Family Law Reform - Care Proceedings

Family Law Reform - Care Proceedings
by Fay Williams on Thursday, August 19, 2010 at 7:48am
Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.

Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.

The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.

No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.

If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.

If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.

While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.

Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.

EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.

A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.
A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.

If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.

The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.

Interim Care Orders should be abolished.

No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.

Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.

A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.

While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.

The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.

The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.

The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.

Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!
http://www.facebook.com/notes/fay-williams/family-law-reform-care-proceedings/143965812300735

CPS are ANIMALS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6do47VMdvE&feature=channel

The World Famous "Ruh Roh" Video that the CPS Hates SO much

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzk3fQ5Y6RA

A Few Excerpt's From the NH DCYF Court and Legal Handbook

A Few Excerpt's From the NH DCYF Court and Legal Handbook

Chapter III
Pg. -6-

"Consequently there is an inherent bias by the law in favor of the children and for the worker."

Pg. -7-

"Every worker who appears before a Judge should have some idea of what a particular Judge likes, dislikes and expects."

Pg. -9-

"The contacts with the District Court Judges should also be an ongoing process. It is recommended that each DCYF Supervisor set up a
meeting with each District Court Judge within the district offices area of responsibility as soon as possible after assuming the Supervisory position. The first such meeting should be on a one on one basis between the Supervisor and Judge for the purpose of becoming familiar
with each other. Also, subsequent meetings to discuss mutual concerns and to resolve any problems which may arise."

Pg. -10-

"Various meetings will help substantially to ease the burdens on the Division and to ensure the court's fullest cooperation."

Read Pg.-16-

Circumstantial Evidence Loophole that can win cases otherwise unwinable

Pg. -20-

"As far as law is concerned, emotions of the child are irrelevant, so long as the child receives proper care"



If you'd like to read more, go to:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=12a575e163a0eaaa&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D47167b6cfa%26view%3Datt%26th%3D12a575e163a0eaaa%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26realattid%3Df_gcnffl370%26zw&sig=AHIEtbTgEVc4FAt2dadwTwodPs_mHCxBWQ&pli=1

I Guess There Are No NH Lawyer's With Balls To Free Austin Knightly From The Corrupt DCYF

Austin Knightly, Stolen By Nashua, NH DCYF on February 3rd, 2006
Austin and Grampie

Isabella Knightly Stolen by Nashua, NH DCYF on October 3rd, 2005

Back in August of 2009, a good friend wrote an article on his web-site as to finding a Lawyer in New Hampshire with ball's. Well, we never came up with one, because evidently there aren't any. Not in NH any way. They're all afraid of NH DCYF and the NH court's. Their all chicken. They know helping falsely accused parent's will go against them in court. The Judges won't give them any cases.
I spoke to one Lawyer who told me about two Lawyer's in NH who went up against DCYF in NH and were disbarred. Another NH Lawyer, that I know of in NH, who hates DCYF as much as the rest of us, was retaliated against by taking on DCYF cases and had his/her license suspended for six month's. This Lawyer no longer takes on new client's.
I've tried to get a Pro-Bono Lawyer through the state and tried to get legal assistance and was told the state will NOT pay for a Lawyer to go after DCYF, because DCYF is a state agency. It's funny how parent's and families have no right's. The state will pay for a Lawyer for an accused criminal, yet families are less important than criminal's.
Accused criminal's have more rights than parent's. If new evidence arises after a criminal conviction, even years and years later, the accused criminal is set free. Wow, is he lucky! When new evidence arises six month's after a parent is found guilty of abuse or neglect, too bad! The words of the Judge. It's too late. The parent only has thirty day's after the adjudicatory hearing to file for a De-Novo appeal in Superior Court. When the parent's court-appointed Puppet refuses to file the appeal, it automatically goes against the parent. As for the new evidence, the Nashua Hospital and Health Center who work with DCYF, have a habit of conveniently misplacing case files until long after the child is stolen, giving the parent a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting their child back. Holding back case files is ILLEGAL, but when their working with DCYF, anything goes. I wonder how much they get for a kickback for every child they help DCYF steal.
When will the fraud and corruption end? Is there anybody within the government who cares about the families being screwed over by DCYF and the courts? This corruption isn't just happening in NH. It's Nationwide. Our children have become a huge money market for the states. The more children they steal, the more money our Federal Government gives them. Then when DCYF lies and falsify's document's, just to make sure the children aren't returned, our Federal government gives them even more money to adopt the kids out. What a racket. What will it take for our Federal Government to investigate the fraudulent practices of DCYF? Are they that naive, that they don't know DCYF is NOT following Federal mandates in aquireing Federal money ILLEGALLY?
So NO, there are NO Lawyer's in NH with balls! Austin was auctioned off to the highest bidder in December of 2009, supposedly, as stated by DCYF. His name was changed way before the adoption. Illegal, YES!

While children die

While children die

TIM RUTTEN



RELATED
L.A. County orders agencies to cooperate in probe of leaks about child deaths

Kids the Department of Children and Family Services should be protecting are dying. Instead of focusing on that problem, administrators are trying to stop the flow of information to the public.

ByTim Rutten
August 18, 2010




In "A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge," the 18th century philosopher George Berkeley posed the first version of a question people have pondered ever since: If a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it, has it really fallen?

A pair of Los Angeles County bureaucrats and their allies on the Board of Supervisors apparently have decided no, which is why they're working overtime to deny the public access to information concerning the mounting body count among children consigned to the care of the Department of Children and Family Services. County Chief Executive William Fujioka and Trish Ploehn, the department's director, apparently are convinced that the real problem at the DCFS is not the repeated mistakes and malfeasance that kill some of the most tragically vulnerable children in our community, but the public anger that results when people find out just how those deaths occurred.

Read the entire article at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0818-rutten-20100818,0,2990496.column

Foster care in Los Angeles: DCFS seeks to silence dissent. I wonder where they got THAT idea?

NCCPR Child Welfare Blog
News and commentary from the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform concerning child abuse, child welfare, foster care, and family preservation.


WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2010
Foster care in Los Angeles: DCFS seeks to silence dissent. I wonder where they got THAT idea?

I don't know if anyone at the Los Angeles Times actually exclaimed "Thank you, Lord!" when the county Department of Children and Family Services launched an investigation into leaks of information about child abuse deaths – but I'll bet that's what plenty of journalists at the Times were thinking.

That's because there's no better way to keep a story alive and give reporters an excuse to regurgitate everything they've already told us (while continuing to leave out everything they've left out all along).

DCFS' whole approach to information is, first and foremost, morally reprehensible. Just as all court hearings should be open in child welfare cases, almost every scrap of paper in every case, not just the horror stories, should be available to press and public. (In those rare cases where disclosure of a given document really would seriously harm a child, the lawyer for the child or the parents should ask the court to withhold the minimum amount necessary to prevent that harm. For details see our Due Process Agenda.) But DCFS' approach also is remarkably stupid.

First DCFS stopped releasing information about child abuse deaths – arguably in violation of state law. Of course, that only meant that people within the agency would leak the information. So instead of all the information on a given case coming out at once, it drips out, leading to multiple stories instead of one. Now, the leak investigation itself is news, so Times reporters can keep the story going, and push their take-the-child-and-run agenda all over again.

So first came the news story yesterday. Today, Tim Rutten, a columnist who has emerged as the most overt proponent of that take-the-child-and-run agenda, repeated what was in the story and made outraged comments about it.

Rutten writes:

The theory here is that if you cut off reporters' information, so that nobody knows exactly how the children died, it's as if they're not dead. No matter how agonizing a child's end, a vast bureaucratic silence will absorb his or her cries, and it will be as if they never lived — or died — at all. If any sound escapes, it will be that faint official splash that first echoed when Pilate washed his hands.

In other words, Rutten is accusing DCFS of trying to behave like – the Los Angeles Times.

●It is the Times that has imposed a news blackout on cases in which DCFS wrongly removes children from their homes.

●It is the Times that systematically omitted deaths of children in foster care from a list of high-profile fatalities over the past 12 years.

●It is the Times that has refused to report the foster-care panic sweeping through the county – the spike in removals of children from their homes by caseworkers terrified of landing on the front page.

●And it is the Times that has failed to report that, all over the country, such panics have so overwhelmed caseworkers that they've had even less time to find children in real danger – so child abuse deaths increased.

Or, as Tim Rutten might say, but wont: If you cut off the public's information, so that nobody knows how many children have been torn needlessly from everyone they know and love, it's as if it never happened. No matter how agonizing the experience of removal, and how great the risk of abuse in foster care and lifelong emotional scars, a vast journalistic silence will absorb their cries, and it will be as if they'd never suffered at all.

There is one difference of course. When government tries to censor information, it usually leaks to the journalists. When what is still the largest and most influential news organization in a region is the censor, it's far less likely that the public ever will find out.

____________

All that said, however, when it comes to starting foster care panic, stifling dissent, loaded language and otherwise stacking the deck in child welfare coverage, the people at the Los Angeles Times are amateurs. To see a truly professional hatchet job, you've got to check out the Cleveland Plain Dealer. That story tomorrow.
Posted by NATIONAL COALITION FOR CHILD PROTECTION REFORM at 9:04 AM

http://nccpr.blogspot.com/2010/08/foster-care-in-los-angeles-dcfs-seeks.html