Our Family Torn and Terrorized by CPS (Part 6)

I finally completed Part 6 of our story including getting arrested for a possession of stolen property that was not stolen and more falsified hair follicle tests.

Part 7 should be much more exciting as I will explain what happened in Arizona and show how we “stole” our son back from CPS who never has legal custody of our children because they never had any SIGNED COURT ORDERS!

 

If I Said I Was Sorry Would I Be Forgiven?

If I dedicated my life to Christ and converted to an acceptable religion, would anyone’s views and opinions of me change? Would I then be “accepted”? I doubt it. You know why? Because I don’t need to do those things to be a good or better person. I am a good decent person who made some poor decisions because I MADE THOSE DECISIONS WITH MY HEART. I am trying to change that but it is hard. To become cold and heartless is not in my nature. To look out for only myself is very difficult. But if I promise to try, will I be given a reprieve? Can I pass go and collect the love from people who now despise me based on lies they were told about me? 951-295-6854 If anyone has anything to say to me please call, ask me anything you want. I am an open book. Oops, that is not a good way to “cover my butt” is it? I am thinking with my heart again.

Oh My FREAKING GOD!!!!! Evil SOCIAL WORKERS!!! This is total B.S.

http://medicalkidnap.com/2015/03/20/medical-kidnap-mother-loses-3-children-because-daughter-is-too-short/medicalkidnap

Please Help Save Kendall

When you are finished watching this video, please visit: www.savekendall.com

Harassment by Cops and CPS Simply for Speaking Out and Posting Abuse of Power

Q & A: Can CPS take my kids if I give one dirty drug test?

Cover

importantpage

According to this NO! But almost all county social service “child protection” agencies across the country and abroad DO REMOVE CHILDREN BASED ON ONE TEST ALONE. Is it LEGAL? The answer is NO IT IS NOT “LEGAL”. Nowhere in the California Welfare & Institutions Codes does it state that they have authority to take possession of a child based on ONE drug test. Often, CPS will remove your child simply for declining to cooperate, if it comes back “diluted” which only means that there was not enough creatiine in your urine so the test was aborted. So, if a person drinks the recommended 8-10  eight ounce glasses of water a day and goes to test before they have eaten and/or digested any portion of food then most likely the test will be considered a “dilute”. That will prompt CPS to suggest and ultimately state as a fact, that you used and purposely drank an exessive amount of water to “fool” the test. What a bunch of bullcrap that is, especially when you do not know these things before hand! I know, I experienced it.

 A MOUTH SWAB TEST SHOULD NEVER BE USED TO REMOVE YOUR CHILD BECAUSE THESE TESTS ARE INITIAL TESTS AND THEIR PURPOSE IS TO SAVE MONEY ON LABORATORY TESTS AS THEY CAN QUICKLY SHOW THAT THE SUBJECT DOES NOT HAVE ANY DRUGS DETECTABLE IN THEIR SYSTEM. This includes any “on-the-spot” or “on location” tests such as a “dip stick”. A positive test is NEVER positive until confirmed by a scientifically calibrated testing machine in a certified laboratory. BUT DOES ANYONE IN CHILD PROTECTION OR THE JUVENILE DEPENDENCY COURT EVER ACKNOWLEDGE THESE BASIC DRUG TESTING PRINCIPLES AND REGULATIONS? NO THEY DO NOT. Want to know WHY? Because the “lawyers” for the parents and children DO NOT OBJECT, DO NOT CHALLENGE AND DO NOT CARE about children and families.

TO THE DEFENSE PANEL LAME-O ATTORNEYS: STAND UP FOR WHAT KNOW IS RIGHT, NOT WHAT YOUR HAVE “BOUGHT-IN” TO! DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU REALLY ARE, NOT DOING THE RIGHT THING?  YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF LAZY SOCIOPATHIC SADISTIC SORCERERS SEIZING YOUNGSTERS FOR SELFISH SECURITY 

Often social workers will use mouth swab preliminary drug test kits and they are told to use them as evidence to remove children. They KNOW that they can and will get away with it because they KNOW the parent’s lawyers will NOT object to their use nor will they challenge ANY DRUG TEST WHATSOEVER. 

In our second case, I declined to participate in their drug testing as they faked the results more often than not. Twice they tried to “prove” to me that they do not fake tests and came up with two negative hair follicle tests but it is so obvious how they cut-and-pasted the real test document onto their THIRD PARTY COHORT (CDT iNC.) LETTERHEAD like they do for the fake ones. Near the end of our first CPS case, I did not even show up at the collection site to give a hair sample and they still came up with a positive hair follicle test! You can tell how fake this test is by the fact that it does not claim to be positive for amphetamines. It is IMPOSSIBLE for hair to be positive for only methamphetamines because when you consume methamphetamines, it quickly converts to amphetamine metabolites as that is the main ingredient of methamphetamines. Can’t make meth without  ephedrine which is what? An amphetamine! Many clinical and case studies have been conducted on this issue and the research documentation available online. If the “lawyers” were actually on your side, they would contest, object and motion to dismiss based on the falsification of documents that CPS social workers commonly submit to the COURT. That, in and of itself, is a FELONY in California!

Both offering and preparing false evidence are obstruction of justice crimes in California. Penal Code 132 PC makes it a felony to knowingly present false written evidence in pretty much any kind of legal proceeding.1 Similarly, Penal Code 134 PC makes it a crime to prepare any false evidence with the intent to use it in a legal proceeding (even if, for whatever reason, the false evidence never actually gets presented in court).2

Penalties

Offering or preparing false evidence under Penal Code 132 PC or Penal Code 134 PC is a California felony.4 This means that it is possible to be sentenced to as much as three (3) years in California state prison if you are convicted.5

California Penal Code Section 115 PC: Filing A False Document

1. Definition and Elements of the Crime

Filing a False Document under California Penal Code Section 115 PC makes it a felony to file any forged or false document with a public office.

The statute requires a prosecutor to prove the following elements:

  1. A defendant provided a document for filing, recording or registration with any public office in California
  2. The defendant knew that the document was false or a forgery when he or she filed it AND
  3. The document was one that, if genuine, could be legally filed.

The term “document” has been interpreted broadly by courts and prosecutors. The statute is most frequently used to prosecute the filing of false property deeds in connection with real estate fraud schemes. However, Filing a False Document charges can involve almost any document that can be legally filed in a public office, including bail bonds, probation work referrals, and even fishing records.

2. Examples

Looking to make some quick money, a man forges a copy of a property transfer deed indicating that he purchased a home from his mother and he is now the lawful owner. The man files this forged property deed with the county recorder’s office and then takes out substantial loans against the property. Not only is the man guilty of mortgage fraud, he would also be criminally liable for Filing a False or Forged Document and could be prosecuted for both offenses.

3. Related Offenses

Filing a False Document under Penal Code Section 115 PC is usually associated with other Theft Crimes andWhite Collar Crimes such as Real Estate Fraud and Mortgage Fraud. In fact, prosecutors may prefer to file charges under Penal Code 115 PC because it is a felony level offense that is easier to prove than some of the more complex fraud charges.

Related charges also include:

  1. Forgery – California Penal Code Section 470 PC
  2. Perjury – California Penal Code Section 118 PC
  3. Grand Theft – California Penal Code Section 487 PC

[Courtesy of http://www.losangelescriminallawyer.pro/california-penal-code-section-115-pc-filing-a-false-document.html]

HERE IS ONE OF EIGHT FALSIFIED “DRUG TEST” DOCUMENTS THE DEPARTMENT CLAIMED WERE RESULTS OF HAIR FOLLICLE TESTS:

cdt

DonnellyJustice Research asks you to please take this survey if it applies to you or someone you know.

Loading…” target=”_blank”>

HIGHEST PAID “JUDGE” IN CA WORKS FOR SOCIAL SERVICES!!!

CORRECTION: TRANSPARENT CALIFORNIA DOES NOT LIST ANY OTHER JUDGES IN THE STATE AS OF YET. BUT THIS JUDGE IS THE HIGHEST PAID ADMINISTRATIVE/SOCIAL SERVICES JUDGE WITH REGARDS TO THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THIS SITE. SOME STATE EMPLOYEES/AGENCIES DID NOT PROVIDE TRANSPARENT CALIFORNIA WITH THEIR INFORMATION.

First, take their regular bench pay, add overtime, “other” pay and benefits and you get $230,000 to always rule in favor of CPS. That means: sustain every petition, order the care, custody and control (of every child named in every petition), to the DIRECTOR of Public Social Services by declaring that each and every child named in a petition comes within the court’s jurisdiction, to OVERRULE any and all objections from the parents’ attorney (only the private pay attorneys EVER OBJECT since the “Defense Panel attorneys NEVER OBJECT), and to adopt all findings and orders that the Department includes in their attachment to the report (and rather than adhering to Welfare & Institutions Code regarding the conduct of the “Judge” he/she gets away with simply stating, “I adopt the findings and orders contained on Page [blah blah] of the Detention Report.”  follow the law and regulations that say you SHALL examine the parents and/or any other person with relative information, you SHALL make paternity findings, you SHALL inquire as to the reasonable efforts put forth by the Department), This “Judge” is paid to make sure every child that comes before the court is denied the right to GO HOME.

355.  (a) At the jurisdictional hearing, the court shall first
consider only the question whether the minor is a person described by
Section 300. Any legally admissible evidence that is relevant to the
circumstances or acts that are alleged to bring the minor within the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court is admissible and may be received
in evidence. Proof by a preponderance of evidence must be adduced to
support a finding that the minor is a person described by Section
300. Objections that could have been made to evidence introduced
shall be deemed to have been made by a parent or guardian who is
present at the hearing and unrepresented by counsel, unless the court
finds that the parent or guardian has made a knowing and intelligent
waiver of the right to counsel. Objections that could have been made
to evidence introduced shall be deemed to have been made by an
unrepresented child.
   (b) A social study prepared by the petitioning agency, and hearsay
evidence contained in it, is admissible and constitutes competent
evidence upon which a finding of jurisdiction pursuant to Section 300
may be based, to the extent allowed by subdivisions (c) and (d).
   (1) For purposes of this section, "social study" means any written
report furnished to the juvenile court and to all parties or their
counsel by the county probation or welfare department in any matter
involving the custody, status, or welfare of a minor in a dependency
proceeding pursuant to Article 6 (commencing with Section 300) to
Article 12 (commencing with Section 385), inclusive.
   (2) The preparer of the social study shall be made available for
cross-examination upon a timely request by a party. The court may
deem the preparer available for cross-examination if it determines
that the preparer is on telephone standby and can be present in court
within a reasonable time of the request.
   (3) The court may grant a reasonable continuance not to exceed 10
days upon request by any party if the social study is not provided to
the parties or their counsel within a reasonable time before the
hearing.
   (c) (1) If a party to the jurisdictional hearing raises a timely
objection to the admission of specific hearsay evidence contained in
a social study, the specific hearsay evidence shall not be sufficient
by itself to support a jurisdictional finding or any ultimate fact
upon which a jurisdictional finding is based, unless the petitioner
establishes one or more of the following exceptions:
   (A) The hearsay evidence would be admissible in any civil or
criminal proceeding under any statutory or decisional exception to
the prohibition against hearsay.
   (B) The hearsay declarant is a minor under 12 years of age who is
the subject of the jurisdictional hearing. However, the hearsay
statement of a minor under 12 years of age shall not be admissible if
the objecting party establishes that the statement is unreliable
because it was the product of fraud, deceit, or undue influence.
   (C) The hearsay declarant is a peace officer as defined by Chapter
4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal
Code, a health practitioner described in paragraphs (21) to (28),
inclusive, of subdivision (a) of Section 11165.7 of the Penal Code, a
social worker licensed pursuant to Chapter 14 (commencing with
Section 4991) of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, or
a teacher who holds a credential pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing
with Section 44200) of Part 25 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the
Education Code. For the purpose of this subdivision, evidence in a
declaration is admissible only to the extent that it would otherwise
be admissible under this section or if the declarant were present and
testifying in court.
   (D) The hearsay declarant is available for cross-examination. For
purposes of this section, the court may deem a witness available for
cross-examination if it determines that the witness is on telephone
standby and can be present in court within a reasonable time of a
request to examine the witness.
   (2) For purposes of this subdivision, an objection is timely if it
identifies with reasonable specificity the disputed hearsay evidence
and it gives the petitioner a reasonable period of time to meet the
objection prior to a contested hearing.
   (d) This section shall not be construed to limit the right of a
party to the jurisdictional hearing to subpoena a witness whose
statement is contained in the social study or to introduce admissible
evidence relevant to the weight of the hearsay evidence or the
credibility of the hearsay declarant.



355.1.  (a) Where the court finds, based upon competent professional
evidence, that an injury, injuries, or detrimental condition
sustained by a minor is of a nature as would ordinarily not be
sustained except as the result of the unreasonable or neglectful acts
or omissions of either parent, the guardian, or other person who has
the care or custody of the minor, that finding shall be prima facie
evidence that the minor is a person described by subdivision (a),
(b), or (d) of Section 300.
   (b) Proof that either parent, the guardian, or other person who
has the care or custody of a minor who is the subject of a petition
filed under Section 300 has physically abused, neglected, or cruelly
treated another minor shall be admissible in evidence.
   (c) The presumption created by subdivision (a) constitutes a
presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.
56.  After hearing the evidence, the court shall make a finding,
noted in the minutes of the court, whether or not the minor is a
person described by Section 300 and the specific subdivisions of
Section 300 under which the petition is sustained. If it finds that
the minor is not such a person, it shall order that the petition be
dismissed and the minor be discharged from any detention or
restriction theretofore ordered. If the court finds that the minor is
such a person, it shall make and enter its findings and order
accordingly.
358.  (a) After finding that a child is a person described in
Section 300, the court shall hear evidence on the question of the
proper disposition to be made of the child. Prior to making a finding
required by this section, the court may continue the hearing on its
own motion, the motion of the parent or guardian, or the motion of
the child, as follows:
   (1) If the child is detained during the continuance, and the
social worker is not alleging that subdivision (b) of Section 361.5
is applicable, the continuance shall not exceed 10 judicial days. The
court may make an order for detention of the child or for the child'
s release from detention, during the period of continuance, as is
appropriate.
   (2) If the child is not detained during the continuance, the
continuance shall not exceed 30 days after the date of the finding
pursuant to Section 356. However, the court may, for cause, continue
the hearing for an additional 15 days.
   (3) If the social worker is alleging that subdivision (b) of
Section 361.5 is applicable, the court shall continue the proceedings
for a period not to exceed 30 days. The social worker shall notify
each parent of the content of subdivision (b) of Section 361.5 and
shall inform each parent that if the court does not order
reunification a permanency planning hearing will be held, and that
his or her parental rights may be terminated within the timeframes
specified by law.
   (b) Before determining the appropriate disposition, the court
shall receive in evidence the social study of the child made by the
social worker, any study or evaluation made by a child advocate
appointed by the court, and other relevant and material evidence as
may be offered, including, but not limited to, the willingness of the
caregiver to provide legal permanency for the child if reunification
is unsuccessful. In any judgment and order of disposition, the court
shall specifically state that the social study made by the social
worker and the study or evaluation made by the child advocate
appointed by the court, if there be any, has been read and considered
by the court in arriving at its judgment and order of disposition.
Any social study or report submitted to the court by the social
worker shall include the individual child's case plan developed
pursuant to Section 16501.1.
   (c) If the court finds that a child is described by subdivision
(h) of Section 300 or that subdivision (b) of Section 361.5 may be
applicable, the court shall conduct the dispositional proceeding
pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 361.5.


For the complete W&I Codes (California) go to: CA W&I Codes

THIS COURT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT IS NOT EVEN LEGAL (LIKE THEY TRY TO MAKE CRIMINAL COURT TO BE). IT IS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, or Civil Law, AS IF FAMILIES ARE A COMMODITY. Here: 

48.  The provisions of Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 469) of
Title 6 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to variance
and amendment of pleadings in civil actions shall apply to petitions
and proceedings under this chapter, to the same extent and with the
same effect as if proceedings under this chapter were civil actions.

This court is not even like FAMILY COURT and orders are NOT SIGNED (at least not back when our case was active in 2007-2012) therefore, actual custody by the Department is NOT LEGAL. For example, in Family Court you get a signed and sealed Order granting or outlining custody and control of the children. Let’s say you file for divorce and custody of the children and after a long or short battle, you are awarded full custody of the children with your ex getting supervised visits every other weekend. So then one day your ex goes to the children’s school and signs them out and takes them home and when you go to pick them up from school they are not there and the office tells you that your ex picked them up (of course you should have provided the school with a copy of the order but let’s say you forgot). Now, you call your ex and say you are coming to get the children and they say, “No, I’m not letting them go.” But you have legal rights to call the police, show them a copy of the signed and court-stamped order and they will assist you in getting your kids back from your ex. But if you don’t have a copy of the order, they will not assist you. Luckily, if the courthouse is open, you can easily go there and get a copy and show it to the police and then they will help you. In Juvenile Court, CPS never gets SIGNED ORDERS but the police will still assist them! To compare further, let’s say that your ex files for divorce and custody of the children. Let’s say he is allowed to rent a courtroom and pay a “Judge” and a bailiff and pay the attorneys including the one that represents YOU (and then frown and be harder on you if you pay for your own attorney). How fair would that be? THIS IS THE WAY JUVENILE DEPENDENCY COURT OPERATES!

IN FACT, ALL STATE COURTS ARE SET UP THIS WAY. THE STATE, I.E. “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. JOE AUTOMATICALLY GUILTY”. THE STATE PAYS THE JUDGE’S SALARY AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S SALARY AND THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S SALARY. NO WONDER THE CONVICTION RATE IS SO HIGH! This was the single biggest mistake in our “justice system”, providing an attorney if you cannot afford one. Private attorneys would have to charge a great deal less for representation but would that be a BAD thing? 

Here is a clip showing the highest paid CA Judge is also a CPS Judge.

highestpaidJudgeCA

If Adoptive Parents Deserve Incentive Funding, So Do Biological Parents!

This is absolutely CRAZY! These people CHOSE to adopt a child, they chose to adopt a “special needs” child, just like couples chose to have a natural child. Natural parents don’t receive any money for having a “special needs” child. Most of the “special needs” children ,who they claim “need” medication, wouldn’t need medication if they were never taken from their families!! The system is the most discusting, perverse, hypocritical, abomination! Adoptive parents don’t deserve money any more or less than the biological parents!

Watch this news report:

 

http://wthitv.com/2014/08/24/adoption-subsidies-explained/

THE PROPER WAY TO DEAL WITH CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES AT YOUR DOOR!!

International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State

Convened as a lawfully recognized Tribunal of Conscience in Brussels in the fall of 2012, and issuing its final verdict on February 25, 2013, the Common Law Court named and indicted thirty defendants for perpetrating or concealing Genocide in Canada against indigenous people. These defendants included then-Pope Benedict, Joseph Ratzinger, former Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Elizabeth Windsor “Queen of England”, and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

After an exhaustive presentation of the evidence of crimes by church and state in Canada, and a refusal by the defendants to respond or refute the evidence, all of the defendants were found guilty of criminal conspiracy and Genocide, and were sentenced in absentia to 25 years in prison and the forfeit of all the wealth and property of their estates and institutions. Citizen arrest warrants were issued, and on August 4, 2013, the Vatican and Crown of England were declared to be transnational criminal bodies under international law, and were lawfully disestablished.

Please watch this video and visit: http://www.itccs.org for more information.

THIS IS WHY YOU DO NOT ANSWER THE DOOR!!!

These people were totally manipulated. If there was a warrant they wouldn’t have knocked on the door! Notice how the police were not aggressive in any way? They hung back at the door as well as inside. They were used as an intimidation tactic. The social worker LIED about being allowed to take these children!

Emergency Education for Sheriffs and Police – SUBJECT: Child Protection Services – With Guest Officer Jim Rothstein.

All Sheriff’s Officers Police and Police Officers must be made aware of the biggest pediphile ring in America hidding in child Protective Services.

The Child Protective Services Industry in child trafficking, kidnapping, and adoption scam in the US and UK

There have been many testimonies before congress like my wife and myself. the fact that nothing has been done to protect our children so far from this pediphile criminal ring doing business as CPS shows me that congress is willing to continue to take the money from the sale of children knowing their lives are destroyed. We have to take steps to destroy CPS from the inside our selves. We are working on steps to undermine CPS as we speak. We will give a detailed plan out here in the next few weeks for parents to teach at home or to tell you children when you see them. The way to start now is every single day you see your child tell them you love them no matter what, they can come home to you and everything CPS tells them is a lie. Make sure they have a phone number known by heart, kids are smart teach them your number in a song, it is easy and all parents must stick together, tell everyone you know to never call CPS.

It IS EXTREMELY HARD TO STAY TOGETHER AFTER CPS STEALS YOUR CHILD…

The other day I posted that I was retiring from donnellyjustice. Many people commented on that post. Everyone was so caring and supportive and thankful for all that my husband and I have been doing for the cause and exposing this corrupt, evil system that steals our children. So, I won’t be retiring after all, too many people need this information and I may have felt like giving up the other day, but I changed my mind. I apologize for publicizing my weaknesses and insecurities. I was at rock bottom that day. I won’t give up, ever.

Thank you so much to those who commented. Your comments are gone because I deleted the post.

 

So, if you can tell, I was experiencing personal problems.

back to the subject of this post:

…ESPECIALLY WHEN IT WAS YOU AND YOUR SPOUSE’S LOVE CHILD!

 

My husband and I made such a beautiful baby. He was so healthy when he was born! My husband’s ex-wife, Leslie Ann Logan Hoyle, was such a jealous freak that she called the hospital and CPS over 25 times during the 4 days I was in labor!

Does anyone know what an APGAR score is? Well its an assessment of a newborn baby and whether or not it needs immediate medical attention. The highest score is a 10.0.  If a newborn is going through DRUG WITHDRAWALS there is NO WAY it would score a 9.9 like my son was given! My husband’s extremely vindictive ex-wife, Leslie Ann Logan Hoyle (Ann Jule), is so disturbed that she would make false allegations against us simply because one time I wrote her a letter that made her face the things she had done to her own children. Leslie Ann Logan Hoyle also has an “in” with the Department as her mother worked at the same office that the social workers who came to the hospital worked at. She worked there for over 35 years. Also, Leslie Ann Logan Hoyle WAS a registered nurse AND A DRUG ADDICT who often went to this same hospital to get shots of morphine or demerol when she was jonesing, and CLAIMED THAT SHE KNEW THOSE WHO WORKED IN LABOR AND DELIVERY. She MADE CPS TAKE OUR SON AWAY THE VERY FIRST TIME. IF THERE WAS NEVER THE FIRST CASE, THERE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN ANY SECONDARY CASE. .

Long story short, our love child was adopted out to people who refuse to even speak to us despite being CHRISTIANS!

This has put such a strain on our marraige, I can’t even begin to explain it because it is personal however, I would like to dedicate the song, “Stay” by Rhianna to my husband, who can dish it out but can’t take it. I wish I didn’t dish it out back at him at all. I wish we could just be nice and get along like normal people but HAVING YOUR CHILD STOLEN AND HAVING NO RECOURSE (OR AT LEAST IT TAKING SO LONG TO FILE OUR RECOURSE BECAUSE I DEAL WITH TOO MUCH PERSONAL STUFF) puts a great strain on us individually.

P.S., Check out the Juvenile Dependency Court page, I have added a few things and will be working on providing even more information. I am also putting together a “Juvenile Dependency Court Survival Guide”. I hope to have this done within the next few weeks.

STAY – RHIANNA

[see the video below]

All along it was a fever
A cold sweat hot-headed believer
I threw my hands in the air I said show me something
He said, if you dare come a little closer

Round and around and around and around we go
Ohhh now tell me now tell me now tell me now you know

Not really sure how to feel about it
Something in the way you move
Makes me feel like I can’t live without you
It takes me all the way
I want you to stay

It’s not much of a life you’re living
It’s not just something you take, it’s given
Round and around and around and around we go
Ohhh now tell me now tell me now tell me now you know

Not really sure how to feel about it
Something in the way you move
Makes me feel like I can’t live without you
It takes me all the way
I want you to stay

Ohhh the reason I hold on
Ohhh cause I need this hole gone
Funny you’re the broken one but I’m the only one who needed saving
Cause when you never see the lights it’s hard to know which one of us is caving

Not really sure how to feel about it
Something in the way you move
Makes me feel like I can’t live without you
It takes me all the way
I want you to stay, stay
I want you to stay, ohhh

 

VIDEOS OF DONNELLY

I have been REALLY MISSING MY SON lately, I mean EVEN MORE THAN USUAL!

What would YOU do if this happened to you? I know most of our visitors have gone through this same ordeal, I am talking to those who have never been personally involved with CPS (other than to maybe adopt a child). Would you be able to control yourself? Would you just say, “Well, they all thought I was a bad parent so I must have been so my child is better off without me.”? Or would you do anything you were possibly capable of? But guess what? They file a RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST YOU! The ADOPTED PARENTS WON’T EVEN LISTEN TO YOU!! You can’t call or text them let alone go to their house or you’ll go to JAIL AGAIN! What do you do? Maybe if any adoptive parents out there have the answer, please comment or email me at billandsharon9@msn.com.

 

MYYOUTUBE

Click on the picture or here: VIDEOS OF DONNELLY

CPS (Judge) Looks out for kids and turns whistleblower about the CPS courts.

Child Protective Services ex-employee turned whistleblower speaks out about CPS stealing children for budgets.

CPS whistleblower tells it all how CPS is a terrorist group stealing children. This video tells it like it is.

Foster Care Horrors

Link to see: Foster Care Horrors.

via Foster Care Horrors.

California Dependency Court Detention Hearing Audit Packet

California Dependency Court Detention Hearing Audit Packet

Thank you to the donnellyjustice reader who advised that the link to this document was broken. I made it so people with the link can VIEW not EDIT so if you can’t download or print it please let us know. 

Riverside County CPS is hiring their next Judge

cpslookingforjudge

Q & A: Popular Search Questions: How to “beat” CPS: YOU CAN’T

PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW TO BE REDIRECTED TO: CPS: CHILD PREDATOR SERVICES which is another donnellyjustice site:

Q & A: Popular Search Questions: How to “beat” CPS: YOU CAN’T.

via Q & A: Popular Search Questions: How to “beat” CPS: YOU CAN’T.

Q & A: What Is “Probable Cause” For CPS to Take Your Child?

Q & A: What Is “Probable Cause” For CPS to Take Your Child?.

via Q & A: What Is "Probable Cause" For CPS to Take Your Child?.

Q & A: How to Pass a Hair Follicle Test in Riverside County, CA

Q & A: How to Pass a Hair Follicle Test in Riverside County, CA.

via Q & A: How to Pass a Hair Follicle Test in Riverside County, CA.

donnelly justice is working with Lawless America. We are not requesting but telling you if you want to save the family as part of American culture then you better get some motivation to protect the ones you love because we are losing the fight and government has a plan to use community centers to raise the children of the future sounds unreal look it up. Educate yourself to the US agenda

 

We are not requesting but telling you if you want to save the family as part of American culture then you better get some motivation to protect the ones you love because we are losing the fight and government has a plan to use community centers to raise the children of the future sounds unreal look it up. Educate yourself to the US agenda.

 

UPDATE: Bill Windsor has been bad-mouthed, stalked, harassed, threatened, and even assaulted twice for exposing U.S. corruption. The State of Montana seems to be bully #1. This doesn’t stop the amazing Windsor! He has multiple lawsuits pending against the University of  Montana, Facebook and Joeyisalittlekid and 1,000 other Joeys!

see: http://lawlessamerica.org/

A Canon A Day for Judges Astray-Day 4

A Canon A Day for Judges Astray-Day 4

I skipped the weekend because I doubt that Judges would check out donnellyjustice.me on their day off!

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.