not been any domestic violence they may say that the child overheard an argument once or use your justifiable anger and verbal lashing you or the other parent displayed as they were illegally seizing your child against you;
General Counseling – This is across the board. Beware, if you are angry and the injustice against you they may order a psychoanalysis where they will have paid a psychiatrist to write a scathing report about you and make you take medication hoping to deem you unfit due to a severe psychological disorder thus “placing the child at risk”;
Domestic Violence Awareness – If you or your child admit that ANY incident of violence (as minor as grabbing an arm or slap of any kind) you will be forced to attend a victims class;
Home Visits – Yes, they consider this a “service” to you too. Once a month, a social worker will come to your home. Some workers will schedule this a day in advance or simply come unannounced. If they come unannounced, you do not have to answer the door but only do that if you can pass it off that you really are not home or that you are in the shower, sleeping or have headphones on. If your dog is barking and you tell it to be quiet, the TV is on and you suddenly turn down the volume, the phone rings and you answer it, there are children obviously inside or outside playing, there are several cars out front, the garage door is open, etc, it is not a good idea to ignore them. But, like I said, if you can get away with it, make them come back and/or make an appointment next time;
Bus Passes – Even if you don’t really need one, make them give one to you anyway. You can give it to someone who does need it.
The next hearing is called a “Jurisdictional/Dispositional Hearing”. At this hearing your child will be determined to be a “ward of the state” and they have sole discretion to do whatever they want to your child. HOWEVER, YOU DO HAVE RIGHTS! Download this document called the Dependency Quick Guide: DOGBOOK. It will be your best friend throughout your “case”: **Note: the first two pages are blank, so scroll down to the third page.
BE AWARE THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO MEDICATE YOUR CHILD WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT. BUT THEY MIGHT DO IT ANYWAY! How do they get away with it? By having their hired psychiatrist determine that there is an immediate need to medicate your child. Then they will file an “Application” to ask the hearing officer to approve the doping of your child. The hearing officer “approves” this request 99.9% of the time. You can and should OBJECT TO THIS by filling out the proper forms and filing them with the court. Do not expect your court appointed “lawyer” to do it they will tell you that they are too busy. For California dependency cases here is a link to the forms:
Here is the informational sheet regarding this issue and the court:
That is all the time I have today, I have to continue to work on my case WHERE I AM SUING THEM! I promise to provide more information from my experience regarding what to expect from this Kidnapping Circus Court.
All of my efforts and posts are dedicated to my son, Donnelly Keaton Burns. I miss you so much I cry everyday, like RIGHT NOW.
EVEN THE KIDS KNOW ABOUT CPS
PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW TO BE REDIRECTED TO: CPS: CHILD PREDATOR SERVICES which is another donnellyjustice site:
The reason why child protection agencies have taken a turn for the worse after public cries for reform in the late 1990’s is due to ASFA (American Safe Families Act) which was passed by Bill Clinton. ASFA rewards the agencies for promptly adopting out children so they don’t “linger in foster care”, with adoption incentives which is money. Due to the economy and budget cutbacks, Title IV-E Social Security funds limit the number of programs and services which the agencies have been required to extend to the families. Now they offer them for a significantly shorter amount of time as their goal is to qualify for the adoption incentives which have not been affected by budgets. In the top three goals of these agencies is that the agency’s best interests are paramount.
In today’s day and age, people blindly expect that the people in government are looking out for every human being’s best interest and that our children are paramount. Reality is that today’s “day and age” is just as screwed up as ever. The only difference is that the blasphemy is hidden in a two-way mirrored glass bowl of ice cream topped with whipped cream and a cherry. You all know this about such issues like the IRS targeting Tea Party’ers, killing American’s with drones overseas AND killing the CHILD of that person shortly thereafter, or how we claim we are “helping” other countries meanwhile we are robbing them or have our their agenda for power and control over natural resources. The list goes on and on.
In every U.S. state and county, child protective service agencies are needlessly removing children from homes in which they are not really at risk of dying or being physically abused in and giving them to strangers who don’t really care about kids, just money. So, in every state and county, children are dying BECAUSE THEY WERE TAKEN FROM THEIR HOME AND PLACED AT RISK IN FOSTER CARE. Social workers are trained to lie, fabricate, exaggerate and to take every maneuver to obstruct the parents from completing case plans all in the name of “keeping children safe”. CPS is the true down fall of America, destroying the family unit and severing bonds. This is already having a significant impact on society. If it continues, no one will loyal, no one will feel truly loved, no one will be able to trust, and everyone is going to have abandonment issues. The following is an article which was found on the internet:
Family Preservation and Adoption
Critics of family preservation claim that it makes it harder to free children f or adoption. Once again, they are wrong.
Not only does family preservation not impede adoption, family preservation can speed the process of terminating parental rights when even clearly wrong. The fraud by social services has increased dramatically showing up in falsified reports and statements pushing to remove parental rights much faster. Studies have shown that 80% of the children removed from their homes should not have been. For social services to say they a siding with caution is criminal neglect.
The federal law that effectively abolished the reasonable efforts requirement, with the so-called Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), also requires states to seek termination of parental rights for many children in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. Yet in many jurisdictions it can take at least 12 months for a judge to decide if the initial placement was justified in the first place.
Thus, while some children in foster care do indeed need to be adopted, ASFA encourages the indiscriminate adoption of children without regard to whether they could have remained safely in their own, loving homes.
And this influx of new termination cases comes despite increasing evidence that the system can’t cope with the thousands of children legally free for adoption right now.
After three years of modest increases in the raw number of annual adoptions, the number has remained stagnant at about 50,000 per year.
This is all states can manage, even though the federal government offers them a huge financial incentive � bounties of $4,000 to $8,000 or more for every adoption over the total number of adoptions the year before — and political and media pressure for adoption is enormous. In contrast, since 1983 the foster care population has more than doubled. And today, there still are only 2,000 fewer children trapped in foster care on any given day than there were when ASFA was passed. The real message from the so-called surge in adoptions is that the problems of foster care can never be solved through adoption alone.
Furthermore, the figures include only finalized adoptions, not the number of cases in which parental rights were terminated, but no adoptive home was found.
In the early 1990s, NCCPR’s President, Prof. Martin Guggenheim of New York University Law School, examined two states which expedited termination proceedings. He found that as the number of children freed for adoption soared, the number of actual adoptions increased far more slowly. The result: A generation of legal orphans, who have no ties whatsoever to their birth parents, but aren’t being placed for adoption either. Guggenheim found that, contrary to the unsupported rhetoric of critics of family preservation, the one reform taken most seriously since the 1970s has been termination of parental rights.
Furthermore, although abuse in adoptive homes is rare � like abuse in birth parent homes � ASFA’s encouragement of quick-and-dirty, slipshod placements increases the risk of abuse.
Even Children’s Rights, Inc., a group which favors ASFA and has been hostile to family preservation, says “… Congress should realize that far too many states … when they do, for example, raise their adoption numbers, are doing so by including many clearly inadequate families … along with the genuinely committed, loving families who want to make a home for these children, just to ‘succeed’ by boosting their numbers.”.
Even if all the children now awaiting adoption could be placed, that doesn’t mean the placements will last. Current efforts to plunge headlong into adoption are being undertaken in the absence of any reliable data about how often placements “disrupt” when parents who adopt a child – especially a “special needs” child – change their minds.
But the evidence we do have is alarming. Even before the effects of the new law were felt, it was estimated that 10 to 25 percent of so-called “forever families” don’t turn out to be forever after all � the adoptive parents change their minds.
That number is only likely to increase as workers feel pressure to cash in on the bounties for adoptive placements handed out under ASFA – bounties which are paid whether the adoption actually lasts or not.
As adoptions level off, the pressure to increase them again � and cash in on the bounties � is likely to have another pernicious effect. It is likely to prompt agencies to target the children most in demand by prospective adoptive parents: healthy infants from poor families. Agencies will rationalize that the parents really are “unfit” even as they continue to turn their child welfare systems into the ultimate middle-class entitlement: Step right up, and take a poor person’s child for your very own.
For an example of such targeting, see The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette series, “When The Bough Breaks,” available online.
Says the head of Los Angeles County’s child welfare system: “What you have now is an incentive to initially remove the child, and an incentive to adopt them out. I think when you put those two together, there is a problem.”
Family preservation not only does not impede adoption, it can expedite the process of termination of parental rights by allowing workers to find out more quickly when a family can’t be preserved � and giving judges the confidence to make a termination decision knowing that the agency really did try to keep the family together.
The argument that there are children trapped in foster care who should be adopted and the argument that there are children trapped in foster care who should be in their own homes are not mutually exclusive. There are children in foster care who should be exiting in both directions.
But the claim that family preservation impedes adoption is nonsense. So is the claim that it was extremely difficult to terminate parental rights before the law was changed. All that is needed is minimal competence on the part of child protective workers.
This was demonstrated by an American Bar Association project in Upstate New York. The ABA’s National Center for Children and the Law taught lawyers and workers how to present a decent case in court. Without offering one iota of additional help to families before moving to terminate, the termination rate soared.
We have always believed there is a place for efforts to increase the number of adoptions as part of child welfare reform. But long as the rush to cash in on adoption bounties causes a further neglect of efforts to keep families in their own homes, it will only make things worse.
Contrary to critics’ claims, most people in child protection work are almost obsessed with a substitute care fantasy, in which children are rescued from their “evil” birth parents and placed in substitute settings, which, in the imagination of the workers, are always ideal. For most workers and most agencies termination of parental rights is the dessert in the child welfare meal, family preservation is the broccoli. ASFA gives workers and agencies all the dessert they want without ensuring that they eat their broccoli first.
Updated January 1, 2006
- Between 1997 and 2000 adoptions of foster children increased from 31,030 to 51,000. They’ve stayed at about 50,000 per year ever since. (1997 to 2003: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Adoptions of Children with Public Child Welfare Agency Involvement By State FY 1995-FY 2003, available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/adoptchild03b.htm , 2004: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Trends in Foster Care and Adoption, chart available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm).
- As of March, 1998, four months after ASFA became law, there were 520,000 children in foster care, (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS Report #1, available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/dis/afcars/publications/afcars.htm) by September 30, 2004, the most recent data available, that figure was 518,000 (HHS chart, note 1, Supra).
- Martin Guggenheim, “The Effects of Recent Trends to Accelerate the Termination of parental Rights of Children in Foster Care – An Empirical Analysis in Two States,” Family Law Quarterly, p.139.
- Statement of Marcia Robinson Lowry, Executive Director, Children’s Rights, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House Committee on Ways and Means, November 06, 2003.
- National Adoption Information Clearinghouse Disruption and Dissolution, http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/s_disrup.cfm
- Troy Anderson, “Government Bonuses Accelerate Adoptions,” Daily News of Los Angeles, December 8, 2003.
- Debra Ratterman of the ABA’s National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection described the project at the 1991 Annual Conference of the New York State Citizens Coalition for Children.