This is a precedent. Hope to see more!
When you are finished watching this video, please visit: www.savekendall.com
I know, I spelled CRISIS wrong. There is always ONE.lol
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.
Watch this video and understand what is going on in America and Great Britten. This is a long video but full of information on what to do. This is just as relevant in other countries as well as the United States. Lets make this movement so big that the government understands we will defend our children to our death. To leave our child alone. We will not take this any longer.
It is time people stop believing and calling Child Protective Services. It is a fact that children are abused far more often in CPS care. If you call CPS on a family the chance these children will be abused goes up by 80% Watch this video and see where your tax dollars are going.
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?
This corruption is not even hidden. If you could do a child a favor and just show this video to parents. EVERYONE MUST KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON WITH OUR
All Parents in the united states better know what to do because this is not only happening to other people. YOU BETTER KNOW WHAT TO DO. The knowledge parents need to know when CPS knocks on your door is far to much to learn in a weekend. I have been deeply embedded in these Juvenile Court Proceedings and Law for almost 6 years now only now do I feel confident enough to hold these people accountable. This is because Juvenile CPS law involves, criminal, custody, constitutional, Juvenile Dependency Statutes,,Adoption Codes of Civil Procedure, ,Welfare & Institutions Code and if this isn’t enough then you have to make the JUDGE actually do his job with Dependency Quick Guide – DOGBOOK because they do not give a shit about your children even is they tell you they do and say what you want to hear, I was there the manipulation of these compulsive liars will make you mental after the case is over for not learning this courts boundaries. Don’t get me wrong you only have to learn the parts that pertain to JV Court or CPS JV dependency court. My family was so deeply violated by this Judge I felt the need to learn as much as I could to gain some kind of understanding why this happened but I learned about the funding and how it gets spent and who gets it.. Only now do I see how inept my lawyer truly was and still is or he just has no morals. Don’t think you can wait all this information is on this site. You better get busy. We did the legwork and we will always be here to continue to help. Ask anything you wish and I promise we will try our best to answer everyone. If you don’t get us by email fast enough call please, don’t feel ashamed, we know how important this is for all parents. Remember we been there. email email@example.com and our phone number 951-305-1552 . I want to keep this number open for those of you who truly need help ASAP. Everyone is welcome to call about your case just remember their is a limited number of volunteers here that understand what is truly going on with these courts so be patient. .
God Bless you and your Family
Following this article is California Welfare & Institutions Code Section 309 text regarding relative placement.
I saw that the adoption was finalized on November 2, 2012 at the Southwest Justice Center’s Adoption Finalization Day. They have this event every year in November so for all of you whose children are being adopted out of this court, stay informed of the date they have this finalization day that way you can go there and protest, see your child one last time or try to speak to the adoptive parents before they put a restraining order on you.
CALIFORNIA WELFARE & INSTITUTIONS CODE:
309. (a) Upon delivery to the social worker of a child who has been
taken into temporary custody under this article, the social worker
shall immediately investigate the circumstances of the child and the
facts surrounding the child’s being taken into custody and attempt to
maintain the child with the child’s family through the provision of
services. The social worker shall immediately release the child to
the custody of the child’s parent, guardian, or responsible relative
unless one or more of the following conditions exist:
(1) The child has no parent, guardian, or responsible relative; or
the child’s parent, guardian, or responsible relative is not willing
to provide care for the child.
(2) Continued detention of the child is a matter of immediate and
urgent necessity for the protection of the child and there are no
reasonable means by which the child can be protected in his or her
home or the home of a responsible relative.
(3) There is substantial evidence that a parent, guardian, or
custodian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the
(4) The child has left a placement in which he or she was placed
by the juvenile court.
(5) The parent or other person having lawful custody of the child
voluntarily surrendered physical custody of the child pursuant to
Section 1255.7 of the Health and Safety Code and did not reclaim the
child within the 14-day period specified in subdivision (e) of that
(b) In any case in which there is reasonable cause for believing
that a child who is under the care of a physician and surgeon or a
hospital, clinic, or other medical facility and cannot be immediately
moved and is a person described in Section 300, the child shall be
deemed to have been taken into temporary custody and delivered to the
social worker for the purposes of this chapter while the child is at
the office of the physician and surgeon or the medical facility.
(c) If the child is not released to his or her parent or guardian,
the child shall be deemed detained for purposes of this chapter.
(d) (1) If an able and willing relative, as defined in Section
319, or an able and willing nonrelative extended family member, as
defined in Section 362.7, is available and requests temporary
placement of the child pending the detention hearing, the county
welfare department shall initiate an assessment of the relative’s or
nonrelative extended family member’s suitability, which shall include
an in-home inspection to assess the safety of the home and the
ability of the relative or nonrelative extended family member to care
for the child’s needs, and a consideration of the results of a
criminal records check conducted pursuant to subdivision (a) of
Section 16504.5 and a check of allegations of prior child abuse or
neglect concerning the relative or nonrelative extended family member
and other adults in the home. Upon completion of this assessment,
the child may be placed in the assessed home. For purposes of this
paragraph, and except for the criminal records check conducted
pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 16504.5, the standards used to
determine suitability shall be the same standards set forth in the
regulations for the licensing of foster family homes.
(2) Immediately following the placement of a child in the home of
a relative or a nonrelative extended family member, the county
welfare department shall evaluate and approve or deny the home for
purposes of AFDC-FC eligibility pursuant to Section 11402. The
standards used to evaluate and grant or deny approval of the home of
the relative and of the home of a nonrelative extended family member,
as described in Section 362.7, shall be the same standards set forth
in regulations for the licensing of foster family homes which
prescribe standards of safety and sanitation for the physical plant
and standards for basic personal care, supervision, and services
provided by the caregiver.
(3) To the extent allowed by federal law, as a condition of
receiving funding under Title IV-E of the federal Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. Sec. 670 et seq.), if a relative or nonrelative extended
family member meets all other conditions for approval, except for the
receipt of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s criminal history
information for the relative or nonrelative extended family member,
and other adults in the home, as indicated, the county welfare
department may approve the home and document that approval, if the
relative or nonrelative extended family member, and each adult in the
home, has signed and submitted a statement that he or she has never
been convicted of a crime in the United States, other than a traffic
infraction as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section
42001 of the Vehicle Code. If, after the approval has been granted,
the department determines that the relative or nonrelative extended
family member or other adult in the home has a criminal record, the
approval may be terminated.
(4) If the criminal records check indicates that the person has
been convicted of a crime for which the Director of Social Services
cannot grant an exemption under Section 1522 of the Health and Safety
Code, the child shall not be placed in the home. If the criminal
records check indicates that the person has been convicted of a crime
for which the Director of Social Services may grant an exemption
under Section 1522 of the Health and Safety Code, the child shall not
be placed in the home unless a criminal records exemption has been
granted by the county based on substantial and convincing evidence to
support a reasonable belief that the person with the criminal
conviction is of such good character as to justify the placement and
not present a risk of harm to the child.
(e) (1) If the child is removed, the social worker shall conduct,
within 30 days, an investigation in order to identify and locate all
grandparents, adult siblings, and other adult relatives of the child,
as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 319,
including any other adult relatives suggested by the parents. The
social worker shall provide to all adult relatives who are located,
except when that relative’s history of family or domestic violence
makes notification inappropriate, within 30 days of removal of the
child, written notification and shall also, whenever appropriate,
provide oral notification, in person or by telephone, of all the
(A) The child has been removed from the custody of his or her
parent or parents, or his or her guardians.
(B) An explanation of the various options to participate in the
care and placement of the child and support for the child’s family,
including any options that may be lost by failing to respond. The
notice shall provide information about providing care for the child
while the family receives reunification services with the goal of
returning the child to the parent or guardian, how to become a foster
family home or approved relative or nonrelative extended family
member as defined in Section 362.7, and additional services and
support that are available in out-of-home placements. The notice
shall also include information regarding the Kin-GAP Program (Article
4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of
Division 9), the CalWORKs program for approved relative caregivers
(Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11200) of Part 3 of Division 9),
adoption, and adoption assistance (Chapter 2.1 (commencing with
Section 16115) of Part 4 of Division 9), as well as other options for
contact with the child, including, but not limited to, visitation.
The State Department of Social Services, in consultation with the
County Welfare Directors Association and other interested
stakeholders, shall develop the written notice.
(2) On and after January 1, 2011, the social worker shall also
provide the adult relatives notified pursuant to paragraph (1) with a
relative information form to provide information to the social
worker and the court regarding the needs of the child. The form shall
include a provision whereby the relative may request the permission
of the court to address the court, if the relative so chooses. The
Judicial Council, in consultation with the State Department of Social
Services and the County Welfare Directors Association, shall develop
(3) The social worker shall use due diligence in investigating the
names and locations of the relatives pursuant to paragraph (1),
including, but not limited to, asking the child in an age-appropriate
manner about relatives important to the child, consistent with the
child’s best interest, and obtaining information regarding the
location of the child’s adult relatives. Each county welfare
department shall create and make public a procedure by which
relatives of a child who has been removed from his or her parents or
guardians may identify themselves to the county welfare department
and be provided with the notices required by paragraphs (1) and (2).
THIS POST IS DEDICATED TO THE HARDWORKING CIVIL SERVANTS AT:
I truly wish Riverside County would get a judge of moral fiber with family values, if this doesn’t happen soon than any parent who goes before a CPS is getting a sentence far worse than death. I have such a hard time believing the world is this evil. Separating family is such a cruel thing to do that I can not follow any decision by these corrupt unmoral criminals who would sell another persons children. This punishment no person deserves and I will do what ever the lord has planed for me. Bless these people for they know not what they do. We love you Donnelly.
Donnelly is our baby boy and any parent who feels the way we do about our children is a wonderful parent. No judge could ever take that from us. We are gentle, loving parents and we will face the terrorism of Child Protective Services to our deaths. There is no reason on Gods green earth why we can not see our son. The lies of these social workers who have stolen our child will come out. Any person who does the things that have been done to us to steal our child is not a person of decency or moral fiber and should be in prison. I have no reason to hide my head in shame because I know who I am, and I wouldn’t want to be anyone else. I like who I am, I know CPS social worker Antione Coley doesn’t like who he is, this man has lied to everyone to take my son.
My children are my life and no man shall take that away, God bless the parents who keep on going even after CPS has stolen their child.. We will see you again Donnelly love Dad.
There are State run agencies who are supposed to be protecting abused children in dangerous situations. Each State has many different titles for them. All of them are main stapled as CPS (HHS) Health and Human Services (Department of Child Protective Services) While there is an important need to find abused children and to protect them, the current system is only finding a small percentage of those truly abused children.
The rest of their statistics that guarantee a high departmental income are from families who never abused their children. Where they get this income and the sources of information will be posted after the next paragraph. I am not calling for an abolishment of CPS. What I am calling for is an overhaul and restructure to bring them in line with lawful investigation practices, to maintain Constitutional Rights and proper training for Agents who never had children, and psychological evaluations to find and replace the Agents who were themselves abused as Children and see abuse in every home regardless of the situation. This is not, I repeat, not a rare occurrence.
I will supply statistics to support this and how this has escalated. I will also supply the sources. Departmental income has become more important to CPS and their offices than actually finding abused children and protecting them. Each and every time they remove a child from the home, they get paid from the Federal Government. Of course they lie and say they are not,.Here they are:
1. Public Law 93-247 known as the Mondale Act of 1974. 2. Public Law 96-272 known as the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 3. Social Security Title IV-E funds. The ASFA- Public Law 105-89 known as American Safe Families Act of 1997 is one of the most horrific laws on the books today. While it sounds nice in the title, when you get through the legal jargon, what this means is so wrong.
If you ever had a child removed from your house by CPS, even UNFOUNDED and you are innocent, they will take that child in minutes after the child is born! Babies are highly adoptable and the Federal Government pays out $6,000 to the CPS office who conducts the legal kidnapping and gets them adopted quickly without regards to the biological Mother and her family. Since she was investigated once, they do this in the “best interests of the child” as she is a “potential” abuser. The largest targeted types of families are folks with low incomes, children on SSI and are minorities. If you even have one of those three issues, you are a target for CPS to illegally investigate you.
While these things are a surefire magnet, they have been known to do illegal investigations against families if they were reported falsely with malicious intent. Example is an ex-wife wants to get even with her ex-husband and his new family; she could report them and put them through Hell. Why are the reasons CPS Agents actually find so little true abuse? 1. Agents who never had children and don’t understand that a few toys in the corner of the room is not a hazardous mess. 2. Agents are not trained in real evidence recognition. In fact, no Agent in CPS has any training in evidence, the Constitution or criminal justice.
They are given anywhere from 3 to 6 months of training, being taught that it is ok to break into a Home without probable cause or exigent circumstances. 3. Agents are trained to use subjective speculation and not objective factual reporting. 4. The Agents do not get psychological evaluations. A number of Agents who were abused as a child themselves see abuse in every home they go into, even if it’s not there. 5. Most States do not require Agents to have a degree in Social Sciences. Any degree will do, doesn’t even have to be related to the field. 6. The Agency has no checks and balances. A field Agent can lie to a judge or police officer with absolutely no proof and have it entered as factual evidence in a court of law! 7. Agents are trained to believe they are immune from the authority of
the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. They violate this in every investigation done nationwide. Petition: Here are the statistics and sources to support these facts: Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the United States. These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) in Washington. CPS- Physical Abuse (160) Sexual Abuse (112) Neglect (410) Medical Neglect (14) Fatalities (6.4) Parents- Physical Abuse (59) Sexual Abuse (13) Neglect (241) Medical Neglect (12) Fatalities (1.5) As you can see, children are abused far more in care than at home.
The calculated average is for every 1 abused children removed from an abusive home, there are 17 children removed from loving non-offending homes nationwide. Constitutional Violations and Court Rulings that CPS Ignores to this very day! 1. It’s unconstitutional for CPS to conduct an investigation and interview a child on private property without exigent circumstances or probable cause. – Doe et al, v. Heck et al (No. 01-3648, 2003 US App. Lexis 7144) 2. All CPS workers in the United States are subject to the 4th and 14th Amendment – Walsh v. Erie County Dept. of Job and Family Services, 3:01-cv-7588 3. Police officers and social workers are not immune for coercing or forcing entry into a person’s home without a search warrant. Calibrate v. Floyd (9th Cir. 1999) 4.
The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstance that would justify a forced warrant less entry and a warrant less seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice (2nd Cir. 1991) 5. Police officer and social worker may not conduct a warrant less search or seizure in a suspected child abuse case absent exigent circumstances. Defendants must have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy and that the intrusion is reasonable necessary to alleviate the threat. Searches and seizures in investigation of a child neglect or child abuse case at a home are governed by the same principles as other searches and seizures at a home. Good v. Dauphin County Social Services (3rd Cir. 1989) 6. The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends beyond criminal investigations and includes conduct by social workers in the context of a child neglect/abuse investigation. Lenz
v. Winburn (11th Cir. 1995) 7. Making false statements made to obtain a warrant, when the false statements were necessary to the finding of probable cause on which the warrant was based, violates the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davilla (1st Cir. 1998) What can be done to change this for a better, healthier Child Protection System? I. Child Abuse is a Crime, not a touchy freely civil complaint and should be investigated as a crime. II. Have the abuse allegations investigated by a Detective or Police Officer, who are trained for this as a career, whereas CPS workers are not. All investigations are joint ones with said Officers of the Law and with warrants properly issues under probable cause. III. Re-train Agents to respect and obey the laws of the Constitution of the United States
. If a family is guilty of abuse, a legal investigation will find it. IV. Repeal the Mondale Act, Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, Title IV-E rewards to CPS from Social Security and the American Safe Families Act. Remember, they are not what the title sounds like and has been the root core of many loving homes losing their children to a system that will abuse them. V. Make CPS legally investigates those who sign up to be foster parents.
They do not do this today, and many foster parents who want the money for fostering them are actually child abusers who never get caught! VI. All interviews to be audio and video recorded just like it happens with the police! VII. Hold CPS Agents and foster parents and the records keeper responsible for every child who vanishes or dies in their care for their location. VIII. Also investigate the person or persons reporting the abuse, and if done maliciously with intent to disrupt a family, prosecute the reporter to the fullest extent of the Law regarding making false claims to Government Agencies to affect an unnecessary and costly investigation. IX. Abuse is a Crime, guarantee the accused retain their right to face their accusers in a court of law. As the system currently is, this is not done. X.
The Children are to be tracked on a weekly basis, so no more children vanish in the system. XI. If a disabled, mentally retarded or sick Child is put into Foster Care, the Child’s current Physician will need to provide a copy of the diagnosis and treatment, and medications, if any, will be provided as prescribed by the Physician. All appointments must be kept while in Foster Care. Any violations without a very good reason will result in the Foster Parents
losing their certification for Foster Care. XII. If a Foster Child dies while in Foster Care, there will be an Investigation by the FBI and all parties responsible for the Death of a Child will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. XIII. There will be a National Database where all known abusers are recorded and can be accessed by Law Enforcement. Everyone who is found not guilty won’t have their Convictions and Abuse Reports listed. It will be illegal to keep records of any sort on innocent individuals or families. If they are convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers, then the report of abuse they are guilty of will be the only report listed.
Currently, none of this is done, and innocent families who are not guilty of anything are losing their Children based on the word of others where there is no burden of proof for Prosecution, for the sake of getting Federal Funds for tens of thousands of dollars. The few truly abused children are ending up in a system where they are worse off than where they came from, even to the extent of being killed. Also, the innocent children who are never abused are also killed.
These people amaze me by their confidence in nothing, they have no positive data to back anything they do. They come into your home because someone called the hot line to cause you pain and suffering like an ex-wife who lost in divorce court and doesn’t want the children to love you over her.
The attorney’s are so completely incompetent, do not object to anything, and only want to push you and your kids through the system even if it ruins the entire family as long as they get paid. My attorney guided me through the entire process and now that it is over I have found out all the things he did to make sure I lost. This Attorney Daniel Vinson knew very clearly that I was not guilty and let so many things be presented as evidence even while I was sitting there and stated I do not have a drug history, why are they saying I do. I never had any charges or drug convictions in the past and he did not object to anything but passive willingness to let go of my parental rights. Only a CPS case from my ex wife after she was on antidepressants. I have done the research and have over 1800 pages of evidence from this court that I will get into court. I have written many reports of the amount of evidence we have and it is just a matter of time. If it isn’t me it will be someone else this information has been given to .
County counsel Mrs Jamiilla Purnell brought up information she had absolutely no knowledge of and stated theory as if it were fact. If anyone in this court room were ever in a real court of law they would be completely run out of the court room until they learned of to conduct themselves like a professional. CPS and county counsel submitted a criminal record that was not mini and it belonged to a man 10 years older than me. I told my lawyer many times that I had no drug history and he continued to sit on this information and it was a major factor in my railroading by the South West JV Civil courtroom system and is well known for over 20 years that nothing in this court is for the child’s best interest.
They are the only ones in this system that believe CPS has anyone convinced they do care and it is only a matter of time now until this court and the money taken by CPS courts and then placed into an account that any state agency can take funds from as needed and this is all documented in the 2011 grand jury investigation.
It is truly amazing that these attorney’s will cover up any way for you to win against CPS to the point of destroying any respect the client could possibly have for their ability to defend you properly. These people are sociopaths who care about nothing.,
The three most common ways of stopping a parents visit to take control of a child welfare. Tell the parent the child doesn’t want to see you.
Make false accusation of crimes committed by the parent and say you will be convicted to scare them into signing the case plan. Answer tell them to bring it on because you know you are not guilty. Believe me the criminal courts are 1000% more fare than the CPS court. CPS courts are unconstitutional and private. Even if you submit proof of your innocents it will not make it on the record. Remember this always when you talk to anyone in these courts. CPS has been caught repeatedly selling children to child trafficking and anyone who challenges me on this better have their facts in order because I have FBI reports, Grand Jury Reports that have been done over and over again and CPS fails to follow any recommendations.
Any Parent should know when CPS cuts off your parental contact with your child, this is against the law and you should always take steps to counter this asap do not let this go. CPS is trying to break the parental bond because you and your child have a close relationship.and CPS finds this to be their biggest enemy to people ever trusting them, I got news for CPS people will never trust CPS. You have to actually care about kids.first. I found information in a report for the continuity of US Government and this report actually suggested having community centers to raise the child. What these reports don’t ever mention is that children are so much better raised by the bond of a mother who cares endlessly for their child, and the community center is just a paid babysitter and everyone knows how that always works out.. Maybe if you doubt any of this is because it sounds crazy and it is but that doesn’t say that it isn’t true.