This is a precedent. Hope to see more!
When you are finished watching this video, please visit: www.savekendall.com
U.S. federal laws that govern CPS agencies include:
In 1690, in what is now the United States, there were criminal court cases involving child abuse. In 1692, states and municipalities identified care for abused and neglected children as the responsibility of local government and private institutions.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.
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.
In 1853, the Children’s Aid Society was founded in response to the problem of orphaned or abandoned children living in New York. 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.
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 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.” By 1926, 18 states had some version of county child welfare boards whose purpose was to coordinate public and private child related work. 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.” 
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. 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. 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. 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.
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.
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. In 1961, C. Henry Kempe began to further research this issue, eventually identifying and coining the term battered child syndrome. 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.
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 was passed in 1974, which required states “to prevent, identify and treat child abuse and neglect.”
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. 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. In 1980, the Adoption Assistance Act was introduced as a way to manage the high numbers of children in placement. 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. This led to the introduction of the home visitation models, which provided funding to private agencies to provide intensive family preservation services.
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. Several pieces of federal legislation attempted to ease the process of adoption including Adoption Assistance Act; the 1988 Child Abuse Prevention, Adoption, and Family Services Act; and the 1992 Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, Adoption, and Family Services Act. 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.
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.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. 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.
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.
A child in suitable cases can be made a ward of court and no decisions about the child or changes in its life can be made without the leave of the High Court.
In England the Murder of Victoria Climbié was largely responsible for various changes in child protection in England, including the formation of the Every Child Matters programme in 2003. A similar programme – Getting it Right for Every Child – GIRFEC was established in Scotland in 2008.
In Ontario, services are provided by independent Children’s Aid Societies. The societies receive funding from, and are under the supervision of the Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services. 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.
The Patronato Nacional de la Infancia (PANI) is responsible for Child Protection in Costa Rica.
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).
Today the focus is on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The agency still favors adoption, since abortion is illegal in Costa Rica.
Children with histories of maltreatment, such as physical and psychological neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse, are at risk of developing psychiatric problems. Such children are at risk of developing a disorganized attachment.Disorganized attachment is associated with a number of developmental problems, including dissociative symptoms, as well as depressive, anxiety, and acting-out symptoms.
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.
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.
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. Child abuse impacts the most vulnerable populations, with children under age five years accounting for 76% of fatalities. 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.
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. 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. 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.
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), 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.
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.
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.”
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.
Senator Nancy Schaefer stated “The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998 reported that six times :as many children died in foster care than in the general public and that once removed to official “safety”, these children are far more likely to :suffer abuse, including sexual molestation than in the general population. Think what that number is today ten years later!”
|Maltreatment per 100,000 US children||CPS||Parents|
Senator Schaefer also stated
There are state employees, lawyers, court investigators, guardian ad litems, court personnel, and judges. There are psychologists, and psychiatrists, counselors, caseworkers, therapists, foster parents, adoptive parents, and on and on. All are looking to the children in state custody to provide job security. Parents do not realize that the social workers are the glue that hold “the system” together that funds the court, funds the court appointed attorneys, and the multiple other jobs including the “system’s” psychiatrists, therapists, their own attorneys and others.
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services had itself been an object of reports of unusual numbers of poisonings, death, rapes and pregnancies of children under its care since 2004. The Texas Family and Protective Services Crisis Management Team was created by executive order after the critical report Forgotten Children of 2004.
Texas Child Protective Services was hit with a rare if not unprecedented legal sanction for a “groundless cause of action” and ordered to pay $32,000 of the Spring family’s attorney fees. Judge Schneider wrote in a 13-page order, “The offensive conduct by (CPS) has significantly interfered with the legitimate exercise of the traditional core functions of this court.”
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. 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.
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 of 2004. Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn made a statement in 2006 about the Texas foster care system. In Fiscal 2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively 30, 38 and 48 foster children died in the state’s care. The number of foster children in the state’s care increased 24 percent to 32,474 in Fiscal 2005, while the number of deaths increased 60 percent. Compared to the general population, a child is four times more likely to die in the Texas foster care system. In 2004, about 100 children were treated for poisoning from medications; 63 were treated for rape that occurred while under state care including four-year old twin boys, and 142 children gave birth, though others believe Ms. Strayhorn’s report was not scientifically researched, and that major reforms need to be put in place to assure that children in the conservatorship of the state get as much attention as those at risk in their homes.
In the United States, data suggests that a disproportionate number of minority children, particularly African American and Native American children, enter the foster care system. 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. Additionally, once they enter foster care, research suggests that they are likely to remain in care longer. 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. The Juvenile Justice system has also been challenged by disproportionate negative contact of minority children. Because of the overlap in these systems, it is likely that this phenomenon within multiple systems may be related.
In May 2007, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, No. 05-16071 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 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.
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. 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”.
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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
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. 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. DHS said the foster parents deceived child welfare workers during the checkup visits.
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. 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. 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. Officials stated that the lawsuits over Ferrara end up costing the DCF almost $2.26 million. 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.
In a class action lawsuit Charlie and Nadine H. v. McGreevey 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). 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). 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. 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. The same organization filed similar lawsuits against other states in recent years that caused some of the states to start child welfare reforms.
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. The $4.9 million verdict grew to a $9.5 million judgment as the County lost each of its successive appeals. The case finally ended in 2011 when the United States Supreme Court denied Orange County’s request to overturn the verdict.
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. 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.
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.
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?
CLICK ON IMAGE
IF THE LINK ABOVE DOES NOT WORK TRY THIS ONE:
Published on Jul 28, 2012
Vintage Judge Judith Sheindlin as a Family Court Judge
Something about Judge Judy has always reminded me of my own mother. After watching the personal interviews now she’s EXACTLY like my Mom (the NY accent and all). Although she didn’t allow OBJECTIONS from the attorneys due to the caseload, at least she is REAL. I bet she would have noticed a piece of paper with NO NAME, NO ID, NO SPECIMEN NUMBER, NO LABORATORY NAME, NO COLLECTION SITE, NO CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORM, NO CERTIFYING SCIENTIST which claimed to be a valid hair follicle test document!
Vintage 1993 video footage of Judge Judith
Sheindlin as she sets in as a Family Court Judge in the Bronx in New York City. Watch and see how Judith Sheindlin handles the Children’s Aid, Lawyer, Caseworkers and Foster Homes in her court room.
Aired on 60 Minutes back in 1993 before she became Judge Judy TV Start
This is the Deanna Fogerty-Hardwick story. CPS illegally took her daughters and falsified documents but with the help of some very awesome attorneys, a verdict against the Department and the social workers individually still stands as a victory for parents. She also got some money but better than that she GOT AN INJUNCTION against CPS that stops them from targeting her again. (I am pretty sure, if that’s not correct, please let me know.)
RIGHT CLICK (OPEN LINK IN NEW TAB OR WINDOW) HERE: Juvenile Dependency process info for parents
IF YOU OPENED UP THE LINK ABOVE, notice how the left side of the second sheet (“One of the goals of the dependency court…“) briefly does not explain things very well and then the right side immediately discusses ‘PERMANENCY’ (this is the word for terminating parental rights and adopting your child out) Back to the left side, “One of the goals...” is to reunify, ok, back over to the right side, “How does the court make a permanent plan for my child?” and the first numbered item is terminating your parental rights. So, this is obviously another one of the goals of dependency court, correct? Tell me now, am I misinterpreting this thing or what? On the third sheet this leaflet specifically says, in bold, “In order for the court to consider returning your child to you, you must follow the orders of the court without delay”. Now tell me doesn’t this sound like coercion? This “information” NEVER talks about the possibility of false allegations, or about misunderstandings between the parents and the social workers, doesn’t even hint that if the court determines that there was really no reasonable cause or need for detention that they could dismiss the issue. THAT NEVER EVER HAPPENS as far as I know. But hey, they could accidently grab a Judge’s kid or grandkid and when the Judge sees the name it gets dismissed. Could happen I guess.
DID YOU KNOW THAT SOCIAL WORKERS ARE ALWAYS AFRAID TO MAKE ENEMIES AT WORK OR GET FIRED BECAUSE THEY ARE PETRIFIED THAT THEIR FAMILY WILL BE TARGETED? DID YOU KNOW THAT FOSTER PARENTS WHO WILLFULLY DISOBEY A SOCIAL WORKER OR SIMPLY NOT GET ALONG WITH THEM THAT THEY WILL LOSE THEIR FOSTER KIDS AND HAVE TO DO THE SAME STINKING PROGRAMS THAT PARENTS DO? THESE ARE FACTS!
More links that focus on funding, foster care, permanency, budget, system improvements, NOT reunification or addressing anything supportive for PARENTS:
http://www.cdss.ca.gov/cdssweb/PG164.htm (most of this “information” is outdated)
A few clips showing that the focus is adoption and permanency:(click on these and they will automatically open in a new tab)
To those of you who do not have any particular interest or need to research CPS’s practices and procedures or the Juvenile Dependency court scam, I GUARANTEE that there are countless clues that substantiate our claims that the system is designed to railroad parents for FEDERAL FUNDING.
Even this report data collected to assess how effective parent’s attorneys are says that there is not enough supportive resources to properly represent parents against CPS and that their salaries are lower than regular attorneys:
About FUNDING for keeping families together:
I have been trying to snip clips here and there to post, to PROVE to you, that the system is NOT FAIR, NOT LEGAL (no it is NOT legal despite what other Judges and LAWYERS may say. I believe that they may actually know about it but DO NOT HAVE THE GUTS TO ADMIT IT). I have offered to show proof in person, which would have been much easier, but not too many people are brave enough to get within 100 feet of me because I have been publicly humiliated by misrepresentation via media propaganda, slander, libel and defamation of character. Although it is true that I have been arrested and incarcerated for a few months (twice) and those convictions are “felonies”. But I blame those things on others and refuse to take responsibility for them because I just don’t feel like it. Why take responsibility for my own actions when I can easily blame my husband’s psycho ex-wife or those evil CPS workers or the corrupt judges and DA’s? Yes, creating this website and several other websites, typing a civil complaint for Supreme Court, and advocating for other parents caught in the system is MUCH EASIER than admitting that I might have made a better choice or two if I had the opportunity to make those choices again (like move far far away from the ex when I was pregnant or not get pregnant at all even though he is a wonderful little boy, other people get to be blessed). But blaming others is, again, much easier however, time consuming but what the heck, I have nothing better to do anyway, its not like I have any kids to take care of right?
CPS courts having been allowing adoptive parents to be present in the court room putting the child and family on display while they put on a show even before you are found guilty of anything and after charges are unfounded. The people that are allowed in is up to you. Your life is not a show for this court to exploit.
DonnellyJustice and sjb4djustice write:
STAKEHOLDERS IN THE CHILD ABUSE INDUSTRY: We have been waiting for you to notice us. And now that we have your attention, please be advised that this blog is about you and the things you do and did to us. That’s right, we are exposing you. We have a very good following of others who have been victimized by your collaborative efforts to fund your counties.You SOLD our son through what is called “forced adoption”. You ARE kidnapping our children AND GETTING PAID TO DO IT! We are dedicating our lives to exposing you and every other county’s secrets. You claim that we are “crazy conspiracy theorists”. Well, you are partly correct. You did manage to make us a bit CRAZY, you do CONSPIRE to ruin families and the only thing THEORETICAL about it is your true concern for “the children’s best interests”. The power you have over families is purely an ability to BULLY, INTIMIDATE, COERCE, EXTORT, FALSIFY, AND LIE. You even made it so my wife and daughter were completely railroaded in court by taking a DA to lunch. You are holding other children against their will and drugging them and telling the parents that their children hate them and do not want anything to do with them all because you have NO EVIDENCE. Parents are HELPLESS and YOU KNOW IT. This is the only thing we can legally do: PROTEST. Amanda Spratley and Antoine Coley JUMPED UP FOR JOY, SMILING AND HUGGING when the judge terminated our rights!! EXPLAIN THAT TO DONNELLY!!! EXPLAIN HOW MUCH MONEY THE STATE AND COUNTY RECEIVED FOR TAKING HIM AWAY FROM HIS MOMMY AND DADDDY, SISSY KAYLA, SISSY ALEX, BROTHERS STEPHEN, BILLY AND CHRISTOPHER, POP-POP, AUNT CINDY, AUNT KATIE, UNCLE HUGO, COUSINS KAITLYN AND MIKEY, FRIENDS MICHELLE AND MELISSA, RACHAEL, KRISTINA, AND JAMES. But knowing you he will be told untrue and awful things about us, isn’t that right Sue and (your best friend) Jamila?
TO OUR SUPPORTIVE AND CONTINUED VIEWERS: Thank you for your continued support. If you have anything you would like us to post or research email us at: email@example.com.
We are busy putting together a PROTEST SCHEDULE for Riverside, Moreno Valley and Murrieta for later this month.
TO CURRENT VICTIMS OF THIS CHILD STEALING RING: We have a link to The Dependency Quick Guide, a.k.a. the DOGBOOK, this could be a family-saver, it will help you ensure your attorney performs their duties competently but you have to assert your rights as they will NOT tell you what they are and they WILL force you to “buy-in” and submit to an Amended Petition by striking a few of the lies which are in the original. Learn what Welfare & Institutions Code § 300 (a)-(j) are as well as the Rules of Civil Procedure. We have links for those too. Go to our Self-Help site, there is a document library there. New information is added several times a week. Email us if you have any questions and we can possibly direct you to the answers. We are NOT lawyers but I bet we would be better than the JuvDP except that we would probably be fired for not being favorably bias towards CPS. Regardless, we do not give legal advice, we only explain what we experienced and what we have seen happen to others.
but he couldn’t be here today. You have no rights anyway so lets get on with the screwing, I mean hearing.
Obama has taken actions that show he is pushing the Child theft by CPS. A mother fighting for her children taken by CPS. Next hearing her name gets removed from the docket and then told she can not submit evidence because she is not a party to the case. have been reading many different incentives offered by the from the White House down to the local CPS offices to pump up the child stealing nation wide over the next year.
From now on every parent better be prepared to fight for their children. This story is incredible. How easily the courts are removing you children with out cause. This is no longer the America I know
Child Protective Services if you have seen a child that you would like to adopt call call child protective services and we will find a reason to remove that child for you
This article if you care about the future of this country and our children than PLEASE PLEASE tell everyone you know to watch this video, this investigation into CPS and the cover up the number of children missing and kidnapped has grown 10 times in the last five years. People if we continue to let this problem continue like this than we have no future. Watch and Listen PLEASE, I WANT THIS TO END AND UNLESS EVERYONE KNOWS what is truly going on then WE HAVE NO CHANCE OF EVER SAVING OUR CHILDREN. The number of children that disappeared from California and Florida alone could fill a school of over 5000 just from last year alone and this is being covered up. Please wake up !
It is up to us to do something about this problem because the problem of Rogue Social Workers is allowed to grow unabated because of the money it provides for state agencies. It is now up to us and now it is up to you. If you have a child today then you risk losing that child to this government kidnapping.
WATCH THIS VIDEO THEN WRITE AND GET THE ENTIRE TAPE AND LETS TAKE DOWN THIS COUNTY TOGETHER
Grand jury’s all across the United States have come up with the same findings of unaccountability in Child Protective Services for the death’s of children while in their care.
LETS ORGANIZE A PROTEST.
SPECIFICALLY IN RIVERSIDE AND MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
AT THE CPS OFFICES
IT IS ABOUT CHILDREN, SO NO EXCUSES TO NOT SHOW
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES IS OUT OF CONTROL THAT MUCH WE ALL AGREE.
AND CHILDREN ARE DYING IN FOSTER CARE.
Child Protective Services covers up abuse and the deaths of children in foster care. This is NOT acceptable and will not be tolerated, I want my child back unhurt. Even the Federal government has requested CPS to stop covering up the deaths of children in CPS custody. I have read this in several news articles lately. OMG
Who is letting these people get away without reporting the deaths of children?
What is it going to take for this COUNTY AND STATE to consider our children more than a pay check?
What is going on and how come the people are not looking out for children?
Our government has shown us they don’t give a shit about our children and that they are nothing more than a pay check to these courts and CPS. Start talking to the people with children victimized by CPS and ask them if they want to do anything about this problem and if they do give them my email address. ProjectManagerBill@gmail.com
People, if you really are concerned about our children then email me and let’s organize and protest about this criminal behavior.
Write petitions, do whatever it takes to expose this problem of irresponsibility, non-accountability, and really really bad decisions by corrupt judges and Child Protective Services. All for Federal funding and it has to stop. These are innocent children and it is time for the state to grow up and stand for something other than big business at any cost.
If we don’t do anything about this problem, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. People before us have stood up for far less causes than this one. I have never in my life time seen a more noble cause.
OUR CHILDREN”S LIVES ARE BEING STOLEN
Violations committed by the CPS JUDGE in my case.:
1) Failure to charge the Department with contempt for their lack of providing services in a timely manner and allowing us to be charged with kidnapping/child stealing (our OWN child) which should have been a mere CONTEMPT of court issue, that is even if one was to consider an UNSIGNED JUVENILE DEPENDENCY Minute Order printout as a VALID court order!.
2) Administrative malfeasance: This happened in our case in several instances. Finding that my sister’s testimony was “bias” towards me yet allowing a COURT CLERK’s testimony into the record.
3) Bias/appearance of bias favorable towards department as he always ruled in their favor and never in ours.(Made personal opinion comments about me, my wife and my family as well.) None of the judges allowed our exculpatory evidence into the record.
4) Comment on pending case (as in our case letting the DA sit in and commented on our pending case turning a contempt into a criminal made sure the DA was filing charges on a contempt of his court )
5) Decisional delays. Continued our hearings numerous times due to their calendar being full and without stating on the record how these continuances were in the best interests of the children.
7) Demeanor/decorum; in my case it was extremely unprofessional and was against us from the beginning. Made several inappropriate comments.
8) Disqualification/disclosure/post-disqualification conduct to long for me to go into here. will be presented at a later time.
9) Ex parte communications;.Had in-chambers discussions with attorneys not yet appointed as counsel.
10) Failure to ensue rights: how many can I go into here? The most damaging was allowing CPS to submit fabricated documents and false statements into the record without admonishment not to mention about 100 instances.
11) On bench abuse of authority in performance of judicial duties; There have been several listed here and I do have many more as do most of you reading this or you wouldn’t be here. Most parents just don’t think it will happen to them until they have lost their child.
Child Protective Services can take your children too. CPS has come to believe they are above the law and the Constitution, that they do not need a search warrant to come into your home, label you as a child abuser for any reason and make you a criminal based upon their opinion alone, take your children away in a paddy wagon, and put your kids into foster homes pending a court hearing where CPS will try their best to win and permanently take custody of your kids. If CPS loses, they will continue to fight you, slandering your family and listing you as a child abuser in government databases.
CPS is an abusive government agency spiraling completely out of control. It’s time to shut them down.
The unlawful removal of 468 children from the FLDS ranch in west Texas, has put CPS under the microscope. That case has led others to wonder if they can do that to FLDS children, can CPS do that to my children?
CBS 42 investigative reporter, Nancy Wilson, shows us one family who says the same thing happened to them, and eight years later they are still trying to clear their names.
This is the Gates family, Gary and Melissa have 13 children, 11 of them adopted. They saw a need for kids from a variety of backgrounds who need love in a stable home.
Imagine their surprise when 11 government employees, 6 police officers and 5 CPS workers, showed up on their doorstep.
The school called CPS when they discovered that the Gates pinned a baggy with food wrappers inside the shirt of one of the kids that was caught stealing. It included a two page explanation and who to call if there were questions.
The school did make a phone call, to CPS. Gates was shocked to find CPS workers in his home uninvited, especially when CPS refused to leave.
“How can you take 13 kids? That opened my eyes to a whole new way of government.” – Gary Gates
CPS & Police completely ignored the 4th Amendment Constitutional rights of Americans, entered the Gates home, and took away all 13 of their children, without a court order, after a mere phone call. This is a very similar situation to the FLDS raid, except that the phone call that Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (CPS) used to kidnap the FLDS children was a hoax.
Later in court, the reason CPS gave for taking the Gate’s children was that CPS felt that Mr. Gates was uncooperative with them taking away his children, and his unwillingness to cooperate put the children at risk.
Fortunately, the judge ordered the children returned immediately. An independent psychologist conducted his own review and wrote a glowing report, saying, “I’ve never said this about anyone I have evaluated: I admire the Gates, I would not hesitate to place my own children in their care.”
However, even though the judge ordered the case dismissed, and the independent review was praiseworthy, CPS did not care. CPS called the praiseworthy review disappointing and continued to fight the Gates anyway, listing them in the state’s central registry as child abusers.
Even though the Gates were innocent, CPS claims that because their opinion is that the the father emotionally emotionally abused one child by punishing him, and since all the kids saw it, that equals 13 counts of abuse. And, because the wife did not stop it, that equals another 13 counts of abuse for a grand total of 26 counts of child abuse.
The Gates were never charged with any crime, they are guilty based solely on the opinion of CPS.
The Gates have spent the past 8 years and $175,000 trying to get their names removed from the child abuser registry after CPS unjustly listed them.
CPS’ unlawful and massive FLDS raid of the polygamist community’s children may actually result in more Americans becoming aware of these abuses within CPS and the government.
In my case I have absolute proof of many if not all falsified drug test, because I had a drug test done by a state certified drug test done by a lab every time CPS asked me for a test because of all the crap CPS has gotten away with over the years. I have family and ex-mother in law that work for these monsters and I know what they do. None of my proof matters to these judges, thats how corrupt these people are. I am currently taking my case to the US Supreme court. I know if I can get this case into a higher court and if they care about children at all ( I wonder these days if anyone in government cares for a child ) This will show so much corruption.
My case involves attorney’s, judges, social worker, county counsel, the head of CPS her self by pushing the case through, false witness, all these people backed up the lies except the police, the police tried to stand up for me and wrote a letter of support, none of this matters if I can’t get heard do to cover up.. If a really caring attorney cares about children and wants to make a name for himself email me, everything I have said here is fact, and you better have a really good record at fighting corruption or doing the right thing. I only want the best, this is not a joke this is the most important thing you or I will ever do, hands down. God willing.
CPS sucks is hurting children and families! these people do whatever they want and it doesn’t matter what outside professionals say you’re good parents they don’t care! they just want to be right, and go after the thousands of dollars in bonuses these cases give them.
Not only unConstitution ,but unAmerican and the fact they can over ride the court system their also Nazi like. Taking children because one Moron who works for CPS says so dont even come close to being a fact. The fact their going to go to Hell for destroying loving familys is more likly.
United States citizens who are naïve to the ways of the Child Protective System and the courts, or perhaps not wealthy or connected, may inadvertently find themselves subjected to a nightmare. Many entities profit from the time a child first enters the “system”. What are some of the techniques CPS and the courts use, why does nobody hear about this problem and what is the outcome for the children and their families? How children are suffering harm by those with a duty to protect them.What harm do children and families suffer as a consequence of false accusations of child abuse?.
Last year over two million American families were falsely accused of child abuse!!
It is not in any one individual state but is now a worldwide epidemic.I don’t mean to disturb you but I really want people to be aware about that subject, because today, tomorrow, in the next half hour, it could happen to us too!
Very few children in America are genuine orphans. Most have relatives, family friends, neighbors or godparents who could, and are willing to, keep them if they must be moved temporarily or permanently from parental homes. As we know, there is such a halo around “adoption” and states have received financial incentives for finding “forever homes” for the children who are made Paper Orphans by a stroke of a judge’s pen. The child is labeled as abused and/or neglected and therefore is “at risk” and usually that means more money goes to the people who adopt the child, usually the ones in the pre-adoptive home where most babies are placed immediately. Those people have a say and can make comments along the way, so they are very much involved and interested in interrupting any chance that the baby will be returned home. If the baby stays in a “foster” home for 15 of 22 months, as you know from reading, then the termination can be effectively automatic by federal law and state incorporation of its provisions and sometimes that’s the excuse,
Children are in fact hurt and even killed 9 times more in the care of the child protective services, it has become abundantly that cps is a false front for child protection and has to end before they ruin the family forever. There is a major fact in the last few years that has become in our face and yet we still can’t get help from the government, CPS HAS BECOME A MAGNET FOR CHILD PREDATORS TO GET JOBS BECAUSE OF THE ACCESS TO CHILDREN AND THE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION AND THEY EVEN HAVE A DIVERSION PROGRAM FOR SOCIAL WORKERS THAT GET CAUGHT HURTING, MOLESTING, AND NEGLECTING CHILDREN. This has to stop please please please people lets organize a protest to save our children, I am willing to give as much time as it takes to stop children from being hurt anymore by these truly delusional people, EMAIL me http://www.ProjectManagerBill@gmail.com We have to protest in front of the grand jury and demand these people be investigated, prosecuted, and new laws set in motion to never let this happen again. Children must have rights as real people, and when they say I love my mommy or daddy and they love me so let me go home, I believe this is fundamental for anyone to feel like they matter to the world around them or they loose self esteem, Children know who really loves them and it isn’t government, no matter what these social workers say. PLEASE PLEASE if you do one thing everyday to stop this madness we will make a difference. If we do not help the children to be happy then we are no better than CPS now go do the right thing. If we just get the people that have had thieir children stolen show up, we will win. God Bless
Always with love and respect
Bill for DonnellyJustice.me
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?
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
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:
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?
Thank you for visiting our blog.
The taking of our children has become more common than people realize. According to some of the most recent reports by HHS, the family possesses a threat to the government. I don’t understand that thinking and it makes no sense. Sounds like a way to continue destroying families for money. The family is the cornerstone of America. Children need their parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, you know, the FAMILY. The government already has proof that parents do a much better job raising children. We should not allow this to continue. I am going to start posting the actual reports, with the social worker’s names on it, and the alleged drug test results from my case that prove the social workers lie and fabricate evidence.
The State of California and the federal government are allowing CPS to abuse children and inflict terrorism on families. Accepting false allegations from a known child abuser on the Child Abuse Hotline place innocent parent and families at risk of being railroaded by this unfair and bias system. Parents are never allowed to face the accuser in a court of law. All evidence allowing this to take place is based on an allegation not proof. CPS comes out like a Nazi organization using coercion and threatens the parents with lies of losing your children and saying they have proof. Scaring the parents until they feel insane, just to get them to sign a case plan, as CPS steals your children. Our government is giving incentives for social workers to manipulate the family into taking services even though everything is just a lie. School teachers are pushing children to speak badly of their parent’s actions at home so they can call CPS. The court takes the opinion of CPS over top of the parents who are losing all rights to protect their children. We have to stop this. I love my children; we can’t live this way or continue to except this treatment. We need to change things today.
Our nation’s children are no longer safe in their homes, schools, or anywhere they go. Far too often, the threat is not from traditional trouble makers such as school bullies, class-cutters, and neighborhood drug-dealers but rather from the adults entrusted with the care of our children. Social workers, unlicensed social workers, intolerant and extremist teachers, school administrators, police officers, district attorneys, and judges are a serious and growing threat to our children. They believe that children who make a minor mistake or dare to express an opinion or personal preference that is not in compliance with government thought control and anti-free-speech policies should be treated like felons. Even having to attend to basic bodily functions like using the bathroom and eating in schools controlled by these extremists can be a threat to the safety of our children.
Our friendly faced uncaring government goons have made up euphemisms for their agendas. Given their limited intelligence, their choice phrases must be succinct. We end up with a school administration that tries to force children on medication for reasons like he has too much energy. This was my fight when my son was in the first grade. His teacher, and I will call her Mrs. Pain, called CPS because she insisted my son was hyperactive and needs Ritalin. I told her no, what he needs is a teacher who spends time with her students. CPS was called into the school and told me if I did not get my son put on this Ritalin hey would take him and the rest of my children.
I refused to get my son put on speed to make the teacher happy. So the doctor tried my son on other drugs to get the desired affect Mrs. Pain was after. After watching my son go through all kinds of side effects for a week, I took him off the medicine. CPS ordered me to see a judge so I could be served a court order to continue to give my son drugs. I told the judge my son is not hyper he is a very intelligent and just wants the teacher to like him. He is nervous because she is always upset with him for standing at his desk, he does the work, gets good grades, and he is a very good boy. I am concerned about all the side effects these drugs have on him. I refuse to continue to treat my son like this. I told the judge that if I was allowed to go to school with my son every day, I will show the school how wonderful of a child he is and help out for free every day. The teacher and the social worker both battled me on my offer, but the judge said that was never offered before and he would be willing to give it a shot. If it did not work then I would be forced to give him the Meds or risk losing him.
The following Monday I went to school with my son. I was shocked and disappointed in the location the teacher had my son sitting which was in the far corner on the other side of the class, away from everyone. The teacher said to me as soon as my son stood up for the first time while I was there, “See, he is doing it again. He is out of control!” Then she yelled at him to sit down. I explained to her how he suffers from chronic leg spasms and that is why he stands, to alleviate the pain. I then brought his desk back over to the group of 6 desks he was in before he had been moved. I continued to work with my son everyday for the rest of that school year. I took off of work to do that and he improved so much because I was concerned about his feelings and what he was going through. That year he won just about every award that teacher had to offer. To this day he is a well-adjusted very hard working young man. I couldn’t be more proud. Don’t be so quick to judge children and place them on drugs for something that is just a failure to communicate and a lack of parental attention. If he would have been put on that drug he could have been addicted for life. Because, you know, when the kids on Ritalin grow up, they take them off of it and then what do they do? They score speed on the street. They are allowed to take it when they are kids but not when they are adults. That is so stupid. Children are not experiments for doctors and teachers. They are our children and parents know what is best for our children. Government doesn’t need to be in every child’s life because a teacher makes a call to CPS. These schools seem to have completely lost the concept of being an inspiration to young children. Rather the mentality is: “Oh an active child, oh no! Calm them down, give them medication and blame the parents.
One of the new things I hear around schools is “zero tolerance” and I believe that this is one catch-phrase invented by “safety minded” school officials. No tolerance for creativity so they feel they must suppress individuality, ban freedom of speech, enforce dogmatic thinking, and criminalize opinions that are counter to the teachers nerves is what it basically means. Coming from a more sensible age in which I could chose the color of my clothes and a pocket knife was not a weapon of mass destruction but rather a basic tool that many kids carried to school, it seems to me that kids today should be raising civil disobedience groups and learning guerrilla warfare tactics after they have been exposed to this extremism. But oddly it seems to be gradually zapping many of them into mind-numbed drones. Or maybe they are too busy playing Grand Theft Auto and Halo to know that sometimes criminals and conflicts are real.
The corruption in government knowing everything because we know how to get money for kids is perverse. “Kids for Cash” is another catch-phrase invented by somebody in the government, quite possibly by thousands of them at about the same time. Social workers realized that when they see smiling little kids, they think of vacation money, large bonuses in their pockets, so it was a natural expression of their intent to use other people’s children for their own economic security. Although it’s not clear which government agency invented it first, many of them, from the courts to “CPS” to schools, are living by it. Seldom is anything done to distract the government from viewing our children as money sources and pawns for profit except in the most bizarre and extreme cases that even the goons are embarrassed by it. I suspect when something is done to temporarily divert the greedy goons from monetizing our children, it is only because these extreme.
This is becoming so hurtful to take control over parents and destructive to the children as well as the rest of the family. Parents treat their kids with much more love and care, even according to National statistics, than CPS but they keep saying they are out to help children, when they take them from homes. When are we as Americans going to get sick of government taking control over our lives and doing what money commands? Their motives are so clear; CPS doesn’t care about my child, your child or any children, just as long as they get their money. If you knew your child would be molested in CPS care, would you let your child be taken still? This happens way too often. No, you would fight to protect your child. What happened to that stand up and fight for what’s right America used to have? Our children are getting hurt by the people pay to protect them.