Social Worker School

These are funny cartoons that include references to actual cases in Riverside County, CA.

https://goanimate.com/videos/0_DqKIdmqU0U

https://goanimate.com/videos/0hmovhdPFMJI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prima Facie

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further readings

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

Cross-references

Burden of Persuasion.

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

prima facie

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

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

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

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

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

Confidential Report About Fatalities In LA County

Click on the picture to read the report. NOTE** ON THE FIRST PAGE, SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THIS DOCUMENT IT STATES, “This fact-based analysis presents a unique opportunity to examine the need and possibly for wholesale changes in the way DCFS and the County of Los Angeles carry out the charge of providing services for families and children in crisis. Accordingly, in addition to identifying the RSI (Reoccurring Systemic Issues), this report suggests opportunities for improvement that, if capitalized upon effectively, can lead to positive changes and outcomes for the children and families DCFS serves.” ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! 

 

http://documents.latimes.com/report-severe-problems-los-angeles-county-department-children-and-family-services/

Support US!

We are trying to raise money to help families. A few of my goals are:

1.  Print and distribute information to parents caught in the judicial system as well as valuable information about Child Protective Services.

2.  Coordinate and conduct workshops for parents to learn everything about the California Juvenile Dependency Court.

3.  Outline a protocol of the workshop for others in other States to conduct workshops in their area.

4.  Record the workshops on video and make them available on YouTube.

5.  Complete writing a Bill, and submit it to our legislators, that would change the requirements for proof of neglect, evidence of hearings that are conducted according to Law, the hiring and administration of Hearing Officers and attorneys so they are not paid for by the County, to provide for “secret shoppers” who are allowed in any courtroom at any time to audit the hearings and that would provide for the auditing of every single case file terminating parental rights that includes interviewing the parents and every audit’s findings can be submitted to the Appellate Courts for review and determination of whether or not the parent’s rights be restored.

I have created an account with Ebay where I am selling random stuff. Every penny profit will go towards achieving these goals. Please support our cause simply by purchasing everyday items. I am working on another blog (it is updated daily) which highlight some of these items for sale. Once you are directed to my Ebay site, at the bottom you will see boxes which showcase all the items I have for sale. (I purchase these items from the clearance racks and re-sell them for a lot less than retail price.) Here is the link to my blog: http://radomestuff4sale.wordpress.com/

More Helpful California Code

This code section explains how CPS needs to file another Petition when they remove a child placed with the parents, family or non-relative kinship/guardian (a person somehow related to the family or is a close friend): So, if CPS removed your child but allowed the child to come home but the case is still open and you have to participate in “services”, then they come and remove the child AGAIN, OR your child was removed and placed with, say, your mom, but then CPS comes to remove the child from mom’s house, or if your child was removed and placed with a non-relative kinship and they come to remove the child from them, then they MUST file another document called a 387-Supplemental. 

(Every State has rules, laws, statutes, codes or other court regulations that govern CPS court. If I do not have the links on the side under your state, just Google, “CPS laws” or “Child Welfare Statutes” or “Child Protection Codes” and you should be able to find them.)

387.  (a) An order changing or modifying a previous order by removing a child from the physical custody of a parent, guardian, relative, or friend and directing placement in a foster home, or commitment to a private or county institution, shall be made only after noticed hearing upon a supplemental petition.   (b) The supplemental petition shall be filed by the social worker in the original matter and shall contain a concise statement of facts sufficient to support the conclusion that the previous disposition has not been effective in the rehabilitation or protection of the child or, in the case of a placement with a relative, sufficient to show that the placement is not appropriate in view of the criteria in Section 361.3.   (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), dependency jurisdiction shall be resumed for a child as to whom dependency jurisdiction has been suspended pursuant to Section 366.5 if the jurisdiction established pursuant to Section 601 or 602 is terminated and if, after the issuance of a joint assessment pursuant to Section 366.5, the court determines that the court’s dependency jurisdiction should be resumed.   (d) Upon the filing of the supplemental petition, the clerk of the juvenile court shall immediately set the same for hearing within 30 days, and the social worker shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the persons and in the manner prescribed by Sections 290.1 and 291.   (e) An order for the detention of the child pending adjudication of the petition may be made only after a hearing is conducted pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 305).

 

Many people ask about a “388 hearing”, well, here is the California Welfare & Institutions Code for that:

 388.  (a) (1) Any parent or other person having an interest in a child who is a dependent child of the juvenile court or a nonminor dependent as defined in subdivision (v) of Section 11400, or the child himself or herself or the nonminor dependent through a properly appointed guardian may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court or in which a guardianship was ordered pursuant to Section 360 for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court. The petition shall be verified and, if made by a person other than the child or the nonminor dependent shall state the petitioner’s relationship to or interest in the child or the nonminor dependent and shall setforth in concise language any change of circumstance or new evidence that is alleged to require the change of order or termination of jurisdiction.   (2) When any party, including a child who is a dependent of the juvenile court, petitions the court prior to an order terminating parental rights, to modify the order that reunification services were not needed pursuant to paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.5, or to modify any orders related to custody or visitation of the subject child, and the court orders a hearing pursuant to subdivision (d), the court shall modify the order that reunification services were not needed pursuant to paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.5, or any orders related to the custody or visitation of the child for whom reunification services were not ordered pursuant to paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.5, only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed change is in the best interests of the child.   (b) Any person, including a child or the nonminor dependent who is a dependent of the juvenile court, may petition the court to assert a relationship as a sibling related by blood, adoption, or affinity through a common legal or biological parent to a child who is, or is the subject of a petition for adjudication as, a dependent of the juvenile court, and may request visitation with the dependent child, placement with or near the dependent child, or consideration when determining or implementing a case plan or permanent plan for the dependent child or make any other request for an order which may be shown to be in the best interest of the dependent child. The courtmay appoint a guardian ad litem to file the petition for thedependent child asserting the sibling relationship if the courtdetermines that the appointment is necessary for the best interests of the dependent child. The petition shall be verified and shall set forth the following:   (1) Through which parent he or she is related to the dependent child.   (2) Whether he or she is related to the dependent child by blood, adoption, or affinity.   (3) The request or order that the petitioner is seeking.   (4) Why that request or order is in the best interest of thedependent child.    (c) (1) Any party, including a child who is a dependent of the juvenile court, may petition the court, prior to the hearing set pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 366.21 for a child described by subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, or prior to the hearing set pursuant to subdivision (e) ofSection 366.21 for a child described by subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, to terminate court-ordered reunification services provided under subdivision (a) of Section 361.5 only if one of the following conditions exists:   (A) It appears that a change of circumstance or new evidenceexists that satisfies a condition set forth in subdivision (b) or (e) of Section 361.5 justifying termination of court-orderedreunification services.   (B) The action or inaction of the parent or guardian creates a substantial likelihood that reunification will not occur, including, but not limited to, the parent’s or guardian’s failure to visit the child, or the failure of the parent or guardian to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan.   (2) In determining whether the parent or guardian has failed to visit the child or participate regularly or make progress in the treatment plan, the court shall consider factors that include but are not limited to, the parent’s or guardian’s incarceration, institutionalization, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, deportation, or participation in a court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program.   (3) The court shall terminate reunification services during the above-described time periods only upon a finding by a preponderance of evidence that reasonable services have been offered or provided, and upon a finding of clear and convincing evidence that one of the conditions in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) exists.   (4) Any party, including a nonminor dependent, as defined insubdivision (v) of Section 11400, may petition the court prior to the review hearing set pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 366.31 to terminate the continuation of court-ordered family reunification services for a nonminor dependent who has attained 18 years of age. The court shall terminate family reunification services to the parent or guardian if the nonminor dependent or parent or guardian are not in agreement that the continued provision of court-ordered family reunification services is in the best interests of the nonminordependent.   (5) If the court terminates reunification services, it shall order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held within 120 days. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent. The court may order a nonminor dependent who is otherwise eligible to AFDC-FC benefits pursuant to Section 11403 to remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement.   (d) If it appears that the best interests of the child or the nonminor dependent may be promoted by the proposed change of order, modification of reunification services, custody, or visitation orders concerning a child for whom reunification services were not ordered pursuant to paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.5, recognition of a sibling relationship, termination of jurisdiction, or clear and convincing evidence supports revocation or termination of court-ordered reunification services, the court shallorder that a hearing be held and shall give prior notice, or cause prior notice to be given, to the persons and in the manner prescribed by Section 386, and, in those instances in which the manner of giving notice is not prescribed by those sections, then in the manner the court prescribes.   (e) (1) On and after January 1, 2012, a nonminor who attained 18 years of age while subject to an order for foster care placement and, commencing January 1, 2012, who has not attained 19 years of age, or, commencing January 1, 2013, 20 years of age, or, commencing January 1, 2014, 21 years of age, or as described in Section 10103.5, for whom the court has dismissed dependency jurisdiction pursuant toSection 391, or delinquency jurisdiction pursuant to Section 607.2, or transition jurisdiction pursuant to Section 452, but has retained general jurisdiction under subdivision (b) of Section 303, or the county child welfare services, probation department, or tribal placing agency on behalf of the nonminor, may petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent or delinquent child of the juvenile court, for a hearing to resume the dependency jurisdiction over a former dependent or to assume or resume transition jurisdiction over a former delinquent ward pursuant to Section 450. The petition shall be filed within the period that the nonminor is of the age described in this paragraph. If thenonminor has completed the voluntary reentry agreement, as described in subdivision (z) of Section 11400, with the placing agency, the agency shall file the petition on behalf of the nonminor within 15 judicial days of the date the agreement was signed unless the nonminor elects to file the petition at an earlier date.    (2) (A) The petition to resume jurisdiction may be filed in the juvenile court that retains general jurisdiction under subdivision (b) of Section 303, or the petition may be submitted to the juvenile court in the county where the youth resides and forwarded to the juvenile court that retained general jurisdiction and filed with that court. The juvenile court having general jurisdiction under Section 303 shall receive the petition from the court where the petition was submitted within five court days of its submission, if the petition is filed in the county of residence. The juvenile court that retained general jurisdiction shall order that a hearing be held within 15 judicial days of the date the petition was filed if there is a prima facie showing that the nonminor satisfies the following criteria:   (i) He or she was previously under juvenile court jurisdiction, subject to an order for foster care placement when he or she attained 18 years of age, and has not attained the age limits described in paragraph (1).   (ii) He or she intends to satisfy at least one of the conditions set forth in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, of subdivision (b) of Section 11403.   (iii) He or she wants assistance either in maintaining or securing appropriate supervised placement, or is in need of immediate placement and agrees to supervised placement pursuant to the voluntary reentry agreement as described in subdivision (z) of Section 11400.   (B)  Upon ordering a hearing, the court shall give prior notice, or cause prior notice to be given, to the persons and by the means prescribed by Section 386, except that notice to parents or former guardians shall not be provided unless the nonminor requests, in writing on the face of the petition, notice to the parents or former guardians.   (3) The Judicial Council, by January 1, 2012, shall adopt rules of court to allow for telephonic appearances by nonminor former dependents or delinquents in these proceedings, and for telephonic appearances by nonminor dependents in any proceeding in which the nonminor dependent is a party, and he or she declines to appear and elects a telephonic appearance.   (4) Prior to the hearing on a petition to resume dependencyjurisdiction or to assume or resume transition jurisdiction, the court shall order the county child welfare or probation department to prepare a report for the court addressing whether the nonminor intends to satisfy at least one of the criteria set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 11403. When the recommendation is for the nonminor dependent to be placed in a setting where minor dependents also reside, the results of a background check of the petitioning nonminor conducted pursuant to Section 16504.5, may be used by the placing agency to determine appropriate placement options for the nonminor. The existence of a criminal conviction is not a bar to eligibility for reentry or resumption of dependency jurisdiction or the assumption or resumption of transition jurisdiction over a nonminor.   (5) (A) The court shall resume dependency jurisdiction over a former dependent or assume or resume transition jurisdiction over a former delinquent ward pursuant to Section 450, and order that the nonminor’s placement and care be under the responsibility of the county child welfare services department, the probation department, tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization, if the court finds all of the following:   (i) The nonminor was previously under juvenile court jurisdiction subject to an order for foster care placement when he or she attained 18 years of age.   (ii) The nonminor has not attained the age limits described in paragraph (1).   (iii) Reentry and remaining in foster care are in the nonminor’s best interests.   (iv) The nonminor intends to satisfy, and agrees to satisfy, at least one of the criteria set forth in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, of subdivision (b) of Section 11403, and demonstrates his or her agreement to placement in a supervised setting under the placement and care responsibility of the placing agency and to satisfy the criteria by signing the voluntary reentry agreement as described in subdivision (z) of Section 11400.   (B) In no event shall the court grant a continuance that would cause the hearing to resume dependency jurisdiction or to assume or resume transition jurisdiction to be completed more than 120 days after the date the petition was filed.   (C) The agency made responsible for the nonminor’s placement and care pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall prepare a new transitional independent living case plan within 60 calendar days from the date the nonminor signed the voluntary reentry agreement as described in subdivision (z) of Section 11400 and submit it to the court for the review hearing under Section 366.31, to be held within 70 days of the resumption of dependency jurisdiction or assumption or resumption of transition jurisdiction. In no event shall the review hearing under Section 366.3 be held more than 170 calendar days from the date the nonminor signed the voluntary reentry agreem

The US Governments war on taking children away from families.

2014 Investigations into the United States and Great Britten uncovered a CPS child pediphile ring coverup by Judges and Government.

Watch this video and understand what is going on in America and Great Britten. This is a long video but full of information on what to do. This is just as relevant in other countries as well as the United States. Lets make this movement so big that the government understands we will defend our children to our death. To leave our child alone. We will not take this any longer.

CPS worker confesses to feeling guilty over kidnapping children for the state.

It is time people stop believing and calling Child Protective Services. It is a fact that children are abused far more often in CPS care. If you call CPS on a family the chance these children will be abused goes up by 80% Watch this video and see where your tax dollars are going.

Our Readers Write

Dear Donnellyjustice,

Recently my brother had CPS come to his door because his neighbor didn’t like his kids playing outside in the backyard and making noise! The social workers made up some bullcrap about a messy house and said that everyone in the house had to drug test immediately. Our grandma lives there with my brother and she has arthritis and cancer real bad so she takes some morphine prescribed by her dr. She couldn’t barely get to the place to test and when she got there she had a hard time peeing in front of strangers. Her test came back positive for opiates so without even calling to talk to my brother about it, they just went to the school and took the kids saying that grandma was a danger to the kids and that she had to move out or go to substance abuse classed and not take her medication. 

My brother had to put my grandma in a nursing home 6 months ago and CPS has made my brother take all kinds of classes and take off of work while grandma is all lonely and has no one. She ‘s not doing too good when before she was doing ok and was happy with all her grandkids around her. My brother says that the social workers tell him how adoptable his kids are and that they are happy in foster care so its best for the children to get adopted by that foster lady who I learned has a criminal record for assault upon a police officer!

IF IT WERE ME, CPS WOULD NEVER HAVE EVEN LEFT THE FRONT PORCH THE FIRST TIME THEY CAME! THEY WOULD TAKE MY KIDS OVER MY DEAD BODY! WHY DID YOU PEOPLE LET THEM ALL LIVE? IF WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU HAPPENED TO ME, THEY WOULD ALL BE NOT BREATHING! YOU PEOPLE WERE BRAVE TO RESCUE YOUR SON BUT COWARDS FOR NOT DOING ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT IT. ANY OTHER KIDNAPPER (CPS) WOULD BE HUNTED DOWN LIKE DOGS BUT THIS FU*****G CPS GETS AWAY WITH IT LIKE IT IS PLANNED AND SUPPORTED BY THE GOVERNMENT!

–Joe, Indianapolis, IN

Dear Joe,

I hear you but what do you do when you have other children who were almost 18 and over 18 who would miss you or end up involved in more trouble because everyone believes that CPS is right and correct so they enforce orders that don’t even exist? Police were after us, ex-wives were after us, we had friends who ended up ratting us out and we were wrongfully convicted of child stealing and in jail for 6 months and then me and my daughter were held unreasonably long while our rights were terminated. We were charged for things that we didn’t do (my daughter was OVERCHARGED and I was guilty by association) and that was because our case was in the same corrupt courthouse that our dependency “case” was in. My public defender even told me that I must have pissed off someone in the DA’s office because I was fu**cked. 

Now my son has been adopted and there is a restraining order against us. What the heck are we supposed to do? Go take him and upset him, his life and the adopted parents who seem like generally decent people who just believe CPS’s bullshit? Our son probably thinks that the adopted parents are his real parents now since he was so young when all this happened. On top of that, the adoptive dad works for HOMELAND SECURITY! We just have to wait until he turns 18 in 12 years because they won’t let us see him!

It is easy to say that CPS would never get your kids and that you would kill them if they tried but how do-able is that really? You have no idea how it feels to have your hands as tied as ours. I really hope your brother gets his kids back and that you never have any kids that CPS takes from you. I can tell that it would be all bad for everyone but they would deserve what they got. I wish more parents would stand up to this evil conspiracy then maybe social workers would think twice before taking innocent parent’s kids away.

Thanks for writing, wish you brother the best for me, OK?

-sjb4djustice

A Message to a Juvenile Court Judge, Respectfully

Letter to Judge from William Burns:

If I were to write to the judge who terminated my parental rights I would tell him that I am so sorry. I’m sorry that he took on more responsibility than he could handle as it is obvious that he has had NO TIME TO READ THE DEPARTMENT’S REPORTS OR QUESTION THEM WHATSOEVER.

I am also sorry that you believed their bullshit they spewed from their filthy mouths that I was such a bad parent.  If you had the TIME TO READ you may have noticed that Rushton let CPS submit documents that were completely fabricated and forged.  I would also like to apologise for taking up your precious time since you were so busy that you didn’t have it (time) to READ the reports that the social workers wrote or the attachments which included fabrications as well as another man’s criminal record being misrepresented as mine. If you hadn’t been so busy maybe you would have been able to save my son from the loss of his ENTIRE FAMILY and the love he received from them. Maybe if you had the time you would surely noticed that the criminal record submitted by the Department in February 2012, was the wrong William Burns who has a different middle name but same first and last, was born 10 years before me and/or noticing that, in fact, that I was in custody on the date of that man’s latest crime. I am so sorry that CPS mislead you by tricking you into believing that I had a very long drug history by using that man’s record. What a shame, you have been duped, Sir.  You see I have never been charged or convicted of any Health & Safety Codes including under the influence, possession, sales or manufacturing of drugs whatsoever. I submitted test after test the entire time my case was open and not one of them was positive. This is why I was awarded full custody at the end of our first case well, that and I had proven to be a protective parent and the children were safe in my care. In December of 2010 Kristine Vernier submitted a falsified document that didn’t even have a name on it. In fact there was no information whatsoever that indicated it was any person’s test. No name, no ID, no lab, no specimen ID, no collection site, no certified scientist or doctor, no chain of custody, but the words on it said positive and despite a letter written by Vernier on CPS letterhead and left on my front door which stated, “Your drug test came back  negative.”. I did give my lawyer a copy of this letter but it is not in the official record. I was told that it wasn’t relevant. But that document with no name was the reason Rushton removed my children after having returned them at the detention hearing. I know that you were not on the bench for that hearing but if you were afforded the time to READ the whole case you would 

have surely seen it and questioned the Department because you are a good and decent person and I know you wouldn’t tolerate the Department fabricating evidence. You would never just stand by and let a family go through this kind of torture from malicious acts by people just sucking the federal government dry. That would be immoral and unethical, not to mention a violation of your oath. The stripping of one’s parental rights without reasonable cause or due process (fabricating evidence and committing perjury does not constitute due process, its an abuse of power) is extremely devastating to the parents, of course, but the poor little children are the VICTIMS. The public entrusts that Child Protective Services are REALLY doing what they say and Juvenile Dependency Judges are supposed to ensure parent’s rights, children’s rights and hold the Department accountable. Without enough time to READ you are truly doing the public a DIS-SERVICE. I do have one question though, now that you have been on that bench for over a year, have you been able to get organized enough to have more time to READ? I SURE HOPE SO because the most precious gift from God in a parents life, to me,  my wife and my whole family, is their children. I hope you have discovered by now that CPS is so blatantly against people, other than themselves, raising children. That is just what it seems like anyway. But perhaps its just job security that they do what they do.

I have been a parent for 29 years. I have never been an absent parent, I was awarded full custody of ALL six of my children. I have always worked and supported them with the exception of the year that I took off so my second son, Stephen, would not be forced to take Ritalin.  When he was in first grade, a teacher  wanted me to put my son on this drug (which is an amphetamine) but I fought tooth and nail to stop it. CPS got involved too. I would do anything for the safety and protection of my kids so I offered to go to school every single day and help out this teacher. You cannot dispute this fact, just ask Sherron Logan (if you do not know who she is ask McPhee). I can list about one hundred more things that make me a decent father. How the hell could I have ever been considered a “danger” to my son, for what, drugs? Do you have any idea how crazy that is?

 I will be damned if some stressed-out, overworked, unlicensed social worker, being pushed by superiors, comes into my life and within 5 minutes thinks they have some kind of supernatural power to determine that I am a “danger” to my child. But that is not really what they do, they just have a goal which is $$$$$$. So, they steal children for federal funding and to ensure them the money when they have NO EVIDENCE whatsoever they fabricate it. Meanwhile, they know full well that the children are safe. These people write fantasy reports, creating imaginary people in them because they do not describe the real people. Let’s assume for a moment, that you were falsely accused of doing drugs and perpetrated as a “dangerous” person simply because you rescued your child from these people who completely railroaded you. What would you do, sir, if this had happened to you and YOUR children? Don’t say it wouldn’t happen, just IMAGINE.

Yes, I rescued my son from CPS but you called it “kidnapping” and “abducting” and everyone claimed it happened twice. My father-in-law was there to tell the truth but no one called him to the stand and that was because it would have been detrimental to the Department’s case. With all due respect, that if you paid any attention to the countless abuses and deaths that occur (more often) in foster care you may have done the same in my position. Sir, if you truly have any decency or moral bone in your body, which of course you do, the Department is just tricking you, you would have acknowledged that my acts were that of PROTECTING him, even the cops stated, on the record, that they did not feel he was in “danger”. I was prosecuted, falsely, because Rushton, McPhee, Purnell and Loew made some phone calls. What really baffles me, Sir, is that it appears, from the transcripts, that you were extremely favorable to and bias toward the Department and Purnell, sustaining all of her objections and overruled all of  LaCiliento’s and Casey’s objections. As I re-read these transcripts, it appears that you judged me without any thought about the cause of my extraordinary actions of rescuing my son or whether or not there could be any shared responsibility. Maybe, if the case was before you now and you had more time to READ, you would think to yourself, “Gosh, this man is really attached to his son and for some reason he felt that CPS was not doing the right thing and he was so desperate that he risked his freedom to protect his son possibly from being abused in foster care. I should ask him what the problem was. The child was obviously never hurt or abused and the Department’s entire case rests on “risk” due to an alleged dirty hair follicle test. I should look into this a bit more.”. Maybe now you would have more time to consider my ordinary actions as well such as whether or not I can maintain employment whether employed as a W-4 or a 1099, whether I can and do provide for my family and whether I have other healthy, stable children. Sir, there are far more “causal” alternatives to intentional explanations, and I was faced with a decision to hold people responsible for their behavior. It’s important to me that society stops ignoring the crimes of social services which has directly affected my entire family and me, to the brink of self-destruction. I never assumed I would be “let off the hook” and have no problem with the actual “punishment” of jail but then on top of that I can never see my son, ever, BECAUSE I LOVED HIM AND PROTECTED HIM TOO MUCH. WHY CAN’T ANYONE SEE THAT????? I don’t need a neuroscientific explanation to defend myself either.

Bill Burns with son Donnelly, 3 weeks old.

“A better question is “how strong was the relation between the cause (whatever it happened to be) and the effect?” If, hypothetically, only 1 percent of people with a brain malfunction commit a seemingly irrational and extraordinary act, ordinary considerations about blame would still seem relevant. But if 99 percent of them do, you might start to wonder how responsible they really are.”

Five of my six children are now adults. ONLY my youngest was stolen.(According to Mahoney, Donnelly was very “adorable” and “adoptable” and she would have said the same about all the others too if she had been around.) He was stolen by Susan Loew, Bridgette Miller, Kristine Vernier, Antoine Coley, Amanda Spratley, Rushton, McPhee, Mahoney,Vinson and Jamila Purnell by tricking you and creating an imaginary violent person. The ONLY issue was alleged drug use however, I provided the evidence that the hair follicle test was fake yet, NO ONE stood

up for me, NO ONE said, “Look, your Honor, Mr. Burns has evidence that those drug tests were wrong, just take a look.” My evidence was ignored and they tricked you into believing that I was guilty. WHY??? You know why.

Hopefully you are no longer conducting yourself in a manner that appears to be more of a prosecutor rather than a Judge. It sure did seem like that last year and as it appears in the transcripts now. Hopefully, for the sake of other children and parents, you have more experience and time to READ so it doesn’t appear that you are favorable to Purnell. I hope you realise now that people are paying attention to your court. I apologise if it is causing you concern or irritating you but I am sure you agree that it must be done if the system is going to have checks and balances. I hope you have had more TIME TO READ THE SOCIAL WORKER’S REPORTS SO YOU WON’T BE DUPED INTO believing their lies. These people wouldn’t even write an honest report about their own mother but I bet they would if you made them. Please, take the TIME TO READ and don’t take what county counsel says as absolute truth, it is not helping children whatsoever. These people do not give a shit about anyone. Driven by greedy Department Directors, motivated by threats from their immediate Supervisors, social workers have plunged into the bottomless pit of denial which has created an entire new breed of humans or maybe just a rejuvenation of a species we thought was dying out. Throughout history, groups of people have targeted children (such as Pharaoh), exploited children for sex and profit (such as Cambodia, Thailand, Brazil and Costa Rica) and the infamous Chinese who duped parents into letting the government take their children during the war to “protect” them from the Japanese invasion. This was not a real invasion threat, it was a way to wash dirty money. The children were put into secret group “foster” homes where they were literally starved and beaten to death. Yeah, that species is no joke and If our country’s social workers are not in denial then they are just downright evil. People are waking up. I have shown about 10,000 people that there appears to be bias in Juvenile Court, especially S103. The people who ask me what kind of person you are I tell them, “Be patient with him, he is still learning how to READ [the reports].” However, it has been over a year now so I expect you are learning their ways. I know you are not stupid or ignorant. Respectfully, Sir, please pay attention to the publicity when the media reports crimes that occur in social services. So many social workers have been caught falsifying documents, ignoring apparent abuse and NOT removing children who are truly being abused just so they get hurt and the Department can swing the story to their advantage and ultimately, more funding. I am putting together as much information as I can find about abuses in foster care, funding scams, children molested and killed by adoptive parents, the doping up 3-year-olds, selling children to other countries for work as sex slaves, you name it, Social Services is GUILTY OF IT.

One would think that since the budget was practically cut in half that there would be LESS REMOVALS, LESS JUVENILE DEPENDENCY CASES but what has happened? Don’t you have MORE CASES? 

So, if I were to write to John M. Monterosso, that is what I would say. I’m not sure if it would be so nice and respectful though. That would depend on whether or not I thought that he had TIME TO READ IT.

Written by WILLIAM BURNS and EDITED and REWRITTEN by Sharon Joyce-Burns

(The original words written by my husband might have gotten him in hot water. He doesn’t care about that but I do. I should warn you that he may not even ask me to read his posts before publishing them since I chopped this one all up and thwarted his intention to disrespect the judge which I would NEVER DO! hehehe)

Information About Dependency Process and Laws-A SITE FOR ALL PARENTS

      Like I promised, here is some really important information for those in California going through the Juvenile Dependency Court. Know your rights. Know the Court’s responsibilities. Know what your lawyer is supposed to do for you.  This is another site I wish I would have known about from the beginning of our case.

     So, now when you go to court, make sure the Judge is doing what he’s/she’s supposed to, make sure they are all meeting their obligations. The more parents who check the system the less they can railroad you. Good Luck and if you have any questions, go ahead and email me and I will try to help you from my own experience as I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice, I can only tell you what I would do in your situation knowing what I know now.

     So here’s the site:

http://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/protem/courses/jdep/toc.htm