I Read The California Welfare & Institutions Code For Fun


If the Defense Panel did the same maybe they wouldn’t be so ignorant in court. At the very least they should have a code book in their office don’t you think? Here are a few codes I would like to share.

396. It is the policy of the Legislature that foster care should be a temporary method of care for the children of this state, that children have a right to a normal home life free from abuse, that reunification with the natural parent or parents or another alternate permanent living situation such as adoption or guardianship is more suitable to a child’s well-being than is foster care, that this state has a responsibility to attempt to ensure that children are given the chance to have happy and healthy lives, and that, to the extent possible, the current practice of moving children receiving foster care services from one foster home to another until they reach the age of majority should be discontinued.

397. In order to carry out the policy stated in Section 396, each county welfare department or probation department shall report to the State Department of Social Services, in the frequency and format determined by the department, foster care characteristic data and care information deemed essential by the department to establish a foster care information system. The report shall include, but not be limited to, elements that identify the factors necessitating foster care placement, the appropriateness of the placement, and the case goal or objective such as reunification, adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care placement.

399. Any minor being considered for placement in a foster home
shall have the right to make a brief statement to the court making a decision on placement. The court may disregard any preferences expressed by the minor. The minor’s right to make a statement shall not be limited to the initial placement, but shall continue for any proceedings concerning continued placement or a decision to return to parental custody.

 

So, your child HAS A SAY in their placement. If your child is 10 or older, regardless of your child’s age, tell them to speak up in court even if the Court MAY completely disregard it.  Did you know that the children can also APPEAL any decision? All they have to do is tell their lawyer to do that and they must regardless of whether or not they feel it is in the child’s “best interests”.

Child Protective Services aka CPS, Everything you ever wanted to know. The Good, The bad, and The Ugly.


Federal

U.S. federal laws that govern CPS agencies include:

History

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]

Comparison to other similar systems

United Kingdom

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.

Canada

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]

Costa Rica

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.

Effects of early maltreatment on children in child welfare

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]

Standards for Reporting

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]

Persons Responsible for the Child

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]

Child Protective Services Statistics

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]

Child Protective Services Recidivism in the United States

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]

Recidivism Statistics

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]

Criticism

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!”

The NCCAN report on “Perpetrators of Maltreatment”provides the following figures
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

  • “that poor parents very often are targeted to lose their children because they do not have the where-with-all to hire lawyers and fight the system. Being poor does not mean you are not a good parent or that you do not love your child, or that your child should be removed and placed with strangers;
  • that all parents are capable of making mistakes and that making a mistake does not mean your children are to be removed from the home. Even if the home is not perfect, it is home; and that’s where a child is the safest and where he or she wants to be, with family;
  • that parenting classes, anger management classes, counseling referrals, therapy classes and on and on are demanded of parents with no compassion by the system even while the parents are at work and while their children are separated from them. (some times parents are required to pay for the programs) This can take months or even years and it emotionally devastates both children and parents. Parents are victimized by “the system” that makes a profit for holding children longer and “bonuses” for not returning children to their parents;
  • that caseworkers and social workers are very often guilty of fraud. They withhold and destroy evidence. They fabricate evidence and they seek to terminate parental rights unnecessarily. However, when charges are made against Child Protective Services, the charges are ignored;
  • that the separation of families and the “snatching of children” is growing as a business because local governments have grown accustomed to having these taxpayer dollars to balance their ever-expanding budgets;
  • that Child Protective Services and Juvenile Court can always hide behind a confidentiality clause in order to protect their decisions and keep the funds flowing. There should be open records and “court watches”! Look who is being paid!

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.

  • that The Adoption and the Safe Families Act, set in motion first in 1974 by Walter Mondale and later in 1997 by President Bill Clinton, offered cash “bonuses” to the states for every child they adopted out of foster care. In order to receive the “adoption incentive bonuses” local child protective services need more children. They must have merchandise (children) that sells and you must have plenty so the buyer can choose. Some counties are known to give a $4,000 to $6,000 bonus for each child adopted out to strangers and an additional $2,000 for a “special needs” child. Employees work to keep the federal dollars flowing;
  • State Departments of Human Resources (DHR) and affiliates are given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population. For every child DHR and CPS can get adopted, there is the bonus of $4,000 or maybe $6,000. But that is only the beginning figure in the formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the State has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. Therefore States and local communities work hard to reach their goals for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care.
  • that there is double dipping. The funding continues as long as the child is out of the home. There is funding for foster care then when a child is placed with a new family, then “adoption bonus funds” are available. When a child is placed in a mental health facility and is on 16 drugs per day, like two children of a constituent of mine, more funds are involved and so is Medicaid;
  • As you can see this program is ordered from the very top and run by Health and Human Resources. This is why victims of CPS get no help from their legislators. It explains why my bill, SB 415 suffered such defeat in the Judicial Committee, why I was cut off at every juncture. Legislators and Governors must remember who funds their paychecks.
  • that there are no financial resources and no real drive to unite a family and help keep them together or provide effective care;
  • that the incentive for social workers to return children to their parents quickly after taking them has disappeared and who in protective services will step up to the plate and say, “This must end! No one, because they are all in the system together and a system with no leader and no clear policies will always fail the children. Just look at the waste in government that is forced upon the tax payer;
  • that the “Policy Manuel” is considered “the last word” for CPS/DFCS. However, it is too long, too confusing, poorly written and does not take the law into consideration;
  • that if the lives of children were improved by removing them from their homes, there might be a greater need for protective services, but today children are not safer. Children, of whom I am aware, have been raped and impregnated in foster care;
  • It is a known fact that children are in much more danger in foster care than they are in their own home even though home may not be perfect.
  • that some parents are even told if they want to see their children or grandchildren, they must divorce their spouse. Many, who are under privileged, feeling they have no option, will divorce and then just continue to live together. This is an anti-family policy, but parents will do anything to get their children home with them. However, when the parents cooperate with Child Protective Services, their behavior is interpreted as guilt when nothing could be further from the truth.
  • Fathers, (non-custodial parents) I must add, are often treated as criminals without access to visit or even see their own children and have child support payments strangling the very life out of them;
  • that the Foster Parents Bill of Rights does not stress that a foster parent is there temporarily to care for a child until the child can be returned home. Many foster parents today use the Foster Parent Bill of Rights as a means to hire a lawyer and seek to adopt the child placed in their care from the real parents, who are desperately trying to get their child home and out of the system. Recently in Atlanta, a young couple learning to be new parents and loving it, were told that because of an anonymous complaint, their daughter would be taken into custody by the State DFCS. The couple was devastated and then was required by DFCS to take parenting classes, alcohol counseling and psychological evaluations if they wanted to get their child back. All of the courses cost money for which most parents are required to pay. While in their anxiety and turmoil to get their child home, the baby was left for hours in a car to die in the heat in her car seat by a foster parent who forgot about the child. This should never have happened. It is tragic. In many cases after the parents have jumped through all the hoops, they still do not get their child. As long as the child is not returned, there is money for the agency, for foster parents, for adoptive parents, and for the State.
  • that tax dollars are being used to keep this gigantic system afloat, yet the victims, parents, grandparents, guardians and especially the children, are charged for the system’s services.
  • that grandparents have called from all over the State of Georgia and from other states trying to get custody of their grandchildren. CPS claims relatives are contacted, but there are many many cases that prove differently. Grandparents who lose their grandchildren to strangers have lost their own flesh and blood. The children lose their family heritage and grandparents, and parents too, lose all connections to their heirs.
  • that 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!
  • That according to the California Little Hoover Commission Report in 2003, 30% to 70% of the children in California group homes do not belong there and should not have been removed from their homes.” [48]

Texas

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]

2008 Raid of YFZ Ranch

Main article: YFZ Ranch

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]

CPS problem reports

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.

Disproportionality & Disparity in the Child Welfare System

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.

Constitutional issues

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]

Notable lawsuits

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]

California

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]

Effectiveness

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]

See also

Similar organizations in other countries

References

  1. Pecora et al. (1992), p. 231.
  2. Ibid., pp. 230-1.
  3. Ibid., p. 230.
  4. Pecora et al. (1992), pp. 230-31; Petr (1998), p. 126.
  5. Children’s Aid Society. “History”.
  6. Axinn, June; Levin,Herman (1997). Social Welfare: a history of the American response to need (4th ed.). White Plains, New York: Longman. ISBN 9780801317002.
  7. Ellett, Alberta J.; Leighninger, Leslie (10 August 2006). “What Happened? An historical perspective of the de-professionalization of child welfare practice with implications for policy and practice”. Journal of Public Child Welfare 1 (1): 3–34.doi:10.1300/J479v01n01_02.
  8. Crosson-Tower, Cynthia (1999). Understanding child abuse and neglect (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.ISBN 9780205287802.
  9. Laird & Michael (2006).
  10. Pecora et al. (1992), p. 232; Petr (1998), p. 126.
  11. Pecora et al. (1992), pp. 232-3; Petr (1998), pp. 126-7.
  12. “Child Protective Services – HISTORICAL OVERVIEW, CURRENT SYSTEM”.
  13. “Reporting Child Abuse – Child Protective Services”.
  14. Antler, S (1978). “Child Abuse: An emerging social priority”. Social Work 23: 58–61.
  15. Administration for Children & Families. “Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974 P.L. 93-247”. Child Welfare Information Gateway. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
  16. Limb, GE; Chance, T; Brown, EF (December 2004). “An empirical examination of the Indian Child Welfare Act and its impact on cultural and familial preservation for American Indian children”. Child Abuse & Neglect 28 (12): 1279–89.doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.06.012. PMID 15607770.
  17. Mitchell, LB; Barth, RP; Green, R; Wall, A; Biemer, P; Berrick, JD; Webb, MB (Jan–Feb 2005). “Child welfare reform in the United States: findings from a local agency survey.”. Child Welfare 84 (1): 5–24. PMID 15717771.
  18. Administration for Children & Families. “Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 P.L. 96-272”. Child Welfare Information Gateway. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
  19. Administration for Children & Families (2011). “Major Federal Legislation Concerned with Child Protection, Child Welfare, and Adoption”. Child Welfare Information Gateway. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
  20. Lincroft, Y.; Resher, J. (2006). “Undercounted and Underserved: Immigrant and refugee families in the child welfare system”. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
  21. Mitchell, Lorelei B.; Barth, Richard P.; Green, Rebecca; Wall, Ariana; Biemer, Paul; Berrick, Jill Duerr; Webb, Mary Bruce. “Child Welfare Reform in the United States: Findings from a Local Agency Survey”. Child Welfare 84 (1): 5–24 [20]. ISSN 0009-4021.
  22. DCSF.gov.uk
  23. “About Ontario’s children’s aid societies”. Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services. Retrieved 19 April 2011.
  24. “Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11”. E-laws.gov.on.ca. Retrieved 2013-11-15.
  25. “Complaints Against a Children’s Aid Society”. Child and Family Services Review Board. Retrieved 17 April 2011.
  26. http://www.pani.go.cr
  27. Gauthier, L., Stollak, G., Messe, L., & Arnoff, J. (1996). Recall of childhood neglect and physical abuse as differential predictors of current psychological functioning. Child Abuse and Neglect 20, 549-559
  28. Malinosky-Rummell, R. & Hansen, D.J. (1993) Long term consequences of childhood physical abuse. Psychological Bulletin114, 68-69
  29. Lyons-Ruth K. & Jacobvitz, D. (1999) Attachment disorganization: unresolved loss, relational violence and lapses in behavioral and attentional strategies. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.) Handbook of Attachment. (pp. 520-554). NY: Guilford Press
  30. Solomon, J. & George, C. (Eds.) (1999). Attachment Disorganization. NY: Guilford Press
  31. Main, M. & Hesse, E. (1990) Parents’ Unresolved Traumatic Experiences are related to infant disorganized attachment status. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Ciccehetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds), Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention (pp161-184). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
  32. Carlson, E. A. (1988). A prospective longitudinal study of disorganized/disoriented attachment. Child Development 69, 1107-1128
  33. Lyons-Ruth, K. (1996). Attachment relationships among children with aggressive behavior problems: The role of disorganized early attachment patterns. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 64, 64-73
  34. Lyons-Ruth, K., Alpern, L., & Repacholi, B. (1993). Disorganized infant attachment classification and maternal psychosocial problems as predictors of hostile-aggressive behavior in the preschool classroom. Child Development 64, 572-585
  35. “Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect”. Childwelfare.gov. Retrieved 2010-08-21.
  36. Prevent Child Abuse New York. “2007 Child Abuse and Neglect Fact Sheet”.
  37. American Humane Association. “Emotional Abuse”. Stop Child Abuse.
  38. “Kids Count Data Center”. The Annie E. Casey Foundation.[citation not found]
  39. “The AFCARS Report Preliminary FY 2010 Estimates as of June 2011”. http://www.acf.hhs.gov. Retrieved 2011-10-06.
  40. “Child Maltreatment 2009”. http://www.acf.hhs.gov. Retrieved 2011-10-06.
  41. Fluke, J. D.; Shusterman, G. R., Hollinshead, D. M., & Yuan, Y.-Y. (2008). “Longitudinal analysis of repeated child abuse reporting and victimization: multistate analysis of associated factors”. Child Maltreatment: 76–88.
  42. Pecora, P. J., Whittaker, J., Maluccio, A., & Barth, R. (2000). The child welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research. Aldine de Gruyter.
  43. Wulczyn, F. (2009). “Epidemiological Perspectives on Maltreatment Prevention”. The Future of Children: 39–66.
  44. Scott, Brenda (1994) Out of Control: Who’s Watching Our Child Protection Agencies? p. 179
  45. “United States: Serbian Couple Struggles to Get Children Back · Global Voices”. Globalvoicesonline.org. 2011-01-04. Retrieved 2013-11-15.
  46. “News – U.S.: Serbian couple fights to get children back”. B92. Retrieved 2013-11-15.
  47. “Press Online :: Press Green”. Pressonline.rs. Retrieved 2013-11-15.
  48. “The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services – report by Senator Nancy Schaefer, September 25, 2008”.
  49. State agency hit with rare sanction for taking custody of Spring infants
  50. KVUE.com, Richardson group: Polygamists’ children are OK April 18, 2008 by Janet St. James / WFAA-TV
  51. Crotea, Roger (10 May 2008). “Mental health workers rip CPS over sect”. San Antonio Express-news .
  52. Window.state.tx.us
  53. Comptroller Strayhorn Statement On Foster Care Abuse June 23, 2006
  54. Hill R.B. (2004) Institutional racism in child welfare. In J. Everett, S. Chipungu & B. Leashore (Eds.) Child welfare revisited (pp. 57-76). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
  55. Hill, R. B (2006) Synthesis of research on disproportionality in child welfare: An update. Casey-CSSP Alliance for Racial Equity in Child Welfare.
  56. Wulczyn, F. Lery, B., Haight, J., (2006) Entry and Exit Disparities in the Tennessee Foster Care System. Chapin Hall Discussion Paper.
  57. National Incidence Study (NIS), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, (1996)
  58. Pope, C.E. & Feyerherm, W. (1995) Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System Research Symmary. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
  59. Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, No. 05-16071
  60. Title 42 United States Code Section 1983
  61. “Civil Rights Complaint Guide”.
  62. “Santosky v. Kramer, 455 US 745 – Supreme Court 1982”.
  63. “In re TJ, 666 A. 2d 1 – DC: Court of Appeals 1995”.
  64. “South Bay sex-abuse lawsuit: Ex-foster child awarded $30 million”.
  65. “Estey & Bomberger announces Jury Awards $30 Million in San Jose Molestation Case”.
  66. “Gresham foster kids abused despite DHS checks”. The Oregonian. 2009-04-04.
  67. “Abuse in children’s foster care: State officials call for outside review”. The Oregonian. 2009-09-02.
  68. “Florida Foster Care Child Molestation”.
  69. “Foster parent, 79, accused of molesting girls in his care”.
  70. “Child of rape now 9, yet DCF settlement held up”.
  71. “Florida Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 60”.
  72. “Florida Senate – 2010”.
  73. Charlie and Nadine H. v. McGreevey
  74. “New Jersey (Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine)”.
  75. “Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine”.
  76. “Legal Documents (Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine)”.
  77. “Results of Reform”.
  78. “Order Granting Fees Incurred on Appeal”.
  79. “U.S. Supreme Court Denies Orange County’s (California) Request”.
  80. “News10 – Couple still unclear why CPS took their baby”.
  81. http://archive.news10.net/news/local/article/248770/476/CPS-case-against-Nikolayev-family-dismissed
  82. Bakalar, Nicholas (2010-10-11). “Doubts Rise Over Child Protective Service Inquiries”. The New York Times.

Notes

  • Drake, B. & Jonson-Reid, M. (2007). A response to Melton based on the Best Available Data. Published in: Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 31, Issue 4, April 2007, Pages 343-360.
  • Laird, David and Jennifer Michael (2006). “Budgeting Child Welfare: How will millions cut from the federal budget affect the child welfare system?” Published in: Child Welfare League of America, Children’s Voice, Vol. 15, No. 4 (July/August 2006). Available on-line at: http://www.cwla.org/voice/0607budgeting.htm.
  • Pecora, Peter J., James K. Whittaker, Anthony N. Maluccio, with Richard P. Barth and Robert D. Plotnick (1992). The Child Welfare Challenge: Policy, Practice, and Research. NY:Aldine de Gruyter. ISBN .
  • Petr, Christopher G. (1998). Social Work with Children and their Families: Pragmatic Foundations. NY:Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-510607-5.
  • Scott, Brenda (1994), “Out of Control. Who’s Watching Our Child Protection Agencies?”. Huntington House Publishers. ISBN paper. ISBN hardback.

External links

The Future of Children


http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=40&articleid=136&sectionid=894

 

FROM THE HOME PAGE OF THE LINK ABOVE: 

Law

The bedrock assumption underlying child welfare policy is that children are better off if raised by their natural parents.1 This preference for the role of natural parents is codified in law and provides the rationale for retaining reunification as a core outcome for children placed in foster care.2 Parents have the fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control of their children, and it is presumed that, until or unless proven otherwise, they will act in a child’s best interest.3

 

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized the autonomy of the natural family and grants wide latitude to parents, the court does acknowledge the interest of the state to protect and promote children’s welfare and to assure that children have permanent homes.4 The exercising of this authority emphasizes that a child is not the absolute property of a parent, although state action is limited to situations in which parents are proven unfit or unwilling to perform parental duties and obligations.5 Because the presumption favoring parents has to be set aside before any other caregiving arrangements are pursued (assuming the parents do not consent), reunification has to remain the primary goal of child welfare services until a permanent decision regarding parents’ abilities to carry out their responsibilities can be made.

 

The Future of Children site has a lot of good information, the problem is CPS does not adhere to policies, laws, regulations, or standards. Its all just words on paper and children being illegally seized from their families.

For more information please visit the link above.

Why Do So Many Parents Just Give Up?


BECAUSE IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERTURN THE TERMINATION OF THEIR RIGHTS! IF YOU ARE STILL GOING TO DEPENDENCY COURT YOU MUST OBJECT TO THE SOCIAL WORKERS’S LIES AND FALSIFIED EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD (IN COURT DURING THE HEARING.) IN ORDER TO HAVE ANY CHANCE ON APPEAL. This is Very important. The courtroom may seem very intimidating but you must speak out! Make yourself heard in court.
SO MANY PEOPLE FEEL THAT THERE IS NO HOPE BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS SO DEEP IN OT’S OWN AGENDA THAT NO ONE OF AUTHORITY WILL LISTEN OR THEY ARE ALREADY AWARE OF THIS STEALING OF CHILDREN AND LET IT CONTINUE. Thank God for Tim Donnelly, HE IS TRYING TO HELP US! BLESS YOU TIM DONNELLY.

THOUSANDS OF PARENTS WHOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN TERMINATED ARE FORCED TO ACCEPT THEIR LOSS AND ARE TOLD BY FRIENDS AND FAMILY TO “JUST GET OVER IT”. HOW THE HELL CAN ANYONE SAY THAT TO A PARENT WHOSE HEART IS SO BROKEN THEY DON’T WANT TO LIVE ANOTHER MINUTE? WOULD IT BE NICE TO SAY THAT TO A PARENT WHOSE CHILD DIED IN A TRAGIC ACCIDENT? OF COURSE NOT! THEN WHY WOULD ANYONE SAY THAT TO A PARENT WHO FEELS THAT THEIR CHILD WAS STOLEN? THE GOVERNMENT F_KS EVERYTHING UP WHY IN GOD’S NAME DOES EVERYONE BELIEVE THAT CPS IS ANY DIFFERENT FROM SAY, TSA?

Detention Hearing AUDIT


For California Juvenile Dependency Courts

AUDIT THE HEARINGS! THIS IS A DETENTION HEARING PACKET I PUT TOGETHER. IT CATERS TO NEWBIES BUT ITS GOOD INFORMATION FOR ALL PARENTS AND GUARDIANS STILL GOING TO COURT. YOU CAN GO BACK AND GET THE DETENTION HEARING TRANSCRIPTS & MINUTE ORDER AND DO THE AUDIT NO MATTER WHAT STAGE YOUR CASE IS IN OR EVEN IF IT IS CLOSED.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_PlDs4d_B_lTWRydmRQaThWcU0/edit?usp=sharing

A Cannon A Day For Judges Astray


Image

PROOF THAT YOU DON’T HAVE TO SIGN THE CASE PLAN


In California: According to CPS’s Manual of Policies and Procedures you do not have to sign the case plan in order to receive services. All it does is contractually bind you to it,

No Signature Required for Case Plan

 CPS/JUVENILE DEPENDENCY COURT IS CIVIL. NOT CRIMINAL AND NOT FAMILY LAW. The rules of evidence are the same as in Civil Court and disobeying an “order” is merely a contempt of court issue.

I got this clip from CA Policy Revision Update which clearly states the Department’s PRIORITIES AND VALUES. IS it just me or is it obvious that the welfare of children is not their main concern?

(if this image is not clear, click on it and it will pop up in a new window and it will be readable)

CPS's 'STATED VALUES

SAFETY:

OF WHO? THE SOCIAL WORKERS!

TIMELY PERMANENCY:

SO THEY CAN GET THE ADOPTION INCENTIVE MONEY SOONER

REDUCING RELIANCE ON OUT-OF-HOME-CARE:

AGAIN, THIS IS PART OF ‘PERMANENCY’ AS THEY GET MORE FUNDING FROM ADOPTIONS THAN FOR FOSTER CARE

REDUCING THE RISK OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE:

WHY IS THIS EVEN AN ISSUE IF THE FOSTER HOMES ARE SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE PARENT’S HOME THAT THEY EVEN PLACE THEM THERE TO BEGIN WITH? “OK. LET’S TAKE THIS KID FROM THESE PARENTS BECAUSE FOSTER CARE IS SO PERFECT AND THE FOSTER PARENTS ARE SO MUCH BETTER THAT WE NEVER EVEN HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT CHILDREN GETTING HURT THERE”

OBVIOUSLY THERE IS AT LEAST ENOUGH ABUSE IN FOSTER CARE TO MAKE THIS  PRIORITY RIGHT????

CHILD  WELL-BEING:

THIS IS LISTED LAST, ALMOST LIKE SOMEONE ALMOST FORGOT TO WRITE IT! DOES THIS NOT SHOW THAT THEY REALLY DON’T CARE ABOUT KIDS? I FIND SO MANY THINGS LIKE THIS. I AM PUTTING TOGETHER A COLLECTION OF THEM.

Abuse in out of home care

Coming Soon to a Blog near you: CPS “PRIORS” THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY. Lawsuits against CPS, social workers gone worse, foster parents who are criminally charged for abuse and murder, CPS’s failures and Judges gone wild.

HOW & WHY THEY GET AWAY WITH STEALING CHILDREN


We have said before, this can happen to ANYONE. Want to know why? Because the Supreme Courts do not recognize YOUR right to be a parent or your CHILD’S right to be raised by you. The Supreme Court’s opinion includes the notion that losing your child in no way compares to losing your freedom of movement (being in jail). This sets the standard for all lower courts.

Well, maybe for a person who does not give a hoot about their child it would be no comparison but I will tell you what, for the rest of us, who adore their children, losing the right to even SEE your child is like a DEATH SENTENCE!

According to the Supreme Court, a parent or child’s right to counsel is not guaranteed by the 6th Amendment in the Constitution because it is not a “criminal” case. So giving this theory a fair shot, in all criminal cases, even for misdemeanors where the maximum sentence is a mere 6 months in jail or even a fine, a person has a right to counsel. I don’t think a few months in jail or merely a fine compares to losing your child forever do you? But in  misdemeanor cases you have a right to counsel but in dependency proceedings you do not have a constitutional right to counsel and neither does your child. They attempt to “explain” it saying that the dependency and termination of parental rights process is to “protect” children but that is just the cover for what is really going on..

habeas3

habea

“ONLY MARGINAL OR QUESTIONABLE BENEFIT TO THE PARENT”???

habeas2

“THE GOD-GIVEN-RIGHT OF PARENTS TO THE CARE CUSTODY AND COMPANIONSHIP OF THEIR CHILDREN….IS NOT ABSOLUTE BUT IS SUBJECT TO THE OVERRIDING PRINCIPLE THAT IS THE ULTIMATE WELFARE OR BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD WHICH MUST PREVAIL”

MAYBE, ONLY MAYBE, in cases where a child has been tortured by their parent should this apply.

counsel2

But

THIS IS WHY AND HOW IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE! EVEN YOU! Do NOT say that you don’t have anything to worry about because someone can call the hotline at ANY GIVEN MOMENT and say anything they want about you and not have to prove it at all. GOD WILL NOT PROTECT YOU either. If He wants you to SUFFER HE will MAKE you suffer and all the praying in the world will NOT help you. YOU ARE VULNERABLE EVERY SINGLE SECOND, OF EVERY SINGLE DAY UNTIL YOUR CHILD TURNS 18.

And then all you have to worry about is APS-Adult Protective Services where they do the SAME THING to people only they do it to the children when they are caring for their parents.

Child Welfare Information Gateway-Endless Information


Here is a link to a site for so much information that it is almost overwhelming. If the information you are looking for isn’t here, they provide a link to it. Keep in mind a lot of this information is based on some non-sense, meaning the information that they want you to think and believe however, if you understand how they think, you can use their thinking against them. Hopefully that makes sense. I will post my findings sometime soon hopefully, as I am trying to decipher what is real and what is not. Click “Like” if you understand.

 

https://www.childwelfare.gov/

Constitutional Law Summary for Parents (MAKE CPS COURTS FOLLOW THE LAW)


Donnelly Justice writes

These are the laws they don’t want you to know   The dog book is refereed to as The dependency quick guide and is a wonderful tool to have. There is an extension in the side box for the dependency quick guide as well as the material below to help you win.

Every parent must read this before going into CPS court, do not back down.  I have personally had the minute orders include things that were never said and the transcripts proved it. There have been many cases of transcripts getting changed as well. DO NOT go into this courtroom with the idea that they are ignorant to the constitutionality of CPS because they are the leaders. I can’t tell you to turn your phone on record during these proceedings but I would and I would hang on to it. You have to do what is best for you.

CPS is a,Juvenile court law under ( California rules of civil procedure ), Natural laws do apply.  If your lawyer does not follow the law you must file a complaint with the board if your lawyer doesn’t follow your rights. Complain for ineffective counsel  Object if he doesn’t object to incorrect statements or allegations.   If you do not object you can not file an appeal on those issues and are considered true.  Do not let your lawyer run you, he doesn’t care about you or your child the way you do,  he does this everyday.  Know everything you can in these courts. You are your child’s best interest.  Take your time and read through our website if we haven’t written about it then you will find link for it. The dog book is refereed to as The dependency quick guide is a very important guide for these JV courts.

I am mot a lawyer but I would do what ever it takes to protect my child.  You do what you feel is best.  I am here just to share my experience and find a way for good parents to have fighting chance.

God Bless and may the lord watch and guard you by pacing a hedge of protection around you.  The parent is always in the child’s best interest.

created by Daniel Lee,  ACFC Associate Director

Family Law Reference for Parents

This is the first update to a paper written as a guide for parents and legal professionals on family law. Primarily it is the words of the judges themselves, with some commentary to help explain concepts. Upon updating it became so complicated that it needed to be divided into two parts, and this is now the introductory one. If you wish to learn in more depth, this documents big brother (with full case citations) is available to officers of Childs Best Interest, or to judges and state attorney generals when they send a request on their letterhead to: 357 Dove Valley Collierville, TN 38017.

The relation between family and constitutional law needs to be clearly understood. Constitutional law has “bright lines” that identify areas where the state cannot tread. As of today all states’ family law consists of a jumble of rules and practices, many of which have little to no relation to these bright lines. The ensuing disorder allows judges great and improper discretion.

As I update the original paper, and so to with writing the original, no help was provided from legal professionals. We told hundreds of lawyers, judges, appellate justices, law school professors, state representatives and senators, and attorney generals about the problems in family law. None attempted to refute or add to the information. On a better note, many good rulings have recently been released by the Tennessee Middle and Eastern Section Appellate Courts. Nevertheless, it is clear today there is total failure in family law, and the legal profession in general.

Most of the research and development fell to me, with others providing real and useful input. Don, Chuck, and Dennis, of Ohio PACE, Mike “MD/JD” in California, Murray in Virginia, Karen in Alabama, members of Childs Best Interest across the U.S., and shared parenting advocates who acted as sounding boards and provided assistance in other small or large ways. Also help from the kind student librarians at the University of Memphis Law School Library was very useful and appreciated.

Today in most family law cases attorneys are not raising a constitutional shield to protect their clients. And when they fail to do that, a very cruel thing happens. Not only are one or both parent’s ability to parent their child indefinitely suspended with the state taking permanent jurisdiction of their child, but in legal terminology they will be considered to have voluntarily waived their right to parent their child! That’s pretty harsh to say a parent has voluntarily given this up, when it was only the attorney who failed to raise the constitutional arguments, but that’s the legal standard. If you are a parent not in an intact married relationship, or out of one and haven’t been designated the primary caregiver, somewhere along the line you surrendered your right to parent your child.

The following pages are to help all parents understand their rights in relation to raising their children. Having this knowledge will allow you to defend yourself and your child if ever required.

This document may be freely reproduced, and if doing so please credit the author. If you are in an actual case, please remember this information is not legal advice. Every case is unique and must be tailored accordingly by a litigant acting as their own attorney, or an actual one.

Section 1 Controlling Law

Sections of the Constitutions where parental rights derive

The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Santosky v. Kramer United States Supreme Court (1982)

The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Doe v. Irwin United States District Court of Michigan (1977)

Tennessee’s historically strong protection of parental rights and the reasoning of federal constitutional cases convince us that parental rights constitute a fundamental liberty interest under Article I, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution Hawk v. Hawk Tennessee Supreme Court (1993)

Parents have comparable interests under our state constitutional protections of liberty and privacy rights. “The right to the custody and control of one’s child is a fiercely guarded right in our society and in our law. It is a right that should be infringed upon only under the most compelling circumstances.” Brooks v. Parkerson Georgia Supreme Court (1995)

A parent’s constitutionally protected right to rear his or her children without state interference, has been recognized as a fundamental “liberty” interest protect by the Fourteenth Amendment and also as a fundamental right derived from the privacy rights inherent in the constitution. In re Smith Washington Supreme Court (1998)

[A] parent’s right to the care, custody, and control of his or her children is a fundamental right protected by article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. Santi v. Santi Iowa Supreme Court (2001)

Parental Autonomy is the condition that exists when a child is not subject to a judge’s jurisdiction

Parental autonomy is grounded in the assumption that natural parents raise their own children in nuclear families, consisting of a married couple and their children. The family has been seen as the “basic building block” of society. Parental autonomy strengthens the family and the entire social fabric “by encouraging parents to raise their children in the best way they can by making them secure in the knowledge that neither the state nor outside individuals may ordinarily intervene.” In re Smith Washington Supreme Court (1998) Note 1: We are aware of 1 parent outside of an intact married family receiving parental autonomy via a consent order. Wickman v. Dixon No.DR-96-1360.01C p.489. Note 2: Presumably parental autonomy exists in adoptive families with either one or two parents, and in natural parents who have sole custody with the other parent’s rights terminated, so it is not tied to married parents.

Parental Rights are Fundamental Liberty Interests

The liberty interest at issue in this case – – the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children — is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court Troxel v. Granville United States Supreme Court (2000)

It is well-settled that parents have a liberty interest in the custody of their children. Hence, any deprivation of that interest by the state must be accomplished by procedures meeting the requirements of due process.” Hooks v. Hooks United States Court of Appeals (1985)

Indeed, the right to rear one’s children is so firmly rooted in our culture that the United States Supreme Court has held it to be a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Hawk v. Hawk Tennessee Supreme Court (1993)

Parental Rights also contain Fundamental Privacy Interests

“[p]rivate realm of family life which the state cannot enter” Prince v. Massachusetts United States Supreme Court (1944)

Throughout this century, this Court also has held that the fundamental right to privacy protects citizens against governmental intrusion in such intimate family matters as procreation, child-rearing, marriage, and contraceptive choice. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey United States Supreme Court (1992)

Statutes and rulings that infringe upon fundamental rights are presumptively unconstitutional, and a substantial burden rests on the state, not citizen, to prove its case

It is well settled that, quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law “impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution it is presumptively unconstitutional.” Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980)

The application of strict scrutiny is not flexible at all, and I can find no case in this state where application of this standard has resulted in upholding the challenged law. With the adoption of strict scrutiny, this Court has forced the State of Tennessee into an “all-or-nothing” scenario, where only the most impeccably drafted legislation withstands the slightest possibility of darkening the constitutional doorway. Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v. Sundquist Tennessee Supreme Court (2000) Note: This citation goes beyond saying infringements on fundamental parental rights are presumptively unconstitutional, and clearly states essentially no legislative restrictions on parents will be upheld.

If the classification affects fundamental rights however, there is no presumption of constitutionality, and the classification will be sustained only if justified by a compelling state interest. Coles v. Ryan Illinois Appeals Court (1980)

==============================

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees Due Process and Equal Protection to all

“[n]o state shall.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” U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1

==============================

The state must meet a threshold prior to infringing upon fundamental rights

First, according to the Washington Supreme Court, the Constitution permits a State to interfere with the right of parents to rear their children only to prevent harm or potential harm to a child. Section 26.10.160(3) fails that standard because it requires no threshold showing of harm. Troxel v. Granville United States Supreme Court (2000)

The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness, abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in the State and Federal Constitutions” In re J.P. Utah Supreme Court (1982)

Likewise, following the analysis of the Tennessee Supreme Court in interpreting its state statutes and constitutions, we find that implicit in Georgia cases, statutory and constitutional law is that state interference with parental rights to custody and control of children is permissible only where the health or welfare of a child is threatened. Brooks v. Parkerson Georgia Supreme Court (1995)

For the constitutional requirement to be satisfied, before visitation can be ordered over the objection of the child’s parents, a court must find an actual harm to the child’s health or welfare without such visitation. Williams v. Williams Virginia Supreme Court (1998)

Examples of Tennessee’s threshold standard

In 1993 in a grandparent visitation case the Tennessee Supreme Court held, “we believe that when no substantial harm threatens a child’s welfare, the state lacks a sufficiently compelling justification for the infringement on the fundamental right of parents to raise their children as they see fit.” Hawk v. Hawk Tennessee Supreme Court (1993)

In a 1995 parent vs. third party custody case, “Therefore, in a contest between a parent and a non-parent, a parent cannot be deprived of the custody of a child unless there has been a finding, after notice required by due process, of substantial harm to the child. Only then may a court engage in a “best interest of the child” evaluation in making a determination of custody.” In re Adoption of a Female Child Tennessee Supreme Court (1995)

In a 1999 parental rights termination case, “Therefore Bond stands for the proposition that a natural parent may only be deprived of custody of a child upon a showing of substantial harm to the child.” In re Askew Tennessee (1999)

A July 2001 parental abuse case, “In furtherance of that goal, and in the best interests of Pamela due to a threat of substantial harm, the juvenile court ordered a termination of visitation.” “Although parents’ have a right to raise, care for and have the companionship of their child under both Tennessee and U.S. Constitutions, these rights can be infringed upon if the court finds substantial harm threatens a child’s welfare.” “The court made clear that there must be a threshold finding of harm before the state can intervene in a parent-child relationship; however, once this finding of harm to the child is made, a determination of custody is made based on the “best interest of the child”. This threshold finding of substantial harm was made when Pamela was found by the juvenile court to be abused, dependent, and neglected and removed form the custody of her parents and placed in foster care.” DCS v. Cox Tennessee Appeals Court (2001)

An August 2001 divorced parent v. parent case, “We believe the parents’ constitutional right of privacy as found by our Supreme Court in Hawk is applicable here where we have two fit parents, even if those parents are now divorced. Additionally, we believe the constitutional rights under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution are worthy of the same protection as is the constitutional right to privacy discussed in Hawk. Accordingly, the Trial Court could not restrict Father’s otherwise lawful possession of a firearm absent a showing of risk of substantial harm to the child. The Trial Court made no such finding.” Stillwell v. Stillwell Tennessee Appeals Court (2001) Note: This may be the first and only U.S. case where a harm standard was applied to divorced parents.

A standardized threshold (bright-line rule) is needed

Many threshold terms are in use, and the best seems to be “severe harm”. It has a proper sense of urgency which strikes a balance between too low of threshold terms such as “harm” which implies virtually no barrier, and too high of ones like “serious danger” implying an impossible hurdle. When combined with the designation as a “bright line rule” that cuts cleanly and clearly between the state and parents in all circumstances, a trial judge will have no problem properly applying family law to any circumstance that he or she faces.

The state may not apply the best interest of the child standard nor infringe in the parent-child relationship prior to proving that a child is in severe harm

We too, agree that neither the legislature nor a court may properly intervene in parenting decisions absent significant harm to the child from those decisions. In so holding, we approve the logic of Santosky v. Kramer which applied a two-step process to child neglect cases leading to foster family placement. In Santosky, the Supreme Court approved New York’s bifurcated proceeding requiring the state first to establish paternal unfitness before placing a child in foster care. This procedure assures parents that a “best interest of the child” analysis will not pit them against potential foster parents; rather, the state consider a child’s “best interests” until the natural parents have been declared unfit. Hawk v Hawk Tennessee Supreme Court (1993) Note: In a case where parental rights are infringed to a much lesser degree than in a parent v. parent custody case, the Tennessee Supreme Court clearly states parents must be declared “unfit” prior to “best interests” being applied.

The proof in this case supports the trial court’s finding that the father is not unfit to have custody, and that he has developed a substantial relationship with the child. It shows that the child is in no danger of substantial harm. The father, therefore, has a fundamental interest in parenting the child which precludes a “best interest” determination of custody. Petrosky v. Keene Tennessee Supreme Court (1995)

If the threshold of severe harm is found, any orders issued must be so as no less restrictive remedies can be contemplated

To satisfy strict scrutiny, the State must show that a statute furthers a compelling state interest by the least restrictive means practically available. Bernal v. Fainter United States Supreme Court (1984)

Requiring a State to demonstrate a compelling interest and show that it has adopted the least restrictive means of achieving that interest is the most demanding test known to constitutional law. City of Boerne v. Flores United States Supreme Court (1997)

T.C.A. § 36-6-101(a)(1) “In a suit for annulment, divorce or separate maintenance, where the custody of a minor child or minor children is a question, the court may,.award the care, custody and control of such child or children.as the welfare and interest of the child or children may demand” Note: This is Tennessee’s custody statute for divorcing parents. No harm threshold is present, nor any requirement for narrow tailoring. This statute is facially unconstitutional on two grounds.

A statute must be followed as written

When “the language contained within the four corners of a statute is plain, clear and unambiguous, the duty of the courts is simple and obvious, ‘to say sic lex scripta, and obey it.” Hawks v. City of Westmoreland Tennessee Supreme Court (1997)

Thus, a court must “presume that the legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” A statute, therefore, must be construed as it is written. Berryhill v. Rhodes Tennessee Supreme Court (2000)

T.C.A. § 36-6-301 After making an award of custody, the court shall, upon request of the non-custodial parent, grant such rights of visitation as will enable the child and the non-custodial parent to maintain a parent-child relationship. Note: A reasonable definition of the clause “enable the child and the non-custodial parent to maintain a parent-child relationship” is two to three overnights per week. Tennessee courts routinely allow moveaways, long stretches (weeks/months/years) where no parenting occurs, and other restrictions such as every other weekend visitation. All of these circumstances violate their own case law, “the language contained within the four corners of a statute is plain, clear and unambiguous, the duty of the courts is simple and obvious, ‘to say sic lex scripta, and obey it.”, and can be challenged on this basis.

Parental rights are identical between natural parents, without regard to gender or marital status

The Constitution protects “the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children.” Stanley v. Illinois United States Supreme Court (1972)

“The parent and child relationship extends equally to every child and to every parent, regardless of the marital status of the parents.” Johnson v. Calvert California Supreme Court (1993)

The Nales’ position that this Court in Hawk limited the protection of parental rights to an “intact, nuclear family with fit parents” is untenable. Nale v. Robertson Tennessee Supreme Court (1994)

Parental Alienation

It is clear to this Court that both parents love their children. What concerns this Court most, however, and was apparently a concern to the trial court, is Wife’s blatant attempt to alienate the affections of the children from their father. When loved by both parents, children should be taught to love and respect each parent equally. The reciprocation, in turn, will garner self-respect and a positive self image in the children. The record in this case lends absolutely no reason as to why the children should not be encouraged to respect and love their father. We do not find the record to show that Wife has supported such a healthy relationship between parent and child. Although Wife testified otherwise, her actions speak loud and clear. Varley v. Varley Tennessee Appeals Court (1996)

Effect on the parent-child relationship by being apart

Between parent and child, there is no monster like separateness. It can grow even faster than children, shutting first the heart, then the home, then history. Brooks v. Parkerson Georgia Supreme Court (1995)

Friendly Parent Doctrine

The Court stressed, the parent-child relationship “undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” Stanley v. Illinois United States Supreme Court (1972)

Custody and visitation arrangements should promote the development of a healthy relationship between children and both their parents. Solima v. Solima Tennessee Appeals Court (1998)

Parent vs. Third Party Custody

Therefore, in a contest between a parent and a non-parent, a parent cannot be deprived of the custody of a child unless there has been a finding, after notice required by due process, of substantial harm to the child. Only then may a court engage in a “best interest of the child” evaluation in making a determination of custody.” In re Adoption of a Female Child Tennessee Supreme Court (1995)

Biological parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of their children under both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. These parental rights are superior to the rights of others and continue without interruption unless a biological parent consents to relinquish them, abandons his or her child, or forfeits his or her parental rights by some conduct that substantially harms the child. O’ Daniel v. Messier Tennessee Appeals Court (1995)

Grandparent/third party visitation

This appeal presents the issue of the constitutionality of Georgia’s “Grandparent Visitation Statute”, OCGA § 19-7-3. We hold that the statute is unconstitutional under both our state and federal constitutions, and reverse the trial court’s order to the contrary. Brooks v. Parkerson Georgia Supreme Court (1995)

Children in state care

Judge Quinones, a Family Court Judge with eight years of experience, described the conditions of detention as follows:

“Then again, Juvenile Center, as much as we might try, is not the most pleasant place in the world. If you put them in detention, you are liable to be exposing these youngsters to all sorts of things. They are liable to be exposed to assault, they are liable to be exposed to sexual assaults. You are taking the risk of putting them together with a youngster that might be much worse than they, possibly might be, and it might have a bad effect in that respect.”

Many other observers of the circumstances of juvenile detention in New York have come to similar conclusions. Schall v. Martin United States Supreme Court (1984)

1st Amendment Protest Guarantees

We have recognized that the First Amendment reflects a “profound national commitment” to the principle that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” This has led us to scrutinize carefully any restrictions on public issue picketing. Boos v. Barry United States Supreme Court (1988)

The traditional approach sets forth a bright-line rule: any restriction on speech, the application of which turns on the content of the speech, is a content-based restriction regardless of the motivation that lies behind it. Boos v. Barry United States Supreme Court (1988)

Pro-Se litigant’s pleadings

Pro se litigant’s pleadings should not be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers. “Significantly, the Haines case involved a pro se complaint – as does the present case – which requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer. Puckett v. Cox United States Court of Appeals (1972)

Section 2 Persuasive Arguments

Thus, apart from constitutional problems of using the best interest of the child standard without a prerequisite showing of harm, the vagueness and subjectivity of such a standard lends itself to an invasion of family privacy which is abhorrent to our current society. Kathleen Bean (1985-86) Grandparent Visitation: Can the Parent Refuse? Note: This statement is equally applicable to all invasions of the parent-child relationship.

The bible advises input from both parents; “Hear, my son, your father’s instruction, and reject not your mother’s teaching;” Proverbs 1:8 Revised Standard Version

Hubin, Donald (1999). Parental Rights and Due Process. University of Utah Journal of Law & Family Studies Volume 1 Number 2, 123-150. Note: The best article on unconstitutionality of family law.

See at: http://www.cohums.ohio-state.edu/philo/people/faculty/hubin.1/Research/P RDP.PDF

See Childs Best Interest website generally for useful information: http://childsbestinterest.org

Section 3 Traps

When a legal action is initiated which involves a child, if a parent is not residing in the same home as the child, he or she will presumptively be considered as the non-custodial parent. The only way to avoid this trap is to not leave the home, or allow your child to be taken out of it.

When hiring an attorney, one of the first things they do is request financial information. This is because they are mentally figuring how much wealth they will be able to transfer to themselves.

At the filing of a legal action involving a child, if a temporary injunction is issued to maintain the status quo (keep the child under the care of one parent), the excluded parent will presumptively be considered as non-custodial. Any pre-trial orders which impede your ability to parent your child can be immediately appealed. If you wait for trial, you will waive your right to later raise these issues.

Pre-trial if a parent consents to pay child support, the judge and both attorneys will take this as a signal that he or she agrees to be the non-custodial parent.

Any consent order a parent agrees to (even if it comes after a contested hearing) cannot be appealed. You do not have to “consent” to anything, even if your attorney says otherwise. Remember, attorneys are officers of the court, and quite possibly friends with the judge and opposing attorney. They are required to zealously represent you, and to uphold the constitution. Expect neither.

Normally an investigation of the parents will be done. This can be anything from a college volunteer working for CASA, an attorney called a Guardian Ad Litem, a private investigator, up to a pediatric psychologist. The job of all these folks is to invade the privacy of your relationship with your child, and transfer as much wealth as possible to themselves. Also you will either be encouraged or mandated to attend counseling, to achieve the same goals. Using the above constitutional citations you can object to any invasion of your privacy and your child’s. If you fail to object, you waive your rights.

At trial your attorney can have a pre-trial brief prepared which carefully identifies the applicable laws and how your case applies to those laws (including of course constitutional law). Very few attorneys will do this. Most will present your case with no reference to any laws whatsoever, and simply allow the judge to rule as he or she wishes.

Also at trial both parents are considered to be voluntarily submitting the question of child custody to the court. Your attorney can assert that you do not want custody of your child decided by the state. If you don’t do this, it will be considered waived for appeal purposes, as will any applicable state and constitutional laws not raised by your attorney in his or her oral arguments.

If you ask that the law be followed in your case, expect intimidation tactics such as your attorney threatening to resign, or being told visitation with your child will be reduced. If any of this happens, request a brochure or other method whereby you can file a complaint with your state board of responsibility against the unlawful attorney. To make a complaint call: 1-800-486-5714

If you receive an unfavorable decision at trial, your attorney can file a motion to reconsider, or a notice of appeal. If you are appealing there are strict time limits on this, which if not followed will cause your case to be thrown out. If you consent to anything at trial, it will not be appeallable.

Appeals are usually taken to a state appellate court, then if needed an application is filed to your state supreme court (they may be called another name). The state supreme court has discretion whether to take your case or not, and they probably won’t take it. If your state supreme court does not give you a favorable ruling, you can appeal properly preserved constitutional questions to the United State Supreme Court, which virtually never takes a family law case. Wherever your case finally stops, it will be considered final.

Section 4 Legal Primer

There are three types of law, constitutional, statutory, and case. Constitutional law is primarily what this paper consists of, it is written by the people, and everyone must follow it. Statutory law is created by your state legislature, and the judges and all citizens must follow it as written. Case law is the judge’s interpretation of how constitutional and statutory law apply to individual cases. Most libraries will have copies of your state constitution, and statutory laws.

Solima v. Solima 7 S.W.3d 30, at 33 (Tenn.App.1998)

Being able to read case citations is very important as this enables you to look up and verify the original. In the above example the “style” of the case is Solima v. Solima, and these of course are the two parties at odds.

The next part 7 S.W.3d 30 tells you the original decision is contained in the “SouthWest” reporters. If you are unable to find them yourself, the law school librarian can show you where they are at. 7 is the volume number, 3d means third edition, and 30 is the page the case begins on. The at 33 is the specific page where the quote you are referring to is at, and (Tenn.App.1998) tells you the court that issued the decision and year it did so. If you see a case citation that has only the year listed without any court, such as (2000), that is a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. NY or Utah would be a state supreme court, U.S.D.C. is a federal court, and U.S.C.A. is a federal appeals court.

If you are starting from scratch and don’t have a case citation, ask the librarian where the “digests” for your state, or the “Corpus Secundum” are. These allow you to start with a subject, such as “constitutional law”, and look up all of the cases cited in that area.

Summary

Parental rights consist of fundamental liberty and privacy interest, which the state can only infringe upon after finding a child is in severe harm, or severe danger of being harmed. You must properly assert your rights at every stage of litigation, or forever waive them, and your ability to parent your child.

As a final note constitutional rights in general, and parental rights in particular, are being regularly eroded. Amendments to the U.S. and state Constitutions must be enacted to reverse this.

Daniel Lee ACFC Associate Director

© Copyright Daniel Lee 2001 CBI Home: http://childsbestinterest.org ACFC Home: http://www.acfc.org/

 Children Need BOTH Parents!

The American Coalition for Fathers and Children

For Membership information call 1-800-978-DADS or see ACFC’s homepages at: http://www.acfc.org

To subscribe send a message to: acfclist@usa.net Message in subject line: subscribe acfc

To unsubscribe send a message to: acfclist@usa.net Message in subject line: unsubscribe acfc

The ACFC List Serve provides timely information to fathers, second wives, and others seeking restoration of fatherhood in America and the world. ACFC does not endorse or approve the views or opinions expressed by contributors, which have been provided only as a service to our list serve subscribers.

YOUR RIGHTS – Know ‘Em or Lose “Em!


No one knows anything about Juvenile Dependency Court, not even those attorneys who handle these cases! I am not joking either.  I have found hundreds of instances of malfeasance, nonfeasance, errors, omissions, violations of court rules and procedures, violations of W & I Statutes & Codes, violations of CPS’s own policies and procedures as well as violations of the statutory requirements set forth by the funding sources (listed below). This is why I know that for any of the attorneys to have missed is cause to determine that they are really really stupid or really really corrupt.  

So, while you anticipate my posting of all those violations, here’s a site that is very informative so check it out:

AFR

http://familyrights.us/info/law/

FROM ABOVE REFERENCE: Violations of Federal and State Statutes, violations of the California Rules of Civil Procedure, Cal. Rules of Juvenile Court, Superior Court of California, County of Riverside Local Rules, violations of the statutes and regulations required by CAPTA, AFSA,  Youkim, SAPT Block Grant, Child Welfare Services Grant (Title IV-B, Subpart 1), PSSF Grant (Title IV-B, Subpart2), Title IV-E, and the SSBG Block Grant.

Blatant disregard for the fundamental rights, privileges and constitutional rights of parents and children. Don’t wait until your children or your friend’s children to be kidnapped by the state, educate yourself and make them do it right!


Social Security IV-E Benefits

Codes, Rules, Regulations

Dpss-cps FAILS CHILDREN AND STEALS GOVERNMENT FUNDING: THEY PRETEND  TO DO THESE THINGS BUT THEY DO NOT: (letters and sentences on paper does not constitute child welfare services actually rendered in accordance with funding requirements)

Sec. 421. [42 U.S.C. 621]  The purpose of this subpart is to promote State flexibility in the development and expansion of a coordinated child and family services program that utilizes community-based agencies and ensures all children are raised in safe, loving families, by—

(1) protecting and promoting the welfare of all children;

(2) preventing the neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children;

(3) supporting at-risk families through services which allow children, where appropriate, to remain safely with their families or return to their families in a timely manner;

(4) promoting the safety, permanence, and well-being of children in foster care and adoptive families; and

(5) providing training, professional development and support to ensure a well-qualified child welfare workforce.

The red text highlighted part is the ONLY thing they do. They remove children from loving homes and put them in foster care and then adopt them out for more money.

 There is something you can do about it

and it is pretty simple.

         First, get copies of your Minute Orders. Just get in the Family Law line in the Court’s Clerks Office (the place in the courthouse that has all those windows) and ask for a copy of every SIGNED Order with the Judge’s signature on it. Oh, bring your ID so they know you are a party to the case. Children over 10 have a right to the case file as well and Minor’s Counsel will provide them for free (they should by law). They may tell you to come back another day to pick them up and they will charge copy fees.  Shouldn’t be more than a few bucks for just the Minute Orders. So, most likely they will give you unsigned Minute Orders which is very common in California anyway.

         When you have the Orders, check out the name of the Court Reporter (not Clerk), it should be in the first few lines, and contact that person to order a copy of the Transcript. Ask how many you can get for one low price but if you have to choose, get the Detention Hearing for sure, Jurisdictional Hearing and/or Disposition Hearing transcripts. California has an online Transcript Request Form you can submit online or by mail. They will contact you, sometimes it takes more than the stated two days, keep bugging them. They will charge approximately $60. I got three hearing transcripts for that price but one would have been the same amount. Go get the money order and send it to the reporter and you should have the transcript in about 2 weeks or sooner if you pay the extra fee.

         Now, the FUN part! When they arrive, give yourself an hour of distraction free time. Get a pencil and a highlighter and compare the transcripts to the Minute Orders. Oh, before you start, make extra copies of each so you’re not writing all over the originals. You are trying to find where the Judge does not say the things that the Minute Order says he said. If the Minute Order says,

“Based on the court’s review of the Application and Detention Hearing Report, the court makes the following findings and orders herein:

Notice given/attempted as required by law.

Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that conditions exist that would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction…

Court orders…Court authorizes..Case plan read…

The Department has provided reasonable efforts to maintain the child in the home but continuance in the home is contrary to the welfare of the child…”

but if the transcript does not show that one or all or any of these were actually spoken on the record, that’s your evidence of FRAUD. DPSS is going to turn in the Minute Order to obtain Social Security Title IV-E funding as this document qualifies them for it. If you provide this proof to The Office of the Inspector General (Social Security Auditor) with a complaint about how DPSS and the courts have treated you and has frauded them and they investigate it to be true, you just GAVE IT TO THEM BIG TIME! RIPPED THEIR MONEY RIGHT OUT OF THEIR SLIMMEY DIRTY HANDS! Good Luck!
Feel free to email me at billandsharon9@msn.com if you have any questions.

Hit CPS Where It Hurts – Funding! / Here’s how


Unreasonable “Reasonable Efforts” Are Common

ReasonableEffortsFunding.

Click on this link BELOW to learn all about the funding sources. Then go through your case file (get a copy from the court clerk, ask for the entire Transcript including the Reporter’s Transcripts – THIS IS IMPORTANT-MAKE SURE THE DETENTION HEARING TRANSCRIPT IS INCLUDED THIS IS THE VERY FIRST HEARING AND EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT THE JUDGE MAKE CERTAIN FINDINGS AND ORDERS. Look through that transcript, compare to the list of required findings found in this article, highlight on the Minute Orders where they CLAIM to have made these findings, then write a complaint letter to:

US Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Inspector General
ATTN: OIG HOTLINE OPERATIONS
PO Box 23489
Washington, DC 20026

HERE IS THE LINK:

http://nc.casaforchildren.org/files/public/community/judges/March_2011/Edwards_3.pdf

Not Giving Up Hope – Federal Civil Action to Prove Malice


OUR ONLY HOPE

An adoption of a child may be overturned:

820.21. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, the civil immunity of juvenile court social workers, child protection workers, and other public employees authorized to initiate or conduct investigations or proceedings pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 200) of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code shall not extend to any of the following, if committed with malice: (1) Perjury. (2) Fabrication of evidence. (3) Failure to disclose known exculpatory evidence. (4) Obtaining testimony by duress, as defined in Section 1569 of the Civil Code, fraud, as defined in either Section 1572 or Section 1573 of the Civil Code, or undue influence, as defined in Section 1575 of the Civil Code. (b) As used in this section, “malice” means conduct that is intended by the person described in subdivision (a) to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct that is carried on by the person described in subdivision (a) with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

My husband and I were falsely arrested and charged of “child stealing” when we took our son from a CPS office visit. According to them, they had legal “custody” of Donnelly however illegal and invalid those unsigned “orders” were, even at face we were only guilty of CONTEMPT OF COURT!!! Take a look”:

213. Any willful disobedience or interference with any lawful order of the juvenile court or of a judge or referee thereof constitutes a contempt of court. PLEASE LORD, MAY AN ATTORNEY SEE THIS POST AND WANT TO HELP ME AND MY FAMILY!!

A LANDMARK APPELLATE DECISION!


IF YOUR CASE IS SIMILAR TO THIS, MAKE SURE YOU MAKE YOUR ATTORNEY REFER TO THIS CASE AND IF THEY DON’T ASK FOR A MARSDENS HEARING AND RELIEVE YOUR ATTORNEY, JUST MAKE SURE YOU GET THIS IN THE TRANSCRIPT – PAST DRUG USE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE RISK AND REFER THE COURT TO THIS CASE:

Case Name: In re Destiny S. , District: 2 DCA , Division: 1 , Case #: B239393
Opinion Date: 10/31/2012 , DAR #: 15121
Case Holding: Juvenile court’s order declaring minor dependent was unsupported by a specific defined risk of harm. The 11-year-old minor Destiny was placed with her mother on voluntary maintenance because she was regularly tardy to school and mother had a history of methamphetamine and marijuana abuse. When mother tested positive for those substances, CPS removed Destiny and filed a petition. The evidence showed that Destiny was a healthy, happy, well-cared-for pre-teen. She no longer had problems with tardiness. Nonetheless, the court removed Destiny, finding that she was at risk of harm because mother was in denial as to her drug habit, and Destiny had a previous history of lateness to school. The appellate court reversed the juvenile court orders. No evidence suggested that Destiny was at risk of imminent physical harm because of her mother’s drug use. Further, mother had tested clean for three months prior to the hearing. The evidence did not support the court’s finding that there was a risk of serious physical harm from parental neglect.

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

CPS what they will not tell you is for the best interest of CPS


CPS WILL FIND A REASON IF THEY ARE CALLED TO YOUR HOME TO REMOVE YOUR CHILDREN. THIS IS A FACT. THIS FRAUD ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND IT WILL NOT STOP UNTIL PEOPLE WAKE UP AND DEMAND ACTION FROM POLITICIANS, STARTING WITH LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE ALL THE WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE. DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY. THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN TRAUMATIZED AND VICTIMIZED BY THIS CORRUPT SYSTEM NEED TO BOMBARD THEM WITH LETTERS ABOUT YOUR HORROR STORIES.

ALL THOSE WITH AUTHORITY ARE THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR FUNDING THESE CRIMINALS. IGNORANT PEOPLE ARE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCEPTING THE CPS STATUS QUO. CPS GETS PAID HUGE PROFITS IN THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING AND INCENTIVES TO TAKE YOUR CHILDREN AND PLACE THEM IN OUT OF HOME FOSTER CARE. THEY DO NOT CARE HOW TRAUMATIZED A CHILD IS WHEN THEY ARE REMOVED AND PLACED WITH A STRANGER WHO DOESN’T CARE ABOUT THEM THE WAY THEIR PARENTS DID. CPS DOES NOT CARE IF THE CHILDREN FEEL SAFE. THIS TRAUMATIZING EVENT WILL NEVER GO AWAY. TRUST IN ADULTS IS COMPLETELY LOST. CPS IS 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO DO ANY KIND OF LEGITIMATE AND TRUE INVESTIGATION BEFORE REMOVAL.

THIS IS ALL PROMOTED FROM BY THE FUNDING AND BONUSES GIVEN FOR REMOVAL. EVERYTHING I HAVE STATED HERE IS FACT. FOLLOW THE MONEY. I HAVE. YOU WILL BE SURPRISED BY WHAT YOU FIND ON HOW DEEP THE CORRUPTION GOES. I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THE MONEY FOR 5 YEARS NOW AND THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS GONE ROUGE.

THE JUDGES ARE GIVEN KICK BACKS, NEVER MIND CONTRIBUTION MONEY ANYMORE. THE ATTORNEYS ALL WORK FOR THE SAME TEAM AND DECIDE YOUR CASE BEFORE YOU EVER GET TO COURT. IN CRIMINAL COURT THIS WOULD BE A CONFLICT AND ILLEGAL, ONE OF THE ATTORNEY’S WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY WORK FOR THE SAME OFFICE.

CPS COURT. ONE ATTORNEY CAN REPRESENT TWO SEPARATE PARTIES IF ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS IS ABSENT, THIS IS NOT REPRESENTATION BY ANY STANDARD.

NO ONE AND I MEAN, NO ONE LOOKS OUT FOR YOUR RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL- EVER. IN FACT THEY ALL LAUGH AT THE WAY YOUR RIGHTS ARE OBLITERATED WHEN THEY GO OUT TO DINNER OR LUNCHES, (NOT LYING I KNOW THESE PEOPLE, AND HAVE WITNESSED THIS) I KNEW AN ATTORNEY WHO WORKED WITH THESE APPOINTED PAID LOSERS AND HE IS NOW SERVING 7 YEARS FOR HIS CRIMES.

THEIR AUTHORITY OVER YOU IS SO COMPLETE THAT IF YOU ATTEMPT TO FIGHT BACK THEY WILL SHOW YOU THEIR PREJUDICE. I HAVE SEEN CHILDREN FROM THE SAME HOME IN THE SAME CASE WHERE ONE RETURNED HOME AND THE OTHER WAS GIVEN UP FOR ADOPTION. NOW HOW IN THE HELL DOES THIS HAPPEN? IF YOU ARE NOT SAFE ENOUGH FOR ONE CHILD HOW CAN YOU BE SAFE ENOUGH FOR THE OTHER? THIS HAPPENS AND YOU CAN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. NO ATTORNEY WILL TAKE YOUR CASE TO SUE UNLESS YOU HAVE CONCRETE EVIDENCE OF WRONG DOING AND IN ALMOST ALL CASES THESE SLOPPY MISTAKES ARE NOT  COVERED UP AND EASILY FOUND IT IF YOU LOOK AT THE ENTIRE CPS CASE FILE. (GO FOR THE APPEAL, GET THE CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL. MAKE SURE ALL OF THE TRANSCRIPTS FROM THE DETENTION HEARINGS ARE INCLUDED). MOST ATTORNEYS DO NOT WANT TO “ROCK THE BOAT” AS THEY ARE ALL BAR MEMBERS. ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE TAKEN ON CPS DON’T WANT TO BECOME “SERIAL” CPS ADVERSARIES.

CPS AND THE COURT PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS AND THEY ARE STEALING CHILDREN WILLY NILLY AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. THE FRAUD BEGINS WITH COERCION AND STARTS WHEN CPS MAKES EVERYONE BELIEVE THEY HAVE TO SIGN THE CASE PLAN TO GET THEIR CHILDREN BACK AND/OR RISK PROSECUTION, THIS NOT TRUE.

IF YOU WERE FACING JAIL CPS COULD NOT STOP IT AND THEY WOULD NOT STOP IT, THEY WOULD SIMPLY WAIT TILL YOU WENT TO JAIL AND TAKE YOUR CHILDREN THEN. THIS IS THE WAY IT WORKS AND NO ONE ELSE WILL TELL YOU THIS.

CPS IS A CONTRACT COURT. YES, CIVIL COURT RULED BY CIVIL RULES. WHEN YOU SIGN THAT CASE PLAN YOU ARE GIVING THEM AUTHORITY OVER YOU AND ADMITTING TO THEIR ALLEGATIONS. THEY SAY IT CAN’T BE USED AGAINST YOU IN COURT BUT THEY DON’T TELL YOU THAT IT CAN’T BE USED AGAINST YOU IN ANY OTHER COURT HOWEVER, TRUTH BE TOLD, THEY CAN AND WILL STILL USE IT AGAINST YOU IF THEY RECEIVE ANOTHER REFERRAL AGAINST YOU. SO DON’T SIGN ANYTHING AND BY LAW IF THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE, REAL EVIDENCE. THEY COME UP WITH GUILTY ON A PREPONERNCE OF EVIDENCE WHICH MEANS “MORE PROBABLE THAN NOT” OR AT MOST MORE THAN 50% LIKELY TO BE TRUE BASED ON ONE-SIDED EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY) THEY HAVE TO RETURN YOU CHILDREN WITH IN 72 HOURS IF THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY REAL EVIDENCE OR YOU CAN PRESS CHARGES FOR KIDNAPPING ON THE PERSON THAT TOOK YOUR CHILD AND I MEAN THE SOCIAL WORKER THIS IS A COLOR OF LAW CRIME, USING THERE AUTHORITY TO CAUSE DAMAGES.

WAKE UP PEOPLE, CPS CAN BE BEAT BUT YOU WILL HAVE TO LEARN WHAT IS HAPPENING TO YOU FIRST. ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE PROFITING OFF OF YOUR HEART. YOUR PAIN WILL NEVER GO AWAY AND THEY DO NOT CARE.

I HAVE SEEN A CASE SO WELL PLANNED OUT THAT THE ADOPTIVE MOM THAT PICKED THE CHILD WAS IN THE COURT ROOM WHEN A PARENTS RIGHTS WERE TERMINATED. WHEN THE PARENTS WENT OUT CRYING THE ADOPTED MOTHER (I WON’T NAME COURTS BUT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AT SW COURTHOUSE IN TEMECULA , CALIFORNIA ON MAY 1, 2012 AND THE COUNSEL FOR A PARENT MAY HAVE BEEN DANIEL VINSON BUT THAT WOULD BE SAYING TOO MUCH SO I WILL KEEP THAT TO MYSELF). YOU HAVE TO, AND I CAN’T STRESS THIS ENOUGH, READ THE LAW ON CIVIL PROCEEDINGS AND THE LAWS ON FAMILY COURTS SO YOU CAN PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN.

ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION: IF YOU NEVER HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH CPS, OR IF YOU HAVE, WHAT IF ONE DAY CPS CAME KNOCKING ON YOUR DOOR AND THE REASON BEING THAT A PERSON, A NEIGHBOR OR EX-WIFE CALLED CPS HOTLINE AND LIED AND SAID SHE SAW YOU DOING DRUGS RECENTLY, OR CLAIM THAT YOU HIT YOUR CHILD OR SAY THAT YOU DON’T CLEAN YOUR HOUSE OR THAT YOUR KID’S CLOTHES ARE ALWAYS DIRTY OR THAT YOU DON’T HAVE ANY FOOD TO FEED YOUR KIDS BECAUSE YOU ASKED TO BORROW A CUP OF SUGAR, OR ANY OF 10,000 REASONS CPS CAN SAY IS “NEGLECT”. CPS WILL NOT LEAVE YOUR CHILD THERE BECAUSE, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO AND THEY GET PAID TO REMOVE THEM. WHAT WILL YOU DO? IS YOUR CHILD WORTH IT TO LEARN AS MUCH AS YOU CAN ABOUT THE LAW IN CPS (CIVIL COURTS CONTRACT LAW)?

IF YOU LOVE YOUR CHILD THE WAY I DO, THAN THE REASON IS OVERWHELMINGLY YES. DON”T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE I DID AND LEARN THE LAW AFTER YOU LOSE YOU CHILD. I PRAY SO HARD EVERYDAY THAT CHILDREN WILL STOP BEING HURT LIKE THIS AND FAMILIES WILL STOP BEING ABSOLUTELY OBLITERATED. THE DAY THE JUDGE REMOVES YOUR PARENTAL RIGHTS AND YOU KNOW IN YOUR HEART YOU WERE “IN THE BEST INTEREST OF YOUR CHILD”, YOUR HEART FALLS TO THE FLOOR AND LOOKS UP AT GOD AND SAYS, “BUT I BELIEVED IN YOU.” THIS IS THE DAY YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO GO ON AND ALL THE EFFORT OF MAKING SURE EVERYTHING YOU DID TO PROTECT YOUR CHILD IS NO LONGER OF ANY KIND OF VALUE. BECAUSE CPS TARGETED YOU FOR A SOURCE OF REVENUE. NOW YOU ARE ON A LIST FOR ABUSIVE PARENTS AND ALL YOU DID WAS LOVE YOUR CHILD.

FACT: CPS DOES PLANT, FORGER, FRAUD, CUT AND PAST FROM OTHER CASES, USE OTHER PEOPLES CRIMINAL RECORDS IN PLACE OF YOUR OWN RECORD, FAKE DRUG TESTS, USE FALSE STATEMENTS, USE FALSE AND PLANTED WITNESSES. I PERSONALLY HAVE REAL CONCRETE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THIS AND WILL SHOW IT TO ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO ASKS. PLEASE ASK. YOU CAN SEE MUCH OF IT ON MY WEB SITE (WWW.DONNELLYJUSTICE.ME)

CPS KNOWS ONCE THEY HAVE TAKEN YOUR CHILD AND YOUR RIGHTS TO YOUR CHILD, PARENTS ARE  LEFT IN SUCH  DEVASTATION BY THERE LOSS,  THAT THERE ISN’T ENOUGH ENERGY, MONEY, OR SUPPORT TO FILE OR AN APPEAL.  I READ A STATEMENT BY A FAMILY COURT  JUDGE THAT THE REMOVAL OF PARENTAL RIGHTS IS THE EQUIVALENT OF THE DEATH PENALTY FOR THE FAMILY AND SHOULD DONE AS THE LAST RESORT, BUT IT HAS BECOME THE NORM AND IS SUCH A DISREGARD FOR THE MOST BEAUTIFUL MEMORIES OF GROWING UP MOST OF US SHARE.  THESE PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS AND MUST BE STOPPED IF WE ARE TO SURVIVE AS A COUNTRY. A GOOD QUESTION TO ASK YOURSELF,  WHO WANTS TO FIGHT FOR A COUNTRY THAT SUPPORTS THE DESTRUCTION OF YOUR FAMILY?

I WILL BACK UP AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING SAID HEREIN, PLEASE GO DO THE RIGHT THING. PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN. EVERYTHING I HAVE WRITTEN HERE IS ON RECORD AND CAN BE VERY EASILY PROVED. FAMILIES ARE NOT PROTECTED AND USED AS A SOURCE OF INCOME, ISN’T THAT RIGHT ATTORNEY DANIEL VINSON? AND SOCIAL WORKER ANTOINE COLEY FROM MORENO VALLEY CPS OFFICE AND SUPERVISOR AMANDA SPRATLY, WITH DIRECTOR SUSAN LEOW’S UNMISTAKABLE OVERSIGHT USING MY FAMILY FOR OVERBILLING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT , AS PROVEN BY YOUR OWN RECORDS. FOR BILLING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHEN WE DIDN’T EVEN HAVE A CASE OPEN. GO AHEAD CHALLENGE ME, I AM TRYING TO GET THIS INTO COURT ANYWAY.

SINCERELY WILLIAM R. BURNS

PROJECTMANAGERBILL@GMAIL.COM

Child declared at imminent risk of (future) neglect, by The Future Police (CPS)


Most people who encounter the so called CPS do indeed find it to be a very dishonest, harmful, fraudulent, oppressive, immoral totalitarian dictatorship that robs its so called clients or victims of not only their basic civil, democratic and constitutional rights, but also their basic inalienable human rights to raise children by treating them like caged animals, who must obey and have their babies taken.

 

The fact that they and their fellow oppressors in the legal system as with lawyers and the courts refusing to give such clients basic due process by not even letting them present their argument, while perpetrating outrageous lies to force seperation and distruction of the  family   by their captors (CPS) as exposed, many times, by numerous sources to ever not consider true. Just type CPS online and you get overwhelmed by horror stories

 

Child Protective Services role as the Child Protector but is really Secret Adoption Police, totalitarian BIG BROTHER dictatorship of the Family. The Family used to be the strength of our country but now has become a threat to Government. WHY? Why would the family become a threat to Government? I ask myself that question all the time. The only answer I can come up with is, because family shares knowledge of who to look out for and who not to trust. Why would this ever become a threat to anyone who is doing the right thing? This is the threat to the family a false government that doesn’t want anyone sharing free thought or ideas.

 

There is a proposal before the US Government in Agenda 29 to make community care givers in charge of raising all the children in the neighborhood run by CPS and, all being taught the government curriculum. This would take away any individuality left and all parents rights would go to the PARENT GOVERNMENT. How much more does our Government need to take away before this country wakes up. I have seen boys town in the news so many times and this is the governments ides of community upbringing, No Thank You. How many more kids do politicians have to abuse before people wake up. Just look up Boys Town and this is Governments Idea of child raising.

 

Foster care is just as bad as boys town. The government has proven itself to be the worst caregiver of children with children exposed to neglect and sexual abuse 9 times higher than homes being investigated by CPS of suspected abuse. CPS is the abuser. Parents who raise children may not be the best but they have an attachment to the child and at the least have a moral obligation to doing a good job raising the child. The first and foremost ability that the parent has that the government, foster care, boys town will never have or be able to offer is feeling needed and the belonging to famiy.

 

A child needs a sense of belonging and love that any successful parent gives. Parents may have what is considered by some as, I don’t like the way they raise there child but if the child is happy, LEAVE THE CHILD ALONE. CPS NEEDS TO SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LISTEN TO THE CHILD, pardon my french but I am passed off.

 

 

My child was very happy and he knows I love him and only care about his true best interest. You found no faults in my home and said in your report Donnelly was a happy loving chilld and the parents took good care of, but you still took my child for future possibility of neglect or harm. That makes CPS the future police. The first question that any investigator with fucking idea of investigation work should be to form a back ground opinion on how I raised my first 4 children?

 

 

My first four children were raised in my home and are all productive members with jobs, have never been in trouble, and came through there childhood spoiled and very loved but CPS with it’s infinite wisdom of unlicensed Social Worker Antoine Coley, Supervisor Amanda Spratley, approved directed Susan Leow, and the Great JUDGE RUSHTON followed by Judge God Monteroso determined my child was at imitate risk of future neglect, and said because in my wifes ex husband was not paying child support, even though I made well over 100,000 a year and did not need the extra money. Where the hell you come up with this determination, you lazy, child stealing for money POS for bonus, immoral abductor, terrorizing for pleasure sick fucks. If you don’t like my language, I have had it with CPS and I am standing up to a terrorizing government who has stolen an innocent child given by god for me to care for as my own. I have no intention of abandoning this obligation ever.

 

William R. Burns writes

DonnellyJustice.me   

More About Foster Care


http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/opinion/editorial-rescuing-palm-beach-countys-foster-care-/nRPcM/

99.6 % of Children in Foster Care are Mistreated


I found an interesting report straight from the Riverside County Clerk of the  Board of Supervisors that proves that more children are mistreated in FOSTER CARE than with their parents! What is the point of CPS then? . CPS is all about the individuals having job security, increasing government interference with our lives and just down right control of the population. People don’t know this, how do we get this information out there?

California: Dependency Quick Guide


I really wish I would have found this publication a long time ago.  It is for attorneys representing children and parents but every parent and mature child needs a copy!

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Dogbook_2Ed_online.pdf

Reasonable Efforts Rulings – Script Lines to Assure Funding


Written by a California Juvenile Dependency Court Judge, this is a good explanation of how the Juvenile Court Judges simply say things for the record just to secure funding,  regardless of the truth or legitimacy. Judges basically have memorized a “script”; simply saying  formalities for receiving federal and state funding. For anyone recently attacked by the Juvenile Dependency con artists, this is a MUST read. Make sure you make your attorney objects to Reasonable Efforts claimed by CPS if CPS really did not offer any services prior to removing your children. If your attorney refuses, SPEAK UP! My husband and I REGRET NOT SPEAKING UP. We know it is hard because they rush you right through like cattle and the proceedings can be very intimidating, especially when they have your kids. We were afraid to “rock the boat” in the courtroom. Besides, they always depicted us in such a negative light, a tool they use to demoralize you and strip you of your self-esteem so you don’t fight them.

This is not the complete summary, click on the link at the bottom to see the entire summary.

Reasonable Efforts: A Judicial Perspective

 Judge Leonard Edwards, Judge-in-Residence

Center for Families, Children and the Courts

California Administrative Office of the Courts

Summary

 Judges must address the reasonable efforts issue. If an agency is to be held accountable for its actions, judges must provide rigorous oversight of agency decisions and actions at critical junctures in each child-protection case.

Juvenile and family court judges have been given significant responsibilities with regards to each state’s child welfare system. Pursuant to federal and state laws, judges must oversee many important social-worker decisions in child protection cases. Judges must decide whether an agency acted properly when it removed a child from parental care, whether it provided parents with adequate supportive services during the reunification period and whether it took appropriate actions to ensure a child was placed in a permanent home.

Judges fulfill their responsibilities by finding that the agency either did or did not exercise reasonable efforts in performing its legal duties. For example, at the shelter care hearing or initial hearing, the technical legal findings that a judge might make are either that:

 •Reasonable efforts have been made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal.

•Reasonable efforts have not been made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal.

 Reasonable efforts is a legal term describing the services and assistance offered by a social service or child protection agency to a child and family members during the life of a child welfare case. It is a term of art, first written into a federal statute—Public Law 96-272, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980—and modified in 1997 by the Adoptions and Safe Families Act (ASFA). Those laws state that a court must make reasonable efforts findings at several critical junctures in each child protection case. First, when a child has been removed from parental care, did the state provide services to eliminate the need for removing the child from the parent?

Second, did the state agency make reasonable efforts to enable the child to be safely reunited with his family?

Third, when the child could not be returned to the parent, did the agency make reasonable efforts to ensure a timely, permanent placement?

Additionally, ASFA added a section that permits states to bypass offering reunification services (reasonable efforts) to parents if parental conduct was so egregious that such efforts would be futile.

In each of these situations, the court has a choice. The court can find that the agency fulfilled its legal obligations to provide adequate services and rule that the agency had made reasonable efforts. If the court finds that the agency did not provide sufficient services or assistance to a child or family, the court would make a finding of no reasonable efforts. Such a finding would have significant fiscal implications for the agency. If federal audits determine that the juvenile court has made no reasonable efforts findings or similar facts indicating that the agency has failed in its obligations to the child and family, the federal government will request reimbursement for some of the Title IV-E funding that it provides to each state to support foster children.

 There is no definition of reasonable efforts in the federal law.

What is reasonable depends on the time, place, and circumstances. What may be reasonable in one community may not be in another. It is the judiciary that ultimately determines what is reasonable. The first decision is rendered by the trial judge and—if the issue is appealed—the appellate court will review that finding.

Case law from several states indicates that, on occasion, the legal process has been used to address the reasonableness of services. For example, in a Rhode Island case, the agency removed children from two homeless families. The trial court ordered the Department for Children and Their Families (DCF) to provide housing assistance as a part of the family reunification plan. DCF objected, claiming that the court had no authority to make such an order and that the cost would be prohibitive. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the trial court finding that housing subsidies were consistent with the purpose of family reunification services.

The supreme court referred to the legislative history and concluded that “Without the power to remedy inadequacies, this check would be illusory.”

In a California case, an incarcerated father was not offered or provided any reunification services after his children had been removed from their mother’s care. When the agency moved to terminate his right to reunification services and moved towards termination of parental rights and adoption, he objected. The court of appeals agreed with the father’s position, stating that “there was no substantial evidence reasonable reunification services were offered or provided to the father at any point during the reunification period.”

Without such services, the case could not go forward. The court of appeals ordered the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

For several reasons, judges rarely make no reasonable efforts findings.

First, some judges are not aware of the necessity of reasonable efforts findings. The finding is embedded in the orders that they sign after each court hearing.

Second, because the consequences are so severe for the state, many judges are reluctant to make a no reasonable efforts finding. After all, their own state may stand to lose millions of dollars.

Third, attorneys rarely raise the issue in court. Many believe the issue will not assist their clients and will only waste court time.

Judges must address the reasonable efforts issue. Simply rubber-stamping approval of the agency’s actions ignores the law. If an agency is to be held accountable for its actions, judges must provide rigorous oversight of agency decisions and actions at critical junctures in each child-protection case. Moreover, careful judicial oversight of the agency does not mean that the judge will make numerous no reasonable efforts findings. Some judges have been known to use the threat of such a finding to great effect. One author refers to it as “the art of the no reasonable efforts finding.” Thus a judge might make a no reasonable efforts finding, but suspend or withhold the finding for a short time period, giving the agency the opportunity to address the failure to provide services. If the agency responds appropriately, the judge can delete the finding. Judges can also assist the agency in its efforts to persuade the legislative branch to increase funding for families. Sending a letter to legislators and other community leaders about the impact of a no reasonable efforts finding can be effective.

FOR THE REST OF THE SUMMARY GO TO:

http://www.casaforchildren.org/atf/cf/%7B9928CF18-EDE9-4AEB-9B1B-3FAA416A6C7B%7D/0710_reasonable_efforts_in_the_dependency_court_issue_0119.pdf

Money from the U.S. Government: Child Welfare Funding 2012


Wow! First of all, there is an organization called American Humane, which has combined child welfare with animal welfare. What’s that all about?

Second, here are two links that will show you just how much money the child protection racket gets.  A lot of the money comes from the money YOU pay, out of your paycheck, to Social Security which is not being saved for YOU when you retire, instead they are giving it to CPS! What’s even crazier is that Riverside County, California is advertising on the radio and other mediums, for donations of money for foster care! If that budget had been dramatically cut I could kind of see a need but look at how much they get! If what they get now is not enough, maybe they should STOP TAKING CHILDREN FROM THEIR FAMILY AND PUTTING THEM IN FOSTER CARE!! Am I right or no?

http://www.americanhumane.org/assets/pdfs/children/summary-2012-budget-children.pdf

http://www.americanhumane.org/assets/pdfs/children/advocacy/federal-budget-chart-fy-2013.pdf

Thank you for visiting our blog.

sjb4djustice

Conspiracy Theory or Conspiracy Fact? What makes a conspiracy?


Conspiracy Theory or Conspiracy Fact?

Well the fact is, when one or more people talk about anything in secrecy it is now a conspiracy. Misinformation or a lie is conspiracy! Once you learn any facts about a conspiracy it now becomes theory. Then you add some more facts and becomes probable. Then when you find motive it starts to become fact. Here is my thoughts to enlighten you and give hope. The reason they are called conspiracy is to belittle or give a feeling to the unbeliever as to be crazy or degrade. When I was a child, I had the most important teacher to influence my life in a fantastic way, I will be eternally grateful to him. He taught me to question everything and there is never a stupid question only stupid answers. This article is dedicated to Mr. Boetini who lit my curiosity hat on fire.

I run into this question a lot lately, basically because I investigate so many stories, that we get told by our government and the main stream media. I have found myself caught up in such bullshit by the mainstream media, they have become my last source of information, I want to yell! , people wake the F up!  We as a country have been warned by so many so many good people, all the way back to President Eisenhower and Kennedy about the military industrial complex, he warned us about the military and how they would become out of control if we didn’t watch them. We have been at war almost ever since. This is a fact, learn it or throw it away, it is up to you. Every single media source in this country is owned by the same four companies. Question! Do you think this is by mistake? Their is not one news story that gets told to the people that is not approved by this government out of fear of arrest for crimes against the government. You thought we had freedom of the press. We don’t! We do have freedom of the internet until November 9th of this year 2012. After that all stories will be censored as well and you will be back in your box. It is time you started listening and reading what comes out of the white house. Not every bill gets television, but they do get internet. I know what you are thinking. Conspiracy? Your Dam right!  This is hidden in plane site.

I want to give you this question and you need to think seriously  before you answer. Where is your line in the sand? When will you say enough is enough? Will you take a stand to defend your liberty? We have already lost if you don’t know. The hippy’s had it right, but they have long since converted. What good is there yet another book with the same old interpretation? A Comfort zone and these tend to blind reality and make us complacent in our denial even when people are being murdered.  If these well and accredited sources are so useful and true to you as media, if they serve you so well? Why are still unenlightened? Why do you seek to learn more? Do you feel manipulated? Do you seek truth and decency and get neither?

If you need their extremely linked set of sources for information and proof, then return to your source and be prepared to reinterpret them in a radically different light. Otherwise your progress has surly ceased. Accepting so few sources as the truth creates a ceiling of knowledge you will never surpass.

I have to see it to believe it is the sort of thing I get all the time. Usually uttered out of confusion denial or by the fool who’s head is filled to the brim with countless things that are shown as a popularity contest and considered truth by many, who haven’t ever witnessed it. . Yet say, they don’t believe in conspiracy, isn’t that a conspiracy because you have not witnessed or done the research from more than one source? You know I am right. My intentions are not malice; I am indeed concerned for everyone, this is my crutch.  After being lied too so many times by our government, we can’t let the mainstream media influence our lives without a diverse understanding. Here is a piece of advice that I have found profound in my understanding. Go to small local media, where the action is, listen to the story’s, then read the soldiers on their blogs and the guilt these men are going through, as many foreign countries as you can find,then listen to the then the mainstream media. This became wake up experience. I found the mainstream media lies in every single event to get support of whatever cause the FALSE government is doing.

I found it to be scary, I am not saying this to get a scare you. This is met to alert you! Start looking at what we are manipulated by. If we support these unjust causes of war, this does make us guilty. Whenever people are being killed in the name of America, we are targeted as conspirators and we should know what we are being brought into. Murder is happening for oil in our name. Remember this was started as a government for the people, by the people, and of the people. Know this, we are not over their fighting for our interest as a people. This government doesn’t have our interest at heart. Instead of telling me what you think about my blog. Do your own investigating, knowledge is power. My fear became empowering to me, now I am telling you. See how that works? It’s a beautiful thing, freedom. Use it or lose it.

I may not agree with your stand, but I do agree with your right to say it. God Bless You, Now go do the right thing. Take a stand.