Unbiased Reporting

What I post on this Blog does not mean I agree with the articles or disagree. I call it Unbiased Reporting!

Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly

Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital

Friday, April 30, 2010

Infants and Antidepressant Withdrawal 1 in 3 Newborns Exhibited Symptoms From SSRIs

Infants and Antidepressant Withdrawal
1 in 3 Newborns Exhibited Symptoms From SSRIs
By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Health News Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Feb. 6, 2006 -- There is growing evidence that babies born to mothers who take antidepressants during pregnancy often experience symptoms of drug withdrawal shortly after birth.

In a new study from Israel, about one out of three newborn infants exposed to antidepressants in the womb showed signs of neonatal drug withdrawal, which included high-pitched crying, tremors, and disturbed sleep.

Researchers concluded that expectant moms who take selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants and their doctors should be warned about the potential risk.

"Because maternal depression during pregnancy also entails a risk to the newborn, the risk-benefit ratio of continuing SSRI treatment should be assessed," Rachel Levinson-Castiel, MD, and colleagues wrote.

Confusing Picture
The report comes less than a week after the publication of a major study finding that pregnant women who stop taking antidepressants run a high risk of relapsing into depression.

And it comes just months after the FDA warned that a widely prescribed SSRI may be associated with an increased risk of birth defects in babies born to mothers who take the drug in their first trimester.

The mixed messages from the research have left many pregnant women who suffer from depression wondering what to do.

Diana Dell, MD, who is both an ob-gyn and a psychiatrist, says it is increasingly clear that abruptly stopping depression treatment carries significant risks for both mother and baby.

Dell is an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology and psychiatry at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

"Moms need to be well during pregnancy, and moderate to severe depression certainly has an impact on a developing fetus," she tells WebMD. "We also know that a woman's chance of being hospitalized for psychiatric reasons is greater during the first four weeks after giving birth than at any other time in her life."

'Vulnerable Period'
The Israeli study involved 60 newborns whose mothers took SSRI antidepressants throughout their pregnancies up until the time they delivered. The infants were assessed for signs of withdrawal during the first two hours after birth, and then again at regular intervals if they exhibited withdrawal symptoms.

A second group of 60 newborns who were not exposed to SSRIs in the womb were also assessed.

The researchers reported that 18 of the 60 SSRI-exposed newborns (30%) showed signs of drug withdrawal in the hours after birth, and in eight cases the symptoms were considered severe.
The most common symptoms were tremors, gastrointestinal problems, muscle tensing, sleep disturbances, and high-pitched crying. None of the exposed infants with symptoms required treatment.
None of the infants without exposure to SSRIs in the womb showed evidence of the withdrawal symptoms.

The researchers concluded that babies born to mothers taking SSRIs at the time of delivery should be watched carefully in the hospital setting for at least 48 hours after birth.

Dell points out that in this study, and in several others, symptoms that might be associated with antidepressant exposure in the womb resolved quickly after birth.

She says findings from a study published last week in The Journal of the American Medical Association highlight the importance of carefully weighing the risks and benefits of antidepressant treatment during pregnancy.

In that study, two-thirds of the women with a history of major depression who stopped taking SSRIs during pregnancy relapsed into serious depression, compared with one in four women who kept taking the drugs.

"We now have proof that pregnancy does not protect against depression," she says. "Just like the post-partum period, pregnancy is a biologically vulnerable period for this disease."


Racine social worker fired for filing false reports



The Foster Kid 2-The Lab Rats

By Patism Legally Kidnapped


Thursday, April 29, 2010

Report of Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer on CPS Corruption

February 29, 2008

Report of Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer on CPS Corruption
Note from the Fight CPS webmaster: This is a very important report written by a Senator in Georgia. Please read the entire report, download the PDF, print it to give to your lawyers, caseworkers, local newspaper editors, state and federal senators and congressmen, CASA workers in your area, and whoever else you believe might benefit from reading the truth about CPS from the viewpoint of a Senator. Though this Senator is from Georgia, her report is about all state child protective services agencies. Thank-you, Senator Schaefer, for investigating and writing this report! – ljm

Click here to download an original copy of Senator Schaefer’s report in pdf format
From the legislative desk of Senator Nancy Schaefer 50th District of Georgia
November 16, 2007
BY: Nancy Schaefer
Senator, 50th District
My introduction into child protective service cases was due to a grandmother in an adjoining state who called me with her tragic story. Her two granddaughters had been taken from her daughter who lived in my district. Her daughter was told wrongly that if she wanted to see her children again she should sign a paper and give up her children. Frightened and young, the daughter did. I have since discovered that parents are often threatened into cooperation of permanent separation of their children.
The children were taken to another county and placed in foster care. The foster parents were told wrongly that they could adopt the children. The grandmother then jumped through every hoop known to man in order to get her granddaughters. When the case finally came to court it was made evident by one of the foster parent’s children that the foster parents had, at any given time, 18 foster children and that the foster mother had an inappropriate relationship with the caseworker.
In the courtroom, the juvenile judge, acted as though she was shocked and said the two girls would be removed quickly. They were not removed. Finally, after much pressure being applied to the Department of Family and Children Services of Georgia (DFCS), the children were driven to South Georgia to meet their grandmother who gladly drove to meet them. After being with their grandmother two or three days, the judge, quite out of the blue, wrote up a new order to send the girls to their father, who previously had no interest in the case and who lived on the West Coast. The father was in “adult entertainment”. His girlfriend worked as an “escort” and his brother, who also worked in the business, had a sexual charge brought against him.
Within a couple of days the father was knocking on the grandmother’s door and took the girls kicking and screaming to California.
The father developed an unusual relationship with the former foster parents and soon moved back to the southeast, and the foster parents began driving to the father’s residence and picking up the little girls for visits. The oldest child had told her mother and grandmother on two different occasions that the foster father molested her.
To this day after five years, this loving, caring blood relative grandmother does not even have visitation privileges with the children. The little girls are in my opinion permanently traumatized and the young mother of the girls was so traumatized with shock when the girls were first removed from her that she has not recovered.
Throughout this case and through the process of dealing with multiple other mismanaged cases of the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS), I have worked with other desperate parents and children across the state because they have no rights and no one with whom to turn. I have witnessed ruthless behavior from many caseworkers, social workers, investigators, lawyers, judges, therapists, and others such as those who “pick up” the children. I have been stunned by what I have seen and heard from victims all over the state of Georgia.
In this report, I am focusing on the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS). However, I believe Child Protective Services nationwide has become corrupt and that the entire system is broken almost beyond repair. I am convinced parents and families should be warned of the dangers.
The Department of Child Protective Services, known as the Department of Family and Children Service (DFCS) in Georgia and other titles in other states, has become a “protected empire” built on taking children and separating families. This is not to say that there are not those children who do need to be removed from wretched situations and need protection. This report is concerned with the children and parents caught up in “legal kidnapping,” ineffective policies, and DFCS who do does not remove a child or children when a child is enduring torment and abuse. (See Exhibit A and Exhibit B)
In one county in my District, I arranged a meeting for thirty-seven families to speak freely and without fear. These poor parents and grandparents spoke of their painful, heart wrenching encounters with DFCS. Their suffering was overwhelming. They wept and cried. Some did not know where their children were and had not seen them in years. I had witnessed the “Gestapo” at work and I witnessed the deceitful conditions under which children were taken in the middle of the night, out of hospitals, off of school buses, and out of homes. In one county a private drug testing business was operating within the DFCS department that required many, many drug tests from parents and individuals for profit. In another county children were not removed when they were enduring the worst possible abuse. Due to being exposed, several employees in a particular DFCS office were fired. However, they have now been rehired either in neighboring counties or in the same county again. According to the calls I am now receiving, the conditions in that county are returning to the same practices that they had before the light was shown on their deeds. Having worked with probably 300 cases statewide, I am convinced there is no responsibility and no accountability in the system.
I have come to the conclusion:
· that poor parents often times are targeted to lose their children because they do not have the where-with-all to hire lawyers and fight the system. Being poor does not mean you are not a good parent or that you do not love your child, or that your child should be removed and placed with strangers;
· that all parents are capable of making mistakes and that making a mistake does not mean your children are always to be removed from the home. Even if the home is not perfect, it is home; and that’s where a child is the safest and where he or she wants to be, with family;
· that parenting classes, anger management classes, counseling referrals, therapy classes and on and on are demanded of parents with no compassion by the system even while they are at work and while their children are separated from them. This can take months or even years and it emotionally devastates both children and parents. Parents are victimized by “the system” that makes a profit for holding children longer and “bonuses” for not returning children;
· that caseworkers and social workers are oftentimes guilty of fraud. They withhold evidence. They fabricate evidence and they seek to terminate parental rights. However, when charges are made against them, the charges are ignored;
· that the separation of families is growing as a business because local governments have grown accustomed to having taxpayer dollars to balance their ever-expanding budgets;
· that Child Protective Service and Juvenile Court can always hide behind a confidentiality clause in order to protect their decisions and keep the funds flowing. There should be open records and “court watches”! Look who is being paid! There are state employees, lawyers, court investigators, 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 social workers are the glue that holds “the system” together that funds the court, the child’s attorney, and the multiple other jobs including DFCS’s attorney.
· that The Adoption and the Safe Families Act, set in motion by President Bill Clinton, offered cash
“bonuses” to the states for every child they adopted out of foster care. In order to receive the “adoption incentive bonuses” local child protective services need more children. They must have merchandise (children) that sell and you must have plenty of them so the buyer can choose. Some counties are known to give a $4,000 bonus for each child adopted and an additional $2,000 for a “special needs” child. Employees work to keep the federal dollars flowing;
· that there is double dipping. The funding continues as long as the child is out of the home. When a child in foster care is placed with a new family then “adoption bonus funds” are available. When a child is placed in a mental health facility and is on 16 drugs per day, like two children of a constituent of mine, more funds are involved;
· that there are no financial resources and no real drive to unite a family and help keep them together;
· that the incentive for social workers to return children to their parents quickly after taking them has disappeared and who in protective services will step up to the plate and say, “This must end!” No one, because they are all in the system together and a system with no leader and no clear policies will always fail the children. Look at the waste in government that is forced upon the tax payer;
· that the “Policy Manuel” is considered “the last word” for DFCS. However, it is too long, too confusing, poorly written and does not take the law into consideration;
· that if the lives of children were improved by removing them from their homes, there might be a greater need for protective services, but today all children are not always safer. Children, of whom I am aware, have been raped and impregnated in foster care and the head of a Foster Parents Association in my District was recently arrested because of child molestation;
· that some parents are even told if they want to see their children or grandchildren, they must divorce their spouse. Many, who are under privileged, feeling they have no option, will divorce and then just continue to live together. This is an anti-family policy, but parents will do anything to get their children home with them.
· fathers, (non-custodial parents) I must add, are oftentimes treated as criminals without access to their own children and have child support payments strangling the very life out of them;
· that the Foster Parents Bill of Rights does not bring out that a foster parent is there only to care for a child until the child can be returned home. Many Foster Parents today use the Foster Parent Bill of Rights to hire a lawyer and seek to adopt the child from the real parents, who are desperately trying to get their child home and out of the system;
· that tax dollars are being used to keep this gigantic system afloat, yet the victims, parents, grandparents, guardians and especially the children, are charged for the system’s services.
· that grandparents have called from all over the State of Georgia trying to get custody of their grandchildren. DFCS claims relatives are contacted, but there are cases that prove differently. Grandparents who lose their grandchildren to strangers have lost their own flesh and blood. The children lose their family heritage and grandparents, and parents too, lose all connections to their heirs.
· that The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998 reported that six times as many children died in foster care than in the general public and that once removed to official “safety”, these children are far more likely to suffer abuse, including sexual molestation than in the general population.
· That according to the California Little Hoover Commission Report in 2003, 30% to 70% of the children in California group homes do not belong there and should not have been removed from their homes.
On my desk are scores of cases of exhausted families and troubled children. It has been beyond me to turn my back on these suffering, crying, and sometimes beaten down individuals. We are mistreating the most innocent. Child Protective Services have become adult centered to the detriment of children. No longer is judgment based on what the child needs or who the child wants to be with or what is really best for the whole family; it is some adult or bureaucrat who makes the decisions, based often on just hearsay, without ever consulting a family member, or just what is convenient, profitable, or less troublesome for a director of DFCS.
I have witnessed such injustice and harm brought to these families that I am not sure if I even believe reform of the system is possible! The system cannot be trusted. It does not serve the people. It obliterates families and children simply because it has the power to do so. Children deserve better. Families deserve better. It’s time to pull back the curtain and set our children and families free.
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and the needy.” Proverbs 31:8-9
Please continue to read:
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
1. Call for an independent audit of the Department of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS) to expose corruption and fraud.
2. Activate immediate change. Every day that passes means more families and children are subject to being held hostage.
3. End the financial incentives that separate families.
4. Grant to parents their rights in writing.
5. Mandate a search for family members to be given the opportunity to adopt their own relatives.
6. Mandate a jury trial where every piece of evidence is presented before removing a child from his or her parents.
7. Require a warrant or a positive emergency circumstance before removing children from their parents. (Judge Arthur G. Christean, Utah Bar Journal, January, 1997 reported that “except in emergency circumstances, including the need for immediate medical care, require warrants upon affidavits of probable cause before entry upon private property is permitted for the forcible removal of children from their parents.”)
8. Uphold the laws when someone fabricates or presents false evidence. If a parent alleges fraud, hold a hearing with the right to discovery of all evidence.
Senator Nancy Schaefer
50th District of Georgia
December 5, 2006
Jeremy’s Story
( Some names withheld due to future hearings)
As told to Senator Nancy Schaefer by Sandra (XXXX), a foster parent of Jeremy for 2 +½ years.
My husband and I received Jeremy when he was 2 weeks old and we have been the only parents he has really ever known. He lived with us for 27 months. (XXXX) is the grandfather of Jeremy, and he is known for molesting his own children, for molesting Jeremy and has been court ordered not to be around Jeremy. (XXXX) is the mother of Jeremy, who has been diagnosed to be mentally ill, and also is known to have molested Jeremy. (XXXX) and Jeremy’s uncle is a registered sex offender and (XXXX) is the biological father, who is a drug addict and alcoholic and who continues to be in and out of jail. Having just described Jeremy’s world, all of these adults are not to be any part of Jeremy’s life, yet for years DFCS has known that they are. DFCS had to test (XXXX) (the grandfather) and his son (XXXX) (the uncle) and (XXXX) to determine the real father. (XXXX) is the biological father although any of them might have been. In court, it appeared from the case study, that everyone involved knew that this little boy had been molested by family members, even by his own mother, (XXXX). In court, (XXX), the mother of Jeremy, admitted to having had sex with (XXXX) (the grandfather) and (XXXX) (her own brother) that morning. Judge (XXXX) and DFCS gave Jeremy to his grandmother that same day. (XXXX), the grandmother, is over 300 lbs., is unable to drive, and is unable to take care of Jeremy due to physical problems. She also has been in a mental hospital several times due to her behavior. Even though it was ordered by the court that the grandfather (XXXX), the uncle (XXXX) (a convicted sex offender), (XXXX) his mother who molested him and (XXXX) his biological father, a convicted drug addict, were not to have anything to do with the child, they all continue to come and go as they please at (XXXX address), where Jeremy has been “sentenced to live” for years. This residence has no bathroom and little heat. The front door and the windows are boarded. (See pictures) This home should have been condemned years ago. I have been in this home. No child should ever have to live like this or with such people. Jeremy was taken from us at age 2 +½ years after (XXXX) obtained attorney (XXXX), who was the same attorney who represented him in a large settlement from an auto accident. I am told, that attorney (XXXX), as grandfather’s attorney, is known to have repeatedly gotten (XXXX) off of several criminal charges in White County. This is a matter of record and is known by many in White County. I have copies of some records. (XXXX grandfather), through (XXXX attorney’s) work, got (XXXX), the grandmother of Jeremy, legal custody of Jeremy. (XXXX grandfather) who cannot read or write also got his daughter (XXXX) and son (XXXX) diagnosed by government agencies as mentally ill. (XXXX grandfather), through legal channels, has taken upon himself all control of the family and is able to take possession of any government funding coming to these people.
It was during this time that Jeremy was to have a six-month transitional period between (XXXX grandmother) and my family as we were to give him up. The court ordered agreement was to have been 4 days at our house and 3 days at (XXXX grandmother). DFCS stopped the visits within 2 weeks. The reason given by DFCS was the child was too traumatized going back and forth. In truth, Jeremy begged us and screamed never to be taken back to (XXXX his grandmother) house, which we have on video. We, as a family, have seen Jeremy in stores time to time with (XXXX grandmother) and the very people he is not to be around. At each meeting Jeremy continues to run to us wherever he sees us and it is clear he is suffering. This child is in a desperate situation and this is why I am writing, and begging you Senator Schaefer, to do something in this child’s behalf. Jeremy can clearly describe in detail his sexual molestation by every member of this family and this sexual abuse continues to this day.
When Jeremy was 5 years of age I took him to Dr. (XXXX) of Habersham County who did indeed agree that Jeremy’s rectum was black and blue and the physical damage to the child was clearly a case of sexual molestation.
Early in Jeremy’s life, when he was in such bad physical condition, we took him to Egleston Children Hospital where at two months of age therapy was to begin three times a week. DFCS decided that the (XXXX grandparent family) should participate in his therapy. However, the therapist complained over and over that the (XXXX grandparent family) would not even wash their hands and would cause Jeremy to cry during these sessions. (XXXX the grandmother), after receiving custody no longer allowed the therapy because it was an inconvenience. The therapist reported that this would be a terrible thing to do to this child. Therapy was stopped and it was detrimental to the health of Jeremy. During (XXXX grandmother) custody, (XXXX uncle) has shot Jeremy with a BB gun and there is a report at (XXXX) County Sheriff’s office. There are several amber alerts at Cornelia Wal-Mart, Commerce Wal-Mart, and a 911 report from (XXXX) County Sheriff’s Department when Jeremy was lost. (XXXX grandmother), to teach Jeremy a lesson, took thorn bush limbs and beat the bottoms of his feet. Jeremy’s feet got infected and his feet had to be lanced by Dr. (XXXX). Then Judy called me to pick him up after about 4 days to take back him to the doctor because of intense pain. I took Jeremy to Dr. (XXXX) in Gainesville. Dr. (XXXX) said surgery was needed immediately and a cast was added. After returning home, (XXXX), his grandfather and (XXXX), his uncle, took him into the hog lot and allowed him to walk in the filth.
Jeremy’s feet became so infected for a 2nd time that he was again taken back to Dr. (XXXX) and the hospital. No one in the hospital could believe this child’s living conditions. Jeremy is threatened to keep quiet and not say anything to anyone. I have videos, reports, arrest records and almost anything you might need to help Jeremy. Please call my husband, Wendell, or me at any time.
Sandra and (XXXX) husband (XXXX)
Failure of DFCS to remove six desperate children
A brief report regarding six children that Habersham County DFCS director failed to remove as disclosed to Senator Nancy Schaefer by Sheriff Deray Fincher of Habersham County.
Sheriff Deray Fincher, Chief of Police Don Ford and Chief Investigator Lt. Greg Bowen Chief called me to meet with them immediately, which I did on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 Sheriff Fincher, after contacting the Director of Habersham County DFCS several times to remove six children from being horribly abused, finally had to get a court order to remove the children himself with the help of two police officers.
The children, four boys and two girls, were not just being abused; they were being tortured by a monster father.
The six children and a live in girl friend were terrified of this man, the abuser. The children never slept in a bed, but always on the floor. The place where they lived was unfit for human habitation.
The father on one occasion hit one of the boys across his head with a bat and cut the boy’s head open. The father then proceeded to hold the boy down and sew up the child’s head with a needle and red thread. However, even with beatings and burnings, this is only a fraction of what the father did to these children and to the live-in girlfriend.
Sheriff Fincher has pictures of the abuse and condition of one of the boys and at the writing of this report, he has the father in jail in Habersham County.
It should be noted that when the DFCS director found out that Sheriff Fincher was going to remove the children, she called the father and warned him to flee.
This is not the only time this DFCS director failed to remove a child when she needed to do so. (See Exhibit A)
The egregious acts and abhorrent behavior of officials who are supposed to protect children can no longer be tolerated.
Senator Nancy Schaefer
50th District of Georgia


Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Presidential Proclamation-National Foster Care Month(National Stolen Children Month)

Presidential Proclamation-National Foster Care Month
By The White House on 04/28/2010 – 5:24 pm PDTOne Comment


Nearly a half-million children and youth are in foster care in America, all entering the system through no fault of
their own. During National Foster Care Month, we recognize the promise of children and youth in foster care, as well as former foster youth. We also celebrate the professionals and foster parents who demonstrate the depth and kindness of the human heart.

Children and youth in foster care deserve the happiness and joy every child should experience through family life and a safe, loving home. Families provide children with unconditional love, stability, trust, and the support to grow into healthy, productive adults. Unfortunately, too many foster youth reach the age at which they must leave foster care and enter adulthood without the support of a permanent family.

Much work remains to reach the goal of permanence for every child, and my Administration has supported States that increased the number of children adopted out of foster care, providing over $35 million in 2009 through the Adoption Incentives program. We are also committed to meeting the developmental, educational, and health-related needs of children and youth in foster care. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided a significant increase in funding for the Title IV-E adoption and foster care assistance program. States can use
these funds to ensure those placed in foster care will enter a safe and stable environment.

In addition, we are implementing the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. This law promotes permanency and improved outcomes for foster youth through support for kinship care and adoption, support for older youth, direct access to Federal resources for Indian tribes, coordinated health benefits, improved educational stability and opportunities, and adoption incentives and assistance. Former foster youth will also benefit from the Affordable Care Act, which, beginning in 2014, will ensure Medicaid coverage for them in every State.

This month, caring foster parents and professionals across our Nation will celebrate the triumphs of children and
youth in foster care as they work to remove barriers to reaching a permanent family. Federal, State, and local government agencies, communities, and individuals all have a role to play as well. Together, we can ensure that young people in foster care have the opportunities and encouragement they need to realize their full potential.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 2010 as National Foster Care Month. I call upon all Americans to observe this month with appropriate programs and activities to honor and support young people in foster care, and to recognize the committed adults who work on their behalf each day.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.


One Comment »
unhappygrammy says:
04/28/2010 at 7:17 pm PDT
What don’t you just name it National Stolen Children Month!


Open Message to Tracy Gubbins Nashua, NH DCYF Supervisor

To the one and only Tracy Gubbins who thinks she runs the Nashua office. After going through more of my daughter's paperwork, which was never included in the file sent by her caseworker, I found some very interesting paper's, signed by you.
The case plan for December 7,2005 states my daughter "Will participate in a medical detoxification program", for methadone detox, "Immediately".
My question is: How could she participate in a medical detox program when there was no such program in the state of NH? Did you lead her caseworker to believe there was such a program in NH, or was she in on the fraud also? You even led Judge Tenney to believe there was a medical detox program in NH. Therefore he court-ordered my daughter into a medical detox program December 7,2005 at the Dispositional Hearing. I'm sure he would love to hear how you pulled the wool over his eyes and got your caseworker to lie in court.
Something else I found, which I and many other's were witness to:Case Plan for March 29,2006, again signed off by you;On February 23,2006 the division received a call from Odyssey House, where you decided to send my daughter and her baby because you don't won't young mother's getting help from their parent's. They advised my daughter had to be off the methadone by March 8,2006 and brought to Odyssey. Also stated, the division immediately contacted my daughter and advised her that she needed to contact her physician to make arrangements for medical detox. This never happened. Her caseworker told her she was trying to find her medical detox, as she was the one who guaranteed she would get her into medical detox when it came time to get into Odyssey House. That was back in December of 2005 when my daughter wanted to start detoxing on her own, but was forbidden to do so by her caseworker, stating it would be too dangerous.
So now she's given thirteen days to detox on her own, which is now even more dangerous due to her diagnosis of Sheehan Syndrome, after her pituitary gland hemorrage during the birth of her stolen daughter. If you were any kind of a human being, who was REALLY working toward reunification, you would have allowed her to go to Massachusetts for medical detox, but that was totally out of the question even though I had already set everything up. And why would you let her go to Mass.It would mean she and her daughter would be back together and you would lose your sacred incentive money. So you screwed her over some more. By this time we shouldn't have been surprised. So did you put your caseworker up to this one also?
The date for Odyssey was changed to March 30,2006 as my daughter couldn't detox that quickly. It would have killed her, but isn't that what you were hoping for?
You sent your caseworker into court and had her lie to Judge Leary. She told him my daughter was not showing up for drug tests, her doses weren't going down and the methadone levels weren't going down. Her visits had even been canceled with her daughter throughout the month of March because she was still on Methadone. If she wasn't going for drug test's, how did the caseworker know the doses and levels weren't going down? Why didn't Judge Leary ask that question? I'm sure he'd love to know how you pulled the wool over his eyes also. Is he even aware that your DCYF psychic Lawyer committed perjury in order to place by granddaughter in foster care instead of with her family?
If my daughter's files had been given to her sooner, we would have known much earlier how she was being screwed over again. I have in my possession all drug test's from the month of March 2006 that show the levels and methadone doses were going down. I also have the caseworker's call logs, which show the caseworker was calling the Methadone clinic every day checking on her doses. March 29,2006, before the court hearing she went for her last dose of 5 mg. Because of the caseworker's lie, which I'm sure you put her up to, my daughter was not allowed to go to Odyssey House.
Are you also the one that told the caseworker to give the court a fictitious mans name as my granddaughters father? Are you aware that she was illegally adopted? Are you also the one that told the caseworker to tell my daughter not to tell anyone that her daughter is half Dominican? Is that because white children are worth more to you? Then you deny me a foster care license because I fight for my families rights and won't lie for you.
So I hope you like my letter. I'm sure everyone else will and I will be forwarding it everywhere. My daughter and my family has lost four and a half years of our lives which we could have been spending with our precious granddaughter thank's to you and your deceitful practices and the corruption within the Nashua office. Because of your lies, my grandson tried to hang himself and is now on psychiatric medication for violent behavior.
You need to go and the Nashua office needs to be shut down. I heard the Nashua office has more complaints filed against them than any other office in the state. Could the reason be because of you? Because you think you run the office, not the person who is really supposed to be in charge.
My fight will go on for as long as it takes to get my grandchildren back. You can blame yourself for the fight I am giving you. My grandchildren are worth more than any amount of money. Unlike you I DO look out for the best interests of my children and grandchildren. They are worth more to me than all your incentive money!

Mom on son who died in state care: 'I trusted people'

unhappygrammy-Yes, We all trusted CPS/DCYF at one time. That is until we were thrown into the corrupt system. Then we found out their nothing but kidnappers and liars and will do anything for their precious incentive money, but nothing for a child!

Mom on son who died in state care: 'I trusted people'
Mother Elena Andron says she learned the hard way not to trust the Michigan Department of Human Services but it was her son who paid the ultimate price.

Jonny Dragomir, 10, died in the care of Michigan’s Department of Human Services in March 2007.

The boy was in the state’s care for about a year until his death, according to CNN affiliate WXYZ. In a video posted on WXYZ’s website Mullen explains that the boy who could not walk, talk, or feed himself was handed to the state under a one year agreement.

Andron tried to get her son back after seeing that her son was deteriorating and losing weight but instead she was taken to court by the state. And then, Andron's son starved to death.

“I handed them a healthy boy and got him back in a casket’,’ Andron said in a taped interview with WXYZ.

According to WXYZ’s reporting the bottom line is this: states have "a financial incentive to keep kids in the foster care system. Federal law sets it up that way — the more kids in the state system, the more money the federal government gives Michigan. And in Johnny’s case, the foster care facility got $12,000 a month to care for him.”

Elena Andron was not allowed to see her son the last six months of his life. She was notified by the state via telephone of death several days after his passing.

Read WXYZ's full investigative report.


Parents sue over Russian adoption

April 28, 2010
Parents sue over Russian adoption
Posted: 07:00 AM ET
Alina Cho - Correspondent, CNN's American Morning
Filed under: World
(CNN) – Russian adoptions are firmly in the spotlight right now after the recent story of a Tennessee woman who put her adopted son on a plane by himself to Russia, saying he was too much to handle.

Today, an equally controversial and heart-wrenching case is grabbing national attention. Our Alina Cho went to Virginia where she spoke to an adoptive family who says a Russian orphanage misled them.


Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Foster Child Starves as State Banks Cash

INVESTIGATORS: Foster Child Starves as State Banks Cash
Contributor: Ann Mullen
Email: amullen@wxyz.com
Last Update: 7:00 pm
FOSTER CARE: Investigative producer Ann Mullen explains the story of a child who starved to death
FOSTER CARE: Mother says her son would still be alive if he was kept at home

Johnny's mother tried to get help for her disabled child. Instead, a Michigan agency took him away, collected thousands of dollars to feed him each month... And then he starved to death.

You’ll see the first piece of our Investigation Thursday night at 11 on Channel 7 Action News.
(WXYZ) - All she wanted was help caring for her wheel-chair bound son Johnny. The state’s answer was to put him in a foster care facility. Johnny’s mom would have preferred to have someone help her at home, but the state only offers very limited services. A year after Johnny was in foster care, the 10-year old boy starved to death.

We have all heard the horrendous cases of kids who were abused and some who died in Michigan’s foster care system. Our story exposes the state’s financial incentive to keep kids in the foster care system. Federal law sets it up that way—the more kids in the state system, the more money the federal government gives Michigan.

The foster care facilities contracted with the state cash-in too. In Johnny’s case, the foster care facility got $12,000 a month to care for him. It is a heart-wrenching case that illuminates problems in the system, including how difficult it is to get your children out of foster care. Johnny’s mom fought to get him out of the system, but he died before she succeeded.

For several months, the Action News Investigators dug deep into Michigan's tragically flawed foster care system. Along with Johnny's story, we also met a father who fought all the way to the state Supreme Court to get his boys out of the system. The state’s main reason for terminating his parental rights was his finances. We all know people who are struggling in this economy—and as one attorney said, if it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone.

The state is making some changes as a result of a class action lawsuit. A court-appointed monitor now oversees the Department of Human Services. Progress is underway, but some critics say more needs to be done to help parents keep their children rather than put them in a flawed foster care system.

You’ll see the first piece of our Investigation Thursday night at 11 on Channel 7 Action News. Watch and let us know what you think of state's foster system and it's ability to care for the children of Michigan.


Master of Social Work Program Agreement

Master of Social Work Program Agreement
Title IV-E Internship Program
NH DHHS Division for Children, Youth and Families
UNH Department of Social Work
, Grantee/Student
The Department of Health and Human Services, Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), hereafter referred to as the Agency; the University of New Hampshire Department of Social Work, hereafter referred to as Department; and , hereafter referred to as Grantee/Student, do hereby make and enter into this mutual agreement as specified below:
I. The Agency agrees to:
A. Contract with the University of New Hampshire (UNH), Title IV-E grant, to pay the tuition for said Grantee/Student who is currently enrolled in the Master of Social Work Program at UNH, and has enough credits to be a senior.
B. Contract with the University of New Hampshire (UNH) to pay all mandatory fees (i.e. registration costs) imposed on students by UNH.
C. Contract with the University of New Hampshire (UNH) to pay a minimal stipend to the Grantee/Student if the Grantee/Student is a full-time student. This stipend may be used to purchase books, materials, and other necessities required to complete the program.
D. Coordinate, assist and/or arrange practica for the Grantee/Student within a child welfare related agency.
E. If the Grantee/Student is currently employed by the Agency, allow said Grantee/Student to work a “flex time” schedule that will allow attendance to classes and practica as required if during normal work hours of the Agency (8:00 AM-4:30 PM).
F. The DCYF Title IV-E Grant will not support other costs associated with the completion of the program including travel costs to and from classrooms and/or practica.
G. Notify the Grantee/Student of employment opportunities within the Agency that are deemed appropriate and for which the Grantee/Student meets the minimum job qualifications as required by the NH Department of Personnel.
II. The Grantee/Student Agrees to:
A. Participate in the Master of Social Work program and curriculum prescribed by the UNH Department of Social Work, subject to approval by the School’s faculty advisor.
B. Participate in the required courses as outlined for the Child Welfare Program within the Department of Social Work.
C. Refund to the Agency, the previously granted tuition, as well as all mandatory fees and stipends if said Grantee/Student:
a. Fails to complete the course(s), or
b. Receives a grade of C or less in the course(s), or a C+ for a Masters Level
D. Complete a service time commitment to the Agency of one-year full-time employment for each equivalent year of tuition and/or stipend assistance.
E. Grantee/Students that are not current employees of the Agency agree to accept employment within the Agency, if and when offered, in any of its district offices throughout the state when a vacancy is available.
F. Refund the entire amount of tuition and stipends, including an administrative fee of 10% of the total cost expended by the Agency if said Grantee/Student does not accept employment within the Agency or leaves said employment prior to the agreed amount of time stated in Section II, D.
G. No refund will be required if there is not employment opportunity within six (6) months of the Student’s completion of the Program or if the Agency does not hire the student within six (6) months.
H. The Grantee/Student agrees prior to program practicum to adhere to, submit to, and to sign in agreement:
a. That they possess a valid driver’s license, have reliable transportaton and liability insurance
b. A criminal records check
I. DCYF ethics policy:
a. Confidentiality policy
It is important to note that all stipends are dependent on a year-to-date Federal IV-E contract. Therefore it cannot be guaranteed that DCYF will finance your entire academic program.
DCYF Director or Designee
Chair of the Dept. of Social Work/ Designee






July 3, 2005

Parents nationwide have complained for decades that their families were destroyed and children seized by corrupt child protection agencies for no other reason than to obtain federal funds for State governments. They have been telling the truth all along. Clear evidence has been discovered documenting how organized crime methods and procedures are integrated into juvenile and family courts. This documentation has been assembled through the combined efforts of independent researchers in California, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, researchers for the American Family Rights Association, and document research conducted by THE SOCIOLOGY CENTER.

Instructions for shaping judicial child and family protection decisions to maximize child protection system federal fund claims have been documented in the CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing (2004). The instructions are scattered throughout the Benchguide emphasized by the label "Judicial Tip." One example states:

Page 100-13
"JUDICIAL TIP: Failure to make this finding may cause permanent loss of federal funding for foster care. See discussion of other required findings in §100.36. The court may make this a temporary finding pending the continued detention hearing."

The full text of CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing is available at http://thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/Bench Guides SmallFile.pdf (35.1Mb)

A publication of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges titled RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases provides additional evidence that this represents national judicial policy and that strategies using juvenile and family judicial decisions to maximize child protection system federal fund revenue is a well known corrupting influence on the judicial system. Two example state:

Appendix C, Page 158, Note 15
15. Two commentators summarize the barriers facing judicial oversight:
[T]he authority of judges in these matters is often limited; they do not have the power to order the agency to provide services to an individual. In some states, the courts will make a positive “reasonable efforts” determination regardless of agency efforts in order to ensure federal funding. Judges are not trained in matters over which the juvenile court has jurisdiction and, because of rotation schedules, remain in the assignment for a short period of time. Consequently, they do not acquire the experience needed to handle these sensitive cases. While judges in some localities make a good faith effort to determine whether adequate services have been offered to the family, in many localities a positive finding is merely a matter of checking a box on a preprinted form.
Susan Goodman and Joan Hurley, Reasonable Efforts: Who Decides What’ s Reasonable? (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.) 1993, at 8.

Appendix C, Note 110, Page 162
110. In many jurisdictions the trial judge must merely check a box on a preprinted court form to indicate that reasonable efforts were provided in the case. Shotton, supra end. 3. In some other jurisdictions the court order forms simply include a preprinted statement that reasonable efforts were made, thus making the finding possible without the judge’s even checking a box. Id., at 227. In some states, courts and agencies have taken a cynical approach, seeking to assure receipt of federal funding without the court taking a meaningful look at reasonable efforts. In such states, words indicating the agency has made reasonable efforts are preprinted into court order forms used when removal of a child is authorized, and laws are structured so a judge cannot authorize a foster placement without a positive finding of reasonable efforts. Hardin, supra end. 7, at 54

The full text of RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases is available at http://thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/CANCCourtPractices.pdf (569.6Kb)

Six pages of examples cited from CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing and RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases are available at

http://thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/SmokingGunAnoun.pdf (167.2Kb)


Advertisement of children for adoption illegal without requisite license

unhappygrammy-Does NH DCYF have a requisite license to advertise our children and grandchildren for Adoption, or are they above the law on this one also?

Advertisement of children for adoption illegal without requisite license

State Statutes Results

New Hampshire


Use of Advertising and Facilitators in Adoptive Placements

To better understand this issue and to view it across States, see the Use of Advertising and Facilitators in Adoptive Placements: Summary of State Laws (PDF - 273 KB) publication.

Use of Advertisement
Citation: Rev. Stat. § 170-E:39

A child-placing agency licensed or operating under a permit issued by the department may publish advertisements of the services for which it is specifically licensed or issued a permit under this subdivision.
No person who is required to obtain a license or permit under this subdivision may advertise or cause to be published an advertisement soliciting or offering a child for placement unless the person has obtained the requisite license or permit.

Use of Intermediaries/Facilitators

This issue is not addressed in the statutes reviewed.

Not So "Non" Profit When it Comes to Adoption Agencies

Not So "Non" Profit When it Comes to Adoption Agencies
For many private adoption and foster care agencies, nonprofit status in the child protection business leaves plenty of room for lucrative rewards, according to an investigation by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution which confirms the findings of The Stork Market.

The newspaper’s review of federal tax returns and other public documents found numerous examples where top executives’ compensation accounted for one-fourth to one-third of agencies’ budgets. In many instances, administrative costs exceeded expenses on direct services for children.

This, despite the fact that private adoption agencies in Georgia are mandated by law to operate as nonprofit organizations. Big salaries for the agencies’ executives and corporate officers as well as overhead are paid for by adoption fees, none of which benefits the children the groups are supposed to help.

In 2008:

Faithbridge Foster Care Inc. allotted nearly 40 percent of its budget to its top officers.
Families First Inc. of Atlanta paid six employees more than $100,000 each in 2008, according to tax documents.
Chinese Children Adoption International, which has an Atlanta office, paid its top two officers — who are married to each other — a total of about $410,000 in 2006, the latest year for which its tax returns are available.
In 2007 Bethany Christian Services of Grand rapids, MI, with offices in Georgia -- which received $803,225 from the Georgia Department of Human Services for supervising foster children in 2009 -- paid the CEO $169,000, and $178,000 to the agency’s vice president. Bethany had a total budget of $9.1 million. However, $7.2 million, or almost four of every five dollars, went to management expenses. Another $1.2 million covered fund-raising costs — far more than the $694,000 that went to programs that directly served children.

A lack of industry standards and government rules enable people running such agencies to spend freely for their own benefit, said Pablo Eisenberg, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership.

“What you’re finding is certainly the trend in nonprofits,” Eisenberg said. “An increasing number of people are pushing for a kind of free market in nonprofits.”

He described directors who don’t challenge excessive spending as “totally incompetent.”

“There’s no accountability,” Eisenberg said. “There are no guidelines by the IRS, even on self-dealing. It’s just appalling.”
Posted by Affordable Housing at 3:14 PM


Child Protective Services accused of ignoring a judge's order

Child Protective Services accused of ignoring a judge's order

Posted: Apr 14, 2009 2:17 AM EDT

Local News HeadlinesMore>>
Nye County Sheriff's Deputy shot & killed in the line of duty identified
McCarran International Airport unveils new parking payment system
19 year old charged with murder in death of teen
Child hit by vehicle near Palomino & Campbell
125 mph winds rip through Reno
Bodies of 2 Las Vegas men possibly found at Zion Nat'l Park
Las Vegas officials hold town hall for senior citizens
Family overcome with emotions at scene of apparent murder-suicide
Rory Reid says AZ immigration law "wrong-headed"
Suspect arrested after shooting at bail bondsman near Durango & Alexander
The last thing law enforcement wants to do is take a child from its parents. Still, they have to do exactly that thousands of times a year. But this story is different because of what they did with the child once they took her away from her mother.

The consensus is, keep a child with it's extended family whenever possible. That's the approach Child Protective Services wants to take. But Monday we met a woman who says they didn't do that in her case, even though they had a court order telling them to.

One thing is absolutely clear. Everybody wants what's best for baby Sara.

"She can't defend herself. She's only three months old," said her mother April Register.

When Child Protective Services was going to take away April's son and daughter, April knew she wanted her mother-in-law to have custody.

"She's a very strong woman. I trust her entirely," she said.

But they went to a foster family instead. CPS sayes a member of the grandmother's household failed criminal background checks.

5 days later, the 3 month old little girl was out of foster care, and in the hospital.

"When I saw her I saw how bad it really was. She had a diaper rash that was red and swollen that went all the way up her back. She had a deep cut on her knee," aid Register.
April's convinced that her 3 month old daughter was severely neglected, even abused while in foster care. Both Child Protective Services and North Las Vegas Police are investigating that. But no matter what the outcome of those investigations, the question remains: should those kids have been in foster care, or with their grandmother in the first place.

"Very surprised," said Attorney Tom Michaelides of the placement decision. "The reason why is there was no ambiguity in the judge's order."

Michaelides is handling the case for April. He says a family court judge had told CPS to place the kids with their grandmother. But they didn't.

"I've never in 15 years every had anybody completely ignore a judge's order like that. Especially a government agency," he said.

Even after all of that, Child Protective Services is sticking with their original argument. Today the kids were placed with their grandmother. And in court Monday, CPS told the judge, they still think he got it wrong.

Meanwhile, April Register herself is still under investigation for the incident that started all of this. A mistake, she says, that put prescription drugs in the hands of her son, and her son in an emergency room.

People are going ot want to know why are they in the system? We told her.

"They are going to come at me with whatever they can because they're in trouble right now. I'll do whatever it takes to get my kids back," she told us.

Child Protective Services told me, they just don't agree that baby Sara is best off in her grandmother's house. And they have different take on what landed the three-month-old in the hospital too. They say it wasn't abuse, but dehydration.

The foster parent assigned to take care of Sara and her brother brought them back to Child Haven - saying the kids were more than she could handle.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution-

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution-

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State 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 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 241

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 242

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under \\\"color of any law\\\" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under \\\"color of any law,\\\" the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245
Federally Protected Activities

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 245

1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as:

a) A voter, or person qualifying to vote...;

b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;

c) an applicant for federal employment or an employee by the federal government;

d) a juror or prospective juror in federal court; and

e) a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

2) Prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because of his/her activity as:

a) A student or applicant for admission to any public school or public College;

b) a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by a state or local government;

c) an applicant for private or state employment, private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in any labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through any employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall;

d) a juror or prospective juror in state court;

e) a traveler or user of any facility of interstate commerce or common carrier; or

f) a patron of any public accommodation, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters...or any other establishment which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises.

3) Prohibits interference by force or threat of force against any person because he/she is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or class of persons from participating or affording others the opportunity or protection to so participate, or lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed in items (1) and (2), above without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001
Fraud and False Statements

United States Code
U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01

Section 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

18 USC Sec. 1203
Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 1203


(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third person or a governmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the person detained, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.

U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01

Section 2234. Authority exceeded in executing warrant

Whoever, in executing a search warrant, willfully exceeds his authority or exercises it with unnecessary severity, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year. U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01

Section 2235. Search warrant procured maliciously Whoever maliciously and without probable cause procures a search warrant to be issued and executed, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year.

Section 2236. Searches without warrant

Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, engaged in the enforcement of any law of the United States, searches any private dwelling used and occupied as such dwelling without a warrant directing such search, or maliciously and without reasonable cause searches any other building or property without a search warrant, shall be fined for a first offense not more than $1,000; and, for a subsequent offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This section shall not apply to any person -
(a) serving a warrant of arrest; or
(b) arresting or attempting to arrest a person committing or
attempting to commit an offense in his presence, or who has
committed or is suspected on reasonable grounds of having
committed a felony; or
(c) making a search at the request or invitation or with the
consent of the occupant of the premises.

More on Section 2236

Title 42 USC Section 1983

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 42 : Section 1983

Sec. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer\\\'s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia

Title 42 USC Section 1983 Information

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141
Pattern and Practice

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 42 : Section 14141

This civil statute was a provision within the Crime Control Act of 1994 and makes it unlawful for any governmental authority, or agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.

Types of misconduct covered include, among other things:

1. Excessive Force
2. Discriminatory Harassment
3. False Arrest
4. Coercive Sexual Conduct
5. Unlawful Stops, Searches, or Arrests


United States Code
Section 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party\\\'s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. (OK for system to lie?)

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

Due Process

In NH abuse and neglect cases, parent's are NOT allowed to be heard! Due process rights are violated every day in NH.

Due Process

An essential maxim of law states simply, "A judge who rules without first hearing both sides, though his judgment may be just, is not himself just."

Justice implies this essential right to be heard.

One might rather say, true justice requires the right to be heard. The court should give both parties an equal opportunity to present the facts and law on which the court is required to rule with regard to those facts. Each side has a different point of view, but both are given an equal chance to argue their case free from the court's prejudice or penalty.

Anything less is ... well ... un-American!


Simply arguing to a judge that your "constitutional rights have been violated", and expecting such a simplified argument to move the court to do something in your favor is a waste of time.

Courts don't operate that way - nor should they.

Courts act on pleadings and motions (usually after a hearing where both sides argue their motions in person or after the court has read and considered written motions supported by memoranda and responses in opposition.

The average courtroom is witness to dozens of complex and sometimes heated legal arguments in the space of an average day. The typical judge reads hundreds of pages of pleadings, motions, notices, and memoranda - not to mention official documents and court records - between the time the judge arrives at the courthouse in the morning and the hour when the judge finally heads home to be with family at the end of the day. Multiply this judicial workload by the number of judges in a typical courthouse, then multiply by the number of days in a year, and you quickly realize why there must be order in the court.

Courts have strict rules that govern everyone

At least, that's the way it's supposed to work!

If you don't understand how to draft powerful pleadings and move the court with persuasive proof, you don't stand a chance against an experienced lawyer.


Allegations & Proof

unhappygrammy-When your not allowed to speak, how can you prove anything? (which goes against "Due Process")

Allegations & Proof

To win your case:

Allege all the Facts

Prove all the Facts

Alleging all the necessary facts is like drawing plans for a workshop project. You make a detailed drawing of all the parts and how they fit together. Expert workmen always begin with a plan, then they follow their plan.

Pleadings are your lawsuit blueprint ... whether you're a plaintiff or defendant. Pleadings are the tool you use to allege all the facts that support your case. They give you and the court a clear vision of the final result you seek. In your blueprint pleadings you set out the facts that support the legal basis that requires the court to rule in your favor.

Failure to start with powerful pleadings always results in a weak case and foreseeable failure in court.

Your pleadings' weakness is the other side's strength.

If you're a plaintiff, the blueprint is a "complaint" in which you allege all ultimate facts necessary to support all essential elements of your cause(s) of action (what federal courts call a "claim on which the court can grant relief"). You make it clear that the court is obligated to rule in your favor if you prove your alleged facts by the greater weight of admissible evidence.

If you're a defendant, your blueprint is an "affirmative defense" in which you allege all ultimate facts necessary to support all essential elements of your defenses. You counter the plaintiff's allegations of fact with allegations of your own. Prove the facts of your affirmative defenses by the greater weight of admissible evidence.

Most pro se people (non-lawyers going to court on their own) draft pleadings as if they were writing a "letter to the judge", weaken their case at the very start by failing to lay out a powerfully complete blueprint for their proofs.


Admissibility of Evidence

unhappygrammy-NH Court's will NOT admit evidence proving innocence of a parent. If the evidence comes into light after the adjudicatory hearing, which happens often due to hidden records, the Judge claims it's too late. The court-appointed puppet won't push for the evidence to be admitted. He claims he work's for the court, not the client.

Admissibility of Evidence

The most critical thing about evidence rules is how they apply to "admit" certain matters to be considered by the court and limit or exclude other matters.

This first classification of evidence rules, therefore, deals with admissibility.

A witness statement, for example, might tend to prove or disprove some of the issues in controversy (i.e., it might be "relevant" to the outcome of your case) and yet be inadmissible for one or more reasons. Being relevant alone, is not enough. Other factors must be considered before the court can determine if evidence is admissible. Each of these will be covered in detail during this tutorial. Some those factors follow.

Relevance - ability to prove or disprove an issue material to outcome of the case

Credibility - reliability of witness or tangible evidence

Privilege - protection afforded certain kinds of evidence (e.g., attorney-client)

Prejudice - tendency to confuse, mislead, or waste time

If a party offers evidence that is not likely to prove or disprove any issue material to the outcome of the case, not worthy of being relied upon as true, protected by a privilege, or likely to cause prejudice that may outweigh its ability to prove or disprove any issue, it should be excluded as inadmissible, and an appropriate objection should be made as soon as possible - preferably before the court hears the evidence.

Unless a matter is admissible, it should never be heard by the court. If it gets in by accident (the too-frequent result of unlawful efforts of parties trying to get away with whatever the judge will allow) the matter should not be considered by the court.

It should have no bearing on the outcome of the case. Of course, once it's in, it's in!

Only admissible evidence should be considered by the court.


What is Hearsay Evidence?

In NH "Hearsay Evidence" is admitted into court at Preliminary hearings of abuse and neglect. Parent's are not given the opportunity to speak. This is how DCYF stole my granddaughter in 2005, after the DCYF Lawyer told the Judge of a false report called in against my son-in-law, which had already been proven false almost two week's before the hearing.She claimed the report was true, even though she already knew it was false. The transcript/CD has been kept from us due to the Lawyer's dirty little secret that she committed perjury in court.We haven't seen my granddaughter since October of 2005 due to the unethical practices of a DCYF Lawyer.

What is Hearsay Evidence?

You must understand what hearsay is if you want to win in court.

It isn't what you think it is.

In court, "hearsay" has a very technical meaning that you must understand completely

Let's start with a simple definition of hearsay.

"An out-of-court statement offered to prove what it says."

Consider the first part of the definition.

What is an out-of-court statement? Well, it's just what it says, a statement made by someone somewhere other than "in court". Such statements may be made in writing, verbally, or painted in the sky with smoke trails from an airplane. If the statement is not made in court, it is an "out-of-court statement".

But, there's more! If a statement is made at a deposition where a certified court reporter is creating a transcript, it is considered as being made "in court". Both sides are invited to participate in depositions and ask questions, so neither side can complain they didn't have an opportunity to examine the deponent witness under oath. Courts treat deposition statements as being "in court".

The key point to latch onto here is that both sides have an equal opportunity to question the person making the statement under oath. A statement made by a witness at a deposition may in fact be hearsay, if the witness is testifying to what someone else said, but it is what the other person said that is hearsay ... the part that was said out-of-court by someone who could not be questioned under oath by both sides.

If the person who actually made the statement - the pilot in a sky writing airplane or the unknown author of some cryptic intra-office memo, for example - is not "in court" under oath and subject to be cross-examined, the statement is inadmissible hearsay (unless it falls into one of the exceptions).

Now for the interesting second part.

Is the statement offered to prove the truth of what it says?

If an out-of-court statement is not offered to prove what it says, it is not hearsay ... even though the statement is made out-of-court, is not under oath, and neither side has an opportunity to cross-examine. In order for a statement to be hearsay, it must be offered to prove the truth of what it says!

"She said she'd bake a cake after church next Easter Sunday." If a witness testifies her neighbor said this, and if the other side objects, you should make clear to the court that the statement is not hearsay. If the witness testifies to what her neighbor said she was going to do, then the out-of-court statement is only offered to prove what the neighbor said, not that what she said was true. If it isn't offered to prove the neighbor actually went to church or baked a cake, then it isn't hearsay ... even though it was an out-of-court statement.

Don't let the other side trick you!

You must fully understand hearsay and the hearsay exceptions if you want to win your case.


Mother Accuses DFS In Son's Death


allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" allowfullscreen="true"

Against all odds: Mathews' mom sacrificed

unhappygrammy-This is an awesome story! A story about a mother and the love of her son, who beat all odd's. A mother and son in this day and age wouldn't stand a chance living the way they did. The state would have stepped in and turned their life into a nightmare. She took care of her son and stood by him. Isn't that what mother's are for?

Against all odds: Mathews' mom sacrificed
Hard times 'worth it' for new Bolts running back, mother

SATURDAY, APRIL 24, 2010 AT 12:02 A.M.

Ryan Mathews’ mom, Tricia Mathews, never missed any of her son’s football games. Alex Horvath / Bakersfield Californian

There wasn’t room for much in the Mathews home when Ryan Mathews was a baby.

Only the necessities fit in a Cutlass Supreme.

The boy, a few months old, had two cloth diapers. He would wear one of them, while the other dried after his mom washed it.

Tricia Mathews, 16 years old, would get her daily meal in a Riverside soup line. She did odd jobs to pay for her baby’s milk.

The Cutlass, turned so many shades of green by the sun, would be parked in a church parking lot at night. What clothes they had were stored in the trunk. There was drinking water up front, some soap to use when showering in a nearby park.

There was a blanket and a pillow, and mom and son would sleep wrapped up in it and each other.

This story could have gone down a much different path than it has.

“I don’t know why,” Tricia Mathews said. “Maybe there was a bigger plan.”

Maybe it’s coming to fruition now.

Her son, Ryan Mathews, is about to become a millionaire. He’s going to play running back for his favorite team, taking over for his favorite player.

“All the suffering I went through is worth it for this moment for him,” Tricia said, speaking by phone Friday morning. “All those tired nights I wanted to quit but I didn’t, it was worth it to see his face when he picked up that phone.”

That would be the phone to answer the call Thursday night from Chargers General Manager A.J. Smith after the Chargers had made a bold move up in the draft to select Ryan Mathews 12th overall, making him the successor to the iconic LaDainian Tomlinson.

By the time Ryan hung up, Tricia was in tears.

“We made it,” she told her son.

Friday, after his introduction to the San Diego media, Ryan Mathews said, “That’s exactly what it is. We did make it. She’s worked very hard and done everything she can to turn me into the man I am today.”

Tricia also told Ryan that he’s grown up now, that it is his time.

But, in a way, this moment is hers, too.

“I am proud of myself,” she allowed. “I had a lot of people tell me I was doing a horrible job raising my son. I just did what I felt. I raised him from my heart.”

Yes, she worked a lot and sometimes Ryan was left alone “earlier than some people might think is right.” She let him dye his hair blond when he was 8, “because that’s what he wanted to do.” There weren’t a lot of rules in the home, “but he didn’t break any.”

She never missed a football game since he began playing. She made sure Ryan knew he was loved. She worked whatever job could be worked so he could have whatever he needed.

Tricia was in Fresno with Ryan on Thursday. She moved there from Bakersfield when he went to college and moved to Tennessee after this past football season was over.

“I’m going to live my life now,” she said.

Ryan Mathews said he’ll do whatever he can for her.

“She’s the reason we made it,” he said.

The “we” Mathews referred to was his brother, Dante, actually his closest friend since third grade whose mom abandoned him when the boys were about 13. Tricia took the boy in and eventually attained guardianship.

“Several times she could have called it quits,” Ryan Mathews said. “She never did. She’s a real strong woman with a tremendous heart.”

Tricia Mathews spoke matter-of-factly about the startling road she and her son have traveled. She said a few times she didn’t know how or why she made the decisions she did.

“I loved my little baby boy I had,” she said. “I wanted to give him something I didn’t have, and that was a good life.”

She came from a broken family, did not know her father. Her mother, clean 15 years now, was a drug addict at the time Tricia got pregnant.

Ryan’s father, who never married Tricia, left before the baby was born. According to Tricia, he has seen Ryan four times, most recently six years ago. She refused to apply for welfare and has never sought child support.

After a few months living in the car, Tricia simply decided, “This isn’t who I am.”

She sold the Cutlass for $100, used that on a bus ticket and moved in with her grandmother in Tehachapi. She got a job (jobs), saved some money and got an apartment.

Tricia “did a little bit of everything,” including washing dogs. She worked the 6 a.m. shift at a gas station and waitressed in the afternoon. For a while, as a third job, she drove around a landscaping crew on weekends.

She eventually got hired as a wind server operator, working 6 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. in the middle of nowhere.

“All by myself,” she said with a laugh. “I stopped watching scary movies real quick.”

She worked her way up, getting into data analysis before leaving the company after moving to Fresno, though she continued to work.

“I never stopped working,” she said. “I just kept trying to get better in life. … You can either be a victim in life or work hard to get something.”

It rubbed off.

By many accounts a kid without a character blemish, Ryan went through a brief period in high school where he was skipping class. He failed some. He wanted to quit football.

“That was our one argument in his whole life,” Tricia said. “… I told him you’re not going to quit because of this funk you’re in.”

Ryan had a lot of work to do to get out of his academic hole. While other seniors were enjoying their final months, he had to double up on classes, trying to get eligible for college.

“I thought, ‘He’s not going to get through it. He didn’t do it when it was easier, he’s not going to do it when it’s this hard,’ ” Tricia recalled. “But he did it. I’m so proud of him. He did stick to it and persevered. He just proved to me he’s a little me.”

Kevin Acee: (619) 293-1857; kevin.acee@uniontrib.com


Monday, April 26, 2010

Things you should know about your grandparents rights

Things you should know about your grandparents rights

Apr 18th, 2010 | By neil | Category: grandparent Rights
This message is not intended to scare you. Actually, I hope it will instead inform you enough and give you some concrete ideas about what is out there for grandparents to enjoy. At the same time, I want to make you aware that your grandparents rights are important when it comes to these matters.

Grandparents are as a group about 1/3rd of all adults in America. They contribute in extraordinary proportions to their grandkid’s well being.

A few examples according to AARP are:

1. More than half of grandparents help with their grandchildren’s educational expenses.

2. Almost half of grandparents help with their grandchildren’s living expenses.

3. One fourth of all grandparents help pay for medical or dental care for their grandchildren.

4. More than half of all grandparents believe they play a very important role in their grandchildren’s lives.

This adds up to an enormous positive impact on our grandchildren, and as I learn more about what rights grandparents have if something happens to our grandchild’s family unit I am alarmed.

I am not sure why but the founding fathers didn’t include us in the constitution and/or the Supreme Court of most states. The United States Supreme Court doesn’t seem to recognize and support the contribution and significant effect that the grandchild’s bond with the grandparent has on the children.

From what I can gather, it seems that there is no continuity of legal president state to state. The laws that do exist are thin and ineffective where it concerns grandparents rights.

If that doesn’t get your attention, how about this? The most recent Supreme Court ruling in 2007 places the burden on the “Third Party” (we are to assume that means grandparents since they were the plaintiffs) to prove that the child will be harmed if they don’t get to see their grandparents.

It is my hope that as you read this that you have the good fortune, as I do, of being blessed with meaningful and fun time with your grandkids. I can’t imagine the nightmare it would be to have this relationship ripped away from me because of the actions of someone else.

What are we to do? One important step is to be aware of what our grandparents rights really are. Resources like The Custody Center are there to fill in this information for us and help us make good decisions as grandparents.

I want you to celebrate the fact grandparents in this country are making this a better world for those most deserving young people we call grandchildren. Pat yourself on the back. But at the same time, be aware of your grandparents rights, what little there are.



Grandparents rights all about the kids

Grandparents rights all about the kids

Apr 26th, 2010 | By neil | Category: grandparents rights

When grandparents rights are implemented in the way they were intended a great amount of good is the result. Nearly every state in the union has some form of grandparents rights legislation and, according to every court case, custody evaluation, and case study I have read all of these state laws place the emphasis in the best interest of the child.

If there was ever a win-win situation then this is it. If only life were that clear cut.

My heart aches a lot when I read the transcripts of the cases of very abused and neglected children. Story after story of ill-equipped, non-functioning parents that are just trying to show the world that they wield some power over something and the children be damned.

In most cases the courts give these parents opportunity after opportunity to get their act together before any action is taken. In most of these cases it is the grandparents that have come to the rescue of the grandchildren. This is just the kind of circumstances that the grandparents rights laws were enacted for.

It was not long ago that the grandparents would not have had “standing” in the court. The result of this approach was that it took much longer to get the help to the child in crisis where it was needed.

Now that these laws offer grandparents this standing it gives them the right to address the court on behalf of the children, nothing more. It is not a mandate to take any rights from parents, it merely allows a caring grandparent to be heard above the rants and rationalizations of a parent who most often has lost the ability to provide safety and nurture to the child.

To be clear, the court offers the parents every avenue to right the wrong and function in their child’s life. The court uses Comprehensive Custody evaluations to separate the truth from accusations. In most cases a custody study will be carried out by an outside independent Guardian Ad Litem in an effort to be fair to all.

This process will include tools such as psychological testing, chemical dependency evaluations, urinalysis, previous court records, etc. Without belaboring the point let me just say that in every case I have studied the courts go to the mat to protect the parents rights. This approach, while painful for those caring bystanders, is consistent with the United States Constitution as it applies to parental rights.

Parents rights are addressed in the 1st, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments to the constitution which might indicate their importance. You won’t get an argument from me on this point.

Some cast this whole discussion as an argument for parents rights against grandparents rights and that is missing the entire point. The one and only guiding principle and standard for this entire issue, the best interest of the child.

What is this best interest of the child? To this end the court is instructed to consider and evaluate all the relevant factors such as:

The wishes of the child’s parent or parents as to custody.

The reasonable preference of the child, depending on the child’s age.

The input of the child’s primary caregiver if different than parent(s).

The intimacy of the relationship between the child and each parent.

The interaction and relationship of the child with parent(s), siblings, grandparents and anyone else who significantly affects the child’s best interest.

The child’s adjustment to school, home and/or community.

The longevity of a stable and satisfactory environment with a consideration for maintaining continuity.

The security and permanence of a family unit that exists or is being considered for a custodial home.

The physical and mental health of the individuals involved.

The disposition and capacity of the custodial parties to give love, affection and guidance to the child.

The ability to educate and raise the child in the child’s own culture and religion or creed, if any.

The presence in the household of anyone who has allegedly committed domestic abuse.

The physical living conditions of the custodial home.

The willingness of the custodial parent to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact by the child’s other parent, absent any danger to the child.

All of these factors revolve around sole custody…these and many other factors come into play when joint custody is sought.

The point is that these are childrens’ lives and I am not sure everyone wouldn’t be better served if we throw the parents rights and grandparents rights into a blender and created the best interest of the child’s rights.

I encourage anyone who reads this article to learn all they can about the subject of grandparents rights. My goal for caring grandparents and caring parents to make this entire subject all about the child.

Please be well and happy.