These are funny cartoons that include references to actual cases in Riverside County, CA.
According to this NO! But almost all county social service “child protection” agencies across the country and abroad DO REMOVE CHILDREN BASED ON ONE TEST ALONE. Is it LEGAL? The answer is NO IT IS NOT “LEGAL”. Nowhere in the California Welfare & Institutions Codes does it state that they have authority to take possession of a child based on ONE drug test. Often, CPS will remove your child simply for declining to cooperate, if it comes back “diluted” which only means that there was not enough creatiine in your urine so the test was aborted. So, if a person drinks the recommended 8-10 eight ounce glasses of water a day and goes to test before they have eaten and/or digested any portion of food then most likely the test will be considered a “dilute”. That will prompt CPS to suggest and ultimately state as a fact, that you used and purposely drank an exessive amount of water to “fool” the test. What a bunch of bullcrap that is, especially when you do not know these things before hand! I know, I experienced it.
A MOUTH SWAB TEST SHOULD NEVER BE USED TO REMOVE YOUR CHILD BECAUSE THESE TESTS ARE INITIAL TESTS AND THEIR PURPOSE IS TO SAVE MONEY ON LABORATORY TESTS AS THEY CAN QUICKLY SHOW THAT THE SUBJECT DOES NOT HAVE ANY DRUGS DETECTABLE IN THEIR SYSTEM. This includes any “on-the-spot” or “on location” tests such as a “dip stick”. A positive test is NEVER positive until confirmed by a scientifically calibrated testing machine in a certified laboratory. BUT DOES ANYONE IN CHILD PROTECTION OR THE JUVENILE DEPENDENCY COURT EVER ACKNOWLEDGE THESE BASIC DRUG TESTING PRINCIPLES AND REGULATIONS? NO THEY DO NOT. Want to know WHY? Because the “lawyers” for the parents and children DO NOT OBJECT, DO NOT CHALLENGE AND DO NOT CARE about children and families.
TO THE DEFENSE PANEL LAME-O ATTORNEYS: STAND UP FOR WHAT KNOW IS RIGHT, NOT WHAT YOUR HAVE “BOUGHT-IN” TO! DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU REALLY ARE, NOT DOING THE RIGHT THING? YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF LAZY SOCIOPATHIC SADISTIC SORCERERS SEIZING YOUNGSTERS FOR SELFISH SECURITY
Often social workers will use mouth swab preliminary drug test kits and they are told to use them as evidence to remove children. They KNOW that they can and will get away with it because they KNOW the parent’s lawyers will NOT object to their use nor will they challenge ANY DRUG TEST WHATSOEVER.
In our second case, I declined to participate in their drug testing as they faked the results more often than not. Twice they tried to “prove” to me that they do not fake tests and came up with two negative hair follicle tests but it is so obvious how they cut-and-pasted the real test document onto their THIRD PARTY COHORT (CDT iNC.) LETTERHEAD like they do for the fake ones. Near the end of our first CPS case, I did not even show up at the collection site to give a hair sample and they still came up with a positive hair follicle test! You can tell how fake this test is by the fact that it does not claim to be positive for amphetamines. It is IMPOSSIBLE for hair to be positive for only methamphetamines because when you consume methamphetamines, it quickly converts to amphetamine metabolites as that is the main ingredient of methamphetamines. Can’t make meth without ephedrine which is what? An amphetamine! Many clinical and case studies have been conducted on this issue and the research documentation available online. If the “lawyers” were actually on your side, they would contest, object and motion to dismiss based on the falsification of documents that CPS social workers commonly submit to the COURT. That, in and of itself, is a FELONY in California!
Both offering and preparing false evidence are obstruction of justice crimes in California. Penal Code 132 PC makes it a felony to knowingly present false written evidence in pretty much any kind of legal proceeding.1 Similarly, Penal Code 134 PC makes it a crime to prepare any false evidence with the intent to use it in a legal proceeding (even if, for whatever reason, the false evidence never actually gets presented in court).2
Offering or preparing false evidence under Penal Code 132 PC or Penal Code 134 PC is a California felony.4 This means that it is possible to be sentenced to as much as three (3) years in California state prison if you are convicted.5
California Penal Code Section 115 PC: Filing A False Document
1. Definition and Elements of the Crime
Filing a False Document under California Penal Code Section 115 PC makes it a felony to file any forged or false document with a public office.
The statute requires a prosecutor to prove the following elements:
- A defendant provided a document for filing, recording or registration with any public office in California
- The defendant knew that the document was false or a forgery when he or she filed it AND
- The document was one that, if genuine, could be legally filed.
The term “document” has been interpreted broadly by courts and prosecutors. The statute is most frequently used to prosecute the filing of false property deeds in connection with real estate fraud schemes. However, Filing a False Document charges can involve almost any document that can be legally filed in a public office, including bail bonds, probation work referrals, and even fishing records.
Looking to make some quick money, a man forges a copy of a property transfer deed indicating that he purchased a home from his mother and he is now the lawful owner. The man files this forged property deed with the county recorder’s office and then takes out substantial loans against the property. Not only is the man guilty of mortgage fraud, he would also be criminally liable for Filing a False or Forged Document and could be prosecuted for both offenses.
3. Related Offenses
Filing a False Document under Penal Code Section 115 PC is usually associated with other Theft Crimes andWhite Collar Crimes such as Real Estate Fraud and Mortgage Fraud. In fact, prosecutors may prefer to file charges under Penal Code 115 PC because it is a felony level offense that is easier to prove than some of the more complex fraud charges.
Related charges also include:
- Forgery – California Penal Code Section 470 PC
- Perjury – California Penal Code Section 118 PC
- Grand Theft – California Penal Code Section 487 PC
HERE IS ONE OF EIGHT FALSIFIED “DRUG TEST” DOCUMENTS THE DEPARTMENT CLAIMED WERE RESULTS OF HAIR FOLLICLE TESTS:
DISCLAIMER: This is not to anyone specific, it is to every person who has adopted a child through the child protective services adoption agency.
YOU THINK THAT WHAT THE COURT DOES IS LEGAL? WATCH THIS! WE ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES WHO HAVE BEEN RAILROADED BY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES. GET A CLUE, IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU TOO!
ALLOW BIRTH PARENT RELATIONSHIPS-ITS JUST THE RIGHT THING TO DO!
THE CHILDREN YOU HAVE ADOPTED WERE HAPPY WITH THEIR FAMILIES AND YOU ARE DENYING THE CHILDREN THEIR GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO THE AFFECTION AND LOVE FROM THEIR BIRTH FAMILIES.
IF YOU ARE NOT JUST DOING IT FOR THE MONEY, PROVE IT!
DO THE RIGHT THING. DO THE RIGHT THING. DO THE RIGHT THING. PLEASE!
I had the most wonderful dream. The year was 2043. I was in a wheelchair. My daughter was pushing it into the Southwest Justice Center (courthouse). The metal made the detectors go wild, flashing red and blue lights yet it looked more like a slot machine. People were congratulaing me for winning or just still being alive to see this day.
My daughter asked me if I wanted any popcorn from the clerks’ office. I asked her since when does the clerk have popcorn, in my day it was cotton candy. She smiled and gave me a kiss on the cheek. I watched her walk gracefully down the hallway, proud to be her mother and proud that I had raised such a decent and kind person. I thought, “Marla Mahoney would be jealous for sure.” I had read in the paper that her daughter became a crack/heroin addict and Mahoney was at the Ford Clinic. How ironic.
This was the day I had been waiting for. It had been 30 years since I saw my son, Donnelly, and now I was finally being allowed to see him. He had been looking for me for a while but in the wrong place. I don’t know where I had been but I know I had not been far. Donnelly invited me to come see him at work. Oh, didn’t I tell you? He’s the Adult Protection and Dependency Court Judge. How ironic.
It was so glorious to see my baby boy, all grown up and very handsome, like his Daddy. I was allowed to sit in His courtroom, in the second row on the left side. To my right and surprise was the adult man at issue. His name sounded so familiar, I’m sure I would have known exactly who he was had I been a little younger when my brain wasn’t so forgetful. My daughter entered into the courtroom with cotton candy. I asked her, “What about the popcorn?” She replied, “Oh Mommy, Donnelly ordered it special for you.” My eyes teared up so much that it was now really difficult to see who that man was that Adult Protective Services felt could not make his own decisions. My daughter looked his way when the case was called, “Your Honor, the first case here today is Case Number 7, John M. Monterosso.” and she literally began choking on her popcorn. She said, “Mommy, isn’t that the man who terminated your rights to Donnelly?” My son said, “Why Sissy, it SURE IS!” We all began laughing so hard while Monterosso’s elderly wife was crying her eyes out. I said, “Payback is a BITCH ain’t it?”
My CPS story.